New Orleans

[bobliocatt]

but I can assure you that ALL of the wood framed houses will be a complete loss

How do you know, for sure. No assessment has been done on any of the structures yet.

[MAJIKMAN]

In reading these threads and looking at the news. I keep hearing and seeing that this city is (in the bowl situation) below sea level. But there are areas of city that were not completely flooded. So wouldn't you suspect that they would build more densely in those areas. It makes more sense to me. Why build in these areas that are most likely to flood. Like building on a flood plain. Oh I forgot NO is on a flood plain.

[A2]

How do you know, for sure.

[bobliocatt]

^So how did these houses survive several weeks of flooded waters, just as high, in some areas, during previous floods?

[A2]

^So how did these houses survive several weeks of flooded waters, just as high, in some areas, during previous floods?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which houses are you referring too.

A2

[A2]

If you are refering to the ones around the Lake where I lived, I can tell you that 20% of the homes in 82' around the lake were demolished and were reconstructed. This was a much smaller disaster than the NO clamity, and it still took months and, quite frankly, a couple of years for families to get back on their feet.

Again, I am not going to debate this. I WANT MORE THAN ANYTHING FOR NO TO BE RESTORED.

I think we (The people of the US) all have to be realistic about the effort and time that it will take if we do decide to rebuild NO to its former glory.

NOT TO MENTION THE MONEY. It will affect us all. The most important thing now, is the obvious, clearing out the city of people, and draining the flood waters. IMO, even with the levy fixed, it will still take several more days to weeks to totally dry NO out.

A2

[bobliocatt]

Which houses are you referring too.

A2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was refering to the flooded old wood structures in New Orleans that have been flooded before, for several weeks at a time.

[pb4uxplode]

In reading these threads and looking at the news. I keep hearing and seeing that this city is (in the bowl situation) below sea level. But there are areas of city that were not completely flooded. So wouldn't you suspect that they would build more densely in those areas. It makes more sense to me. Why build in these areas that are most likely to flood. Like building on a flood plain. Oh I forgot NO is on a flood plain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some sections didn't flood because they weren't really near the levees that broke. While not all of the city is underwater, the majority of it is. If a different levee broke, it might be a different section that floods next time. I don't see a point in rebuilding. I know if I lost everything, I wouldn't go back there. And this is coming from someone who went through Andrew in South Florida.

[pb4uxplode]

^So how did these houses survive several weeks of flooded waters, just as high, in some areas, during previous floods?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just out of curiosity... when was New Orleans last flooded up to twenty feet deep in water for a week? Its one thing for a structure to survive maybe a foot or two of water, its another thing for it to be completely submerged up to the attic for a week. And lets not forget that the water is not gone yet... its five days and counting... I have to agree with a2 that large sections of residential areas will be reduced to rubble prior to being rebuilt (if they rebuild that is)... just my 2 cents...

[MAJIKMAN]

Some sections didn't flood because they weren't really near the levees that broke. While not all of the city is underwater, the majority of it is. If a different levee broke, it might be a different section that floods next time.  I don't see a point in rebuilding. I know if I lost everything, I wouldn't go back there. And this is coming from someone who went through Andrew in South Florida.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point.

[A2]

I was refering to the flooded old wood structures in New Orleans that have been flooded before, for several weeks at a time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not remember anything of THIS caliber though. IMO, this situation is much different. We have had the levy break, which in all honesty is the worst thing that could have happened. In previous floods there were at least pumps to get H2O out of the city, and there was No current. That is not the case now. We literally have currents in the water, having a devestating impact to strutures made of wood and sheetrock. Not to mention the fact that the structures were compromised due to the winds of the hurricane even before the severe flooding hit the homes.

A2

[bobliocatt]

Just out of curiosity... when was New Orleans last flooded up to twenty feet deep in water for a week? Its one thing for a structure to survive maybe a foot or two of water, its another thing for it to be completely submerged up to the attic for a week. And lets not forget that the water is not gone yet... its five days and counting... I have to agree with a2 that large sections of residential areas will be reduced to rubble prior to being rebuilt (if they rebuild that is)... just my 2 cents...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to Sleepy, Hurricane Besty, back in 1964, had these same sections of town flooded up to the roofs for about 6 weeks.

