Rebuild New Orleans

[monsoon]

Never before in modern times has the United States been faced with the almost complete destruction of one of its cities on the scale that we are seeing in New Orleans. Now that the scale of the destruction is known, its starting to look as if it will take hundreds of billions in Federal dollars to rebuild the place. And along with that some very difficult choices are going to have to be made in wetlands protection, better land use, and other changes that led to the problem in the first place. And the next hurricane may cause it to happen all over again. So the question is...

Should the United States rebuild New Orleans considering the very high cost to the country to do so?

No political discussions in this thread

[monsoon]

Not only was katrina a disaster but the resulting destruction has leading to an ecological disaster as well as outlined in this article.

It would seem the mere pumping out of the city is going to cause ecological damage to the entire Mississippi delta area. One could argue to leave the toxic mess in NO and simply abandoning it to prevent much more wide scale damage.

[ironchapman]

Not only was katrina a disaster but the resulting destruction has leading to an ecological disaster as well as outlined in this article. 

It would seem the mere pumping out of the city is going to cause ecological damage to the entire Mississippi delta area.  One could argue to leave the toxic mess in NO and simply abandoning it to prevent much more wide scale damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that we should attempt to rebuild New Orleans in some way.

@te quote above: I've heard that the waste in the water would be to diluted to cause much damage when it reached the Gulf of Mexico.

[MJLO]

Well one thing I can say about this earth, is how resiliant it is, with all the horrible horrible things being pumped back out in the delta area, it make take sometime, it can be made clean again. I think the hard thing here, is that we are dealing with peoples lives and homes. Just think of how proud we all are of our own cities. If something were to happen to one of them, how would we react? New Orleans Undoubtedly is a revered city, very great, very historical for our country, it's an international Icon. Residentially speaking even if we do rebuild it, ( and it most certainly looks like thats going to happen.) It will not be the same for decades to come, I very much doubt it will ever regain the populous it had. One of the things that keeps me glued to the television are the pictures of the skyline. Did anyone ever think they would see one of the great American CBD's like New Orleans, simply a ghost town, abandoned?

[RiverwoodCLT]

They should keep the port and oil business going. Over time I beleive with the oceans rising, New Orleans will be in more danger of flooding. I think most people were given a choice, they would build on higher ground.

It is not a question if New Orlean will get hit by another cat-5 hurricane , but when. Do we want to experience the problems we are having now all over again?

The only Solution is to only build on ground above sea level. If possible raise the land they have there. They could go buy a mountain and move it there.

They have some down in South America they could buy and ship it up to New Orleans.

[Ruso]

They should keep the port and oil business going.

[I-275westcoastflorida]

New Orleans is an important city we must rebuild it its home to over a million people im sure many will move but many also have pride to the city and want to live there. If the Netherlands is mostly below sea level and they are still here and thriving cause they were smart enough to build good dikes/levees to save the country from being flooded but the idiots who built the new orleans levees were good enough to last a cat 1-3 hurricane. Basically they need to build a good levee system.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

just rebuild the port and have it secured. We are in no situation economically (our amazing deficit) to pour federal money in to this. When recovery will cost over $100 billion... wow. I would not support that.

[MR-2]

I say just build in the areas at or above sea level, and require stilts in the lower areas in the zoning code.

The above-sea-level areas should be fine. The storm surge was more than high enough to flood much of them, but at least they have somewhere to pump to once the sea recedes.

The thing is this will create large empty gaps in the formerly flooded areas, drastically altering the city's appearance. It's insane to build below sea level again though, unless someone has a drastic infill plan on a magnitude far larger than any previously attempted.

Much of the metropolitan area remains however. The city parts that weren't destroyed will live on.

[Ruso]

I havent thought about that. True, the Netherlands are below sea level, and they are a world power. NO will be recovered. How much would you estimate it costs?

[Ruso]

Sorry, how many thousands of billions would it cost? And how long would you think it would take for NO to be running and alive again?

[Aporkalypse]

The core of the city - the French Quarter, Garden District, Uptown, etc is fairly intact. The CBD is damaged but in fairly good shape. The entire West Bank fared well. There are parts like the 9th ward that were absolutely wrecked and since we know New Orleans will face a large population loss it makes no sense to rebuild. It is likely in the future many damaged areas will be cleared and will undergo suburban-style infill development. The port will have to be rebuilt, there is no option there.

Obviously the city will continue to exist. As for "rebuilding" there will be some and there will be areas that will largely be abandoned and eventually cleared. There is no option to abandon the entire city, it is pointless to discuss it.

Also, a thousand billion is a trillion and we won't be spending THAT much.

[sleepy]

The core of the city - the French Quarter, Garden District, Uptown, etc is fairly intact.

[Ruso]

Also, a thousand billion is a trillion and we won't be spending THAT much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, sorry, I was just trying to exaggerate a bit. I should have written "thousands of trillions", so that it would be more obvious. LOL

[Ruso]

You know, it is interesting to see that for the first time in a long, long time, the USA is receiving help from all over the world. Mexican soldiers entered American territory after 150 years of having lost Texas.

But it seems as if they did not want help from certain people: Cuba had 1500 doctors ready to go, as well as Venezuela, but had not been authorized by the American government. Sweden technology was sent, but got stock in the fronties. The Netherlands, who have technology especialized on floodings, havent received any answer either. Why?

