Saving a sinking ship.

[jg26]

Who can really talk about anything but Katrina?

I've been listening to on-point this morning on npr. The point of the show was how and if New Orleans should be rebuilt. Lots of intelligent engineering conversations. It's one of the first time I've heard a serious discussion of whether or not to rebuild. It's also the first time I've ever tried

Comments

[bluechromis]

Ah, I assume I'm the person you're referring to about horrified looks...it isn't that I don't agree that it may be time to cut-losses...but it's easier to say that when you aren't involved. Not to mention the fact that New Orleans is a special city in terms of history and demographic makeup, so it's very sad to see it go even if you aren't involved. That's all...it probably is doomed from all accounts, but maybe it's not.

[jg26]

I assume I'm the person you're referring to about horrified looks..
I mentioned it last night too, out at zee bar, and didn't get what one would call support, so I thought I'd just drop it (until this morning, when I heard that other people were thinking the same)

..but it's easier to say that when you aren't involved
Very true. This is why prefaced the whole thing by saying that I was being callous. ;) If artana's point about people re-settling after being uprooted is true, then perhaps the city need-not be rebuilt. The city, as it was, is currently gone. You would have to re-build it. The city will never be the same. Do you think its possible that every building, assuming its still there, isn't going to need to be rebuilt. Saving the city as it was is unrealistic. At the end of this, you will have a new city (Perhaps named "REALLY NEW Orleans"). Building this new city in such a completely flawed location, seems like a big mistake. If you do, you're just dooming the inhabitants (or maybe their descendants) to more pain and

[bluechromis]

I mentioned it last night too, out at zee bar, and didn't get what one would call support, so I thought I'd just drop it (until this morning, when I heard that other people were thinking the same)

Oh, don't even try it, I know it's all about me. ;-)

You are right that rebuilding the city there is likely setting the inhabitants up for future heartache. Also, I've heard the barrier islands are virtually gone, so there's much less protection from the next big one that comes along.

From what I heard, the French Quarter escaped mostly unharmed, which is a good news as far as culture/history preservation goes (also, drunken frat boys with plastic beads can breathe a sigh of relief).

Yeah, although I've heard it's being hit the hardest by the looting (because it's accessible and things are relatively intact). Have you heard that Fats Dominoe is missing? So sad.

[jg26]

I've heard the barrier islands are virtually gone, so there's much less protection from the next big one that comes along.

Huh, I keep learning more and more which supports this theory.

[bluechromis]

Well, rational solutions to the situation aside, I'd be shocked as hell if they didn't rebuild this time. Now, if another storm comes along in 20 years and does the same thing, that time I bet they'd be a lot less likely to rebuild.

[jg26]

I'd be shocked as hell if they didn't rebuild this time
Of course they will, because this is a political, not a rational, decision. Politicians are going to try to appeal to people's hearts not their brains. Pardon my condescension/cynicism, but doing the 'smart thing' is political suicide in this country.

[bluechromis]

Well, no...I mean, that's a hasty judgement I think. There are opinions on the other side too, for example on Boston.com:

Ironically, the destruction caused by Katrina gives New Orleans residents the opportunity to gird themselves against the next hurricane that pounds into their city. Even before Katrina hit, Louisiana was considering a stronger building code that would require more wind-resistant designs for roofs and walls. With the proper building materials and techniques, a house can usually survive a Category 5 storm intact, said Marc Levitan, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Louisiana State University.

It's a big decision, abandoning the city is one option, but not the only potentially viable one. People survive, that's what we, as a race, do. I mean, Hiroshima wasn't abandoned, saving New Orleans should be a piece of cake in comparison.

[what_do_we_know]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/01/us_earlier_rebuffed_louisiana_on_aid/

an interesting twist. i don't presume to estimate the possible efficacy of their ideas to protect themselves with the $$, but it's a shame they didn't get it........

[bluechromis]

Forgot to include it in the comment - but the article also disusses how this is an opportunity to redesign the system of pumps and levees.

[flexagon]

Yeah... it's an opportunity for a lot. :)

Great post, J... good thoughts too. I agree, we need to reevaluate whether having a large city in such a vulnerable place is a great idea. And indeed, I do expect the citizen count to go down. However, isn't it an important port, with good access to the Mississippi River and the ocean and all that oil?

My wrists are too tired to type much tonight.

But, as food for thought, Boston is also sinking into the sea..... what should we do with it? There is a period of perhaps quite a while where the investment in dikes/levees makes more sense than relocating the city. Deciding to preserve is quite a different decision than deciding to rebuild.