I've posted about this several times:

After Hurricane Betsy in 1964, many of the same parts of the city that are under water now, were under water then up to their roofs---whole sections of Gentilly, the lower 9th Ward, Arabi, and Chalmette. The houses in those areas--mostly from the 20's, 30's, and 40's--weren't bulldozed or declared uninhabitable. When the water drained, people just repaired them.

I lived in one of those houses in 1972. It was a perfectly normal neighborhood, full of houses that had been underwater 8 yr. earlier.

When I lived there, I witnessed at least 4 major floods--in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. The aerial shots from those floods looked a lot like what you see today. Again, no houses were abandoned or bulldozed.

I'm not saying that any of those other events equals the human tragedy of Katrina. My point though is that New Orleans, unlike Charleston, apparently did not sustain major wind damage, and that most of the housing that you see in New Orleans has been flooded many, many times without any subsequent "bulldozing."

So, I think most of New Orleans will come out of this relatively physically intact.

I could be wrong, but based on the past, I wouldn't just make the assumption that much of the city will be torn down.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...pic=15563&st=45

[RiversideGator]

Here are some interesting stories on Hurricane Betsy: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/...ane-betsy_x.htm

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/c...s/11sep_msy.htm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6007818

And here: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2000/wnoflood.htm

It looks like this problem has been talked about for a long time.

As to the damage from Betsy, those 100-200 year old houses survived Betsy and most will survive this. I am glad you negative nellies arent in charge here.

[A2]

With all due respect to Betsy and the damage that people went through in that storm. It did not come close to strength and magnitude of Katrina. Plus there were no levy's that broke during that storm, which create currents in the flood waters. And Betsy was not nearly as strong w/ respect to wind strength and did not move nearly as slow.

A2

In 1965, Betsy struck New Orleans after passing over the Florida Keys, causing over $1.5 billion USD in damage in 1965 (over $9 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars), and the deaths of 75 people, earning it the nickname "Billion Dollar Betsy". However, Betsy was only a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane, limiting its potential for devastation, while Katrina was a massive, slow-moving Category 4 storm. For Katrina, some potential damage estimates exceed the $36 billion damage (in current dollars) caused by Hurricane Andrew (previously the most destructive natural disaster to have hit the United States).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

[A2]

As to the damage from Betsy, those 100-200 year old houses survived Betsy and most will survive this.

[jjoshjl]

While I seriously hope and think NO will be rebuilt, I do beleive a large percentage of the houses submerged will need to be rebuilt. Just read an article at Fox.com that was talking about how the pollutants in the water will cause a large number of the houses to be demolished not for structural reasons, but environmental reasons..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168315,00.html

...RMS estimated that at least 150,000 properties have been flooded, surpassing the record 137,000 set in 1927 from flooding and levee failures on the lower Mississippi River.

The firm said property in the flooded areas is worth about $100 billion. Decontamination costs will be significant, and prolonged immersion of wooden residential buildings in polluted water may require a large proportion of buildings to be replaced, it said.

...

Anyway, thats what Fox is reporting atleast.

Cheers

[pb4uxplode]

Only time can tell, but I have a feeling that large sections of residential New Orleans will be bulldozed. Here is my logic. Builders are constantly looking to build homes cheaper to increase profits. Any place they can shave pennies helps add to the bottom line regarding profit. The bottom line is that homes are not build with the same quality they were twenty or thirty years ago. Years ago craftmanship was one of the single most important things when purchasing a home. With the real estate boom, homes have become affordable to a larger group of people and this has caused a good deal of lower quality homes. While they may look nice, a large number of them would not be as structurally sound as some older buildings. While Betsy did cause floods that in some cases were several feet deep, I can't find anything showing that it was to the extreme of Katrina. Most of the pictures from 1965 show the water level to be about half way up a one story house (Or about up to the roof of most cars). New Orleans was also not as dense then as it is now. This means that there has been a large amount of construction since then. I don't want to argue or anything, but if I had to put my money on it, I would put every penny I own on the thought that a large amount of residential homes will be bulldozed.

[merlin]

To completely dry out it will take weeks. It would take a couple to a few day for the pumps to get all of the water out, and that is with all of the pumps working, Right now only a couple of the pumps are operational.

To answer someone elses comment - some of the city is below sea level, the french quarter, I think, is actually one of the highest places in the city at 6 or so feet above sea level.