[daniel18]

No, it shouldn't be rebuilt. The city was below sea water, near the gulf and between a river and a lake, and in a location prone to hurricanes. It should abandoned with only the historic areas repaired; let the rest of the city turn back to wilderness.

[RiverwoodCLT]

The problem with the flooding now is the toxic water in the houses for 2 to 3 months that it will not be safe to repair these houses. The houses with water up to the roof, you can write them off.

In North Carolina, the houses that were flooded by hurricane Fran, many could not be repair. Sometime, it is cheaper to rebuild than repair.

In some areas of New Orleans where the water was 20 feet, everything will have to come down.

[GRDadof3]

One of the downsides of rebuilding is that many of the older homes, that are probably now too contaminated to just clean (think about the mold and bacteria that have set up behind the walls ), will have to be demolished. And the replacement cost for a lot of those historic homes far outweighs the market value, so the neighborhoods rebuilt will be basically "Habitat Homes" without the historical character to them.

I don't think just adding to the levee is enough. Category 5 hurricanes may become more and more prevalent this coming century. Much of the city will probably have to be leveled, clay capped (like they do with many contaminated sites), and filled in to bring structures up to above sea level. The streets could be left at lower elevations to create "channels" for contingency in case the levees, which will have to be upgraded, give way again.

Didn't Houston become a much larger city than Galveston throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries basically because of problems with weather at the Gulf?

[blueblackcat]

New Orleans exists out of necessity, not choice. It will be rebuilt out of necessity, too. NO is the unsung warrior of America's international trade and a cornerstone in our dependence on fossil fuels. You might as well ask, should we all just switch to wind power tomorrow and starve until enough turbines get built? Should we allow the majority of nations around the world who aren't self sufficient in food production starve, too, after exporting our surplus is no longer cost effective without the port facilities in NO? It doesn't matter that NO is under sea level. Lots of other places are, too, and they get the proper funding to maintain their infastructure to protect them. Above and beyond these self evident facts, the question of rebuilding NO *is* a purely political one.

[UrbanElement]

If only it wasn't sinking. I believe that New Orleans should be rebuilt, but only by those who can afford to lose it. Malibu has its fires. The Pacific Palisades has its earthslides. The NC outer banks has its shifting sands. New Orleans will have its floods. People will enjoy it while it lasts and write it off when its gone.

[RiverwoodCLT]

If this present hurricane floods New Orleans again, You are going to see a much smaller city. I think a lot of people well change there minds

and not go back.

[monsoon]

bump

[Phizzy]

No, don't rebuild, except what is necessary (the ports, etc.).

The people of Michigan are tired of paying for everyone else's property damage. (Note that the one and only $1 billion disaster that affected Michigan was an April 2001 6-day storm that also affected thirteen other states, causing $1.9 billion in damage. The extent of damage to Michigan from this storm was a small portion of the $1.9 billion...)

[Recchia]

Wow, surprising to see the New England states so low on the disaster list, given their vulnerability to harsh weather.

[davidals]

No, don't rebuild, except what is necessary (the ports, etc.).

The people of Michigan are tired of paying for everyone else's property damage. (Note that the one and only $1 billion disaster that affected Michigan was an April 2001 6-day storm that also affected thirteen other states, causing $1.9 billion in damage. The extent of damage to Michigan from this storm was a small portion of the $1.9 billion...)

Much of NoLa can't be rebuilt, but at least portions should be - with much more rigorous standards.

Future global warming is a factor; in NoLa and other coastal areas a lot of growth and development ideas will have to be seriously rethought in coming decades. However, I would also point to the Dutch example - much of that country is below sea level; they don't skimp on engineering or building codes, and if we follow their lead, we will have to be equally (or more) rigorous.

An outright abandonment of NoLa isn't on the table - apart from the historical and cultural implications of a full abandonment, there is the matter of precedent: how many different cities in the US alone are situated in places vulnerable to catastrophic disasters? Every major city directly on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts (hurricane vulnerability), every major city on the West Coast (earthquake vulnerability), with vulnerability to various other kinds of events (tornadoes, quakes in some areas) in many places in between. If we abandon NoLa, should we abandon SF or LA if/when an 8 or 9 quake hits? What about a cat 5 hurricane farther up the East Coast - the 1938 hurricane inflicted Katrina-like levels of damage in Rhode Island; had that storm made landfall 125 miles west (NYC) the damage would have been unreal. During the 20th century, the only comparable disaster would be the '06 SF Earthquake and fires, which levelled the entire city, but elsewhere tornadoes destroyed substantial portions of Gainesville GA (1936), Tupelo MS (1936), Worcester MA (1953) and Xenia OH (1974) (adjusted for inflation, those would all be $Billion+ tornadoes) - in the wake of those events, along with Hurricanes Camille, Hugo and Andrew, and no one argued for abandonement in the wake of those distasters, even though - given the levels of damage caused, you could've made a case for it.

Greater awareness, greater preparation, improved government (fed, state and local) responses, and a more serious commitment to science and engineering should go along with a commitment to such places. We already have a serious throw-away culture; throwing away an entire city is absurd.