I just wonder if rebuilding is a worthy/viable option..? The devastation in New Orleans was always going to happen, the fact that the city is, structurally, artificial and depends upon embankments to maintain river and lake levels above the city, and continuous pumped drainage to dispose of sewage and storm water all suggests that history will eventually repeat itself. These measures require constant sustained maintenance, the costs of which would only be set to rise.
Although a consilliatory and no doubt an attempt at image-reinvigoration for the American Government would be to rebuild the once great city to its former glory, as the city is now abandoned, is rebuilding a solution at all? In fact to attempt to rebuild New Orleans just the way it was is ludicrous and a lengthy death sentence to those who move back. Katrina has taught us that if you fail to invest properly in basic infrastructure then nature will snap in half effortlessly. If those who have fled the city do return, it should be to a relocated New Orleans, situated on a higher site. It would not be the first urban area to be repositioned because of a natural disaster after all.
You're quite right rebus, to be honest it would take staggeringly expensive measures to keep NO above water with the present ecological policy as exists in reality over there.
They can keep the highest ground, and indeed some of the oldest parts of the city afloat, but the more relentless the development, and the more frugal the preparations and the more reckless the ignorance and defiance of the natural environment, the less likely it is that this can be prevented from happening again.
It's even likely that there will be more hurricanes of his magniude in the area sooner than might otherwise have been expected.
But I don't think it's an emotional option, in a sense, for americans not to rebuild it. I can understand why. A whole major historical city, just abandoned. It goes against something huge.
The devastation in New Orleans was always going to happen, the fact that the city is, structurally, artificial and depends upon embankments to maintain river and lake levels above the city, and continuous pumped drainage to dispose of sewage and storm water all suggests that history will eventually repeat itself. These measures require constant sustained maintenance, the costs of which would only be set to rise.
Although a consilliatory and no doubt an attempt at image-reinvigoration for the American Government would be to rebuild the once great city to its former glory, as the city is now abandoned, is rebuilding a solution at all? In fact to attempt to rebuild New Orleans just the way it was is ludicrous and a lengthy death sentence to those who move back. Katrina has taught us that if you fail to invest properly in basic infrastructure then nature will snap in half effortlessly. If those who have fled the city do return, it should be to a relocated New Orleans, situated on a higher site. It would not be the first urban area to be repositioned because of a natural disaster after all.
Reply
They can keep the highest ground, and indeed some of the oldest parts of the city afloat, but the more relentless the development, and the more frugal the preparations and the more reckless the ignorance and defiance of the natural environment, the less likely it is that this can be prevented from happening again.
It's even likely that there will be more hurricanes of his magniude in the area sooner than might otherwise have been expected.
But I don't think it's an emotional option, in a sense, for americans not to rebuild it. I can understand why. A whole major historical city, just abandoned. It goes against something huge.
Reply
Leave a comment