[bobliocatt]

With all due respect to Betsy and the damage that people went through in that storm. It did not come close to strength and magnitude of Katrina. Plus there were no levy's that broke during that storm, which create currents in the flood waters. And Betsy was not nearly as strong w/ respect to wind strength and did not move nearly as slow.

A2

In 1965, Betsy struck New Orleans after passing over the Florida Keys, causing over $1.5 billion USD in damage in 1965 (over $9 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars), and the deaths of 75 people, earning it the nickname "Billion Dollar Betsy". However, Betsy was only a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane, limiting its potential for devastation, while Katrina was a massive, slow-moving Category 4 storm. For Katrina, some potential damage estimates exceed the $36 billion damage (in current dollars) caused by Hurricane Andrew (previously the most destructive natural disaster to have hit the United States).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're forgetting Katrina didn't directly go over New Orleans. The buildings in New Orleans held up pretty good. The flooding from both of these storms came from failed Levees. Nevertheless, regardless of storm strength, those old wood buildings were submerged in water for weeks and held up. Because of this, I still say we have to wait before all of these dome, gloom and Atlantis theories fill up people's minds.

[RiversideGator]

Apparently there werent many levees along the Lake before Betsy, so the floods just came in unhindered in 1965 and before. The point is not the severity of the storm but the fact that NO has flooded before and recovered. I am with Lake: the jury is still out. Let's not panic. Let's get that damn water out of there, dry things out and build an impregnable levee. Bring in Dutch engineers for that - most of their country is below sea level so they know how to deal with this problem.

By the way A2, I didnt mean to offend you, but I just dont like defeatist talk. We will prevail.

[jax]

JAX - man, the levee situation has been around for 40+ years, yet you blame GWB for the problem?  Get over your hatred, man...  not EVERYTHING is his fault.

Whether or not you agree with his policies, blaming anything to do with Hurricane Katrina on ANY presidential administration, frankly, is just a load of crap.

Why didn't Clinton do something about the levees?

Why didn't Bush the elder do something about the Levees?

How about Reagan?

Carter?

Ford?

Nixon?

Johnson?

Kennedy?

Come on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why can't I?

I sure haven't seen him much these past days, and if then, he doesn't seem to compassionate or sincere.

It may be that Bush was partially responsible for the levies condition. The Army Corp. or Engineers was funded for year and years and years to maintain the levies. Funding was cut drastically in 2003. Not by Bush I, Regan, Clinton, Carter or anyone else

[merlin]

The national news just reported that local engineers estimate 6 months to remove all of the water and another year for the city to completely dry out.

[Viper]

Why can't I?

I sure haven't seen him much these past days, and if then, he doesn't seem to compassionate or sincere. 

It may be that Bush was partially responsible for the levies condition. The Army Corp. or Engineers was funded for year and years and years to maintain the levies.  Funding was cut drastically in 2003. Not by Bush I, Regan, Clinton, Carter or anyone else

[derrickskugler]

Viper - Yeah, you are absolutely right... but you can't tell that to someone who is so blinded by hatred that they just don't care. It's not that Jax can't see this... he just doesn't want to because it doesn't support his agenda.

What has happened in New Orleans is a tragedy... perhaps the greatest tragedy in the history of this country... why spend all of your energy filled with misplaced hate... what New Orleans and this entire country needs right now is love.

I was flipping through the channels tonight because I like to see how all news networks cover this story... to see things from all angles... I flip on CNN and some guy (a CNN broadcaster, not a commentator or guest) is sitting there blaming Bush for what happened... saying that because of Bush there has been global warming (complete crap) and because of that Katrina got stronger than it otherwise would have (also complete crap, disproved by science), and because of that, the President had all of these deaths on his hands. Absolutely irresponsible journalism.

I then flipped to Fox News and saw Geraldo holding up a baby into the camera... they were both crying... Geraldo and the baby both. It was moving journalism. I felt like I just wanted to go down there and give them both a hug. They were also critical of reactions and delays, but they relayed it in a responsable way. They didn't blame Bush, they simply broke down the timeline of who knew what and when. They laid it out there for the viewer's to know.

The moral of this all is to show love and support. Build people up. Don't try to tear them down with hate. God bless the people of New Orleans, and God bless our troops who are risking their lives to help these people. Forget about being a Republican or a Democrat and be an American.

[monsoon]

Please continue this discussion in this thread.