Here's a major dilemma. We've seen the city get flooded totally through Katrina and other Hurricanes. It will happen again in the future. It's just how the land is. In the wrong place. Not to say I don't enjoy the people, history and the city. But it's kind of scary--rebuilding and inviting disaster and death once more.

What are your opinions on rebuilding or leaving it all?

Ellen

It's home to so many that rebuilding is a must.

One question is, where will the ones that do leave go?

Tornado Alley, Earthquake and Mudslide USA, Blizzards Galore, Death Valley, Under the Volcano??

Mother Nature is everywhere, waiting.

A concern someone mentioned is the after effects. Water of this magnitude destroyed many things including septic systems. There's a lot of potential diseases there. Viruses from bugs is also a scary thought. West Nile?

And what of the wild animals that have been displaced. Rabies? Distemper?

Very scary. A Hell on earth for those people.

A buddy of mine and I were discussing this last night. The problem is partly due to location (and as been pointed out, there is precious little land in the US that is not affected by severe natural disasters with some regularity, and I don't want everyone moving 'here'--traffic is already nearly as bad as So California; in some areas here, it is AS bad), but it is exacerbated by the elevation. If New Orleans (NOLA) was merely (at least) 20 to 30 feet higher, with a real flood wall, rather than the inadequate levee system, much of the aftermath could have been prevented.

As has also been noted, in less stark terms, this place is now a major 'Superfund' site for the EPA (for non-Yanks, the very ground is poisoned--- sewage, chemicals, petroleum, and more, baked in the humid oven that is summer in NOLA). (Now whether the government winks, and does not acknowledge this is another story. . . )

If the end result is to rebuild on the same site, which is likely, since we humans are fairly 'forgetful, and full of pride, then the site should have some changes made that will be very costly, initially, but will be an investment that will save lives and countless dollars in the future. Simply put, raze what cannot be saved, and raise the ground level to something above sea level. Also, improve the building codes; the new, not even opened, structure of the Hard Rock Café resort stands as a monument to the need for improvement in that area.

In Japan, they created an airport in the sea off of Osaka, and that required huge amounts of earth to be moved. A similar action could be taken here, raising NOLA above sea level, literally on the ashes (thanks to those who burned some of what was not saturated) of the former city.

To rebuild in the same location without making some significant changes to the geography is plain foolishness. We didn't learn this lesson well enough after Camille, and I fear that the same will occur after Katrina. The next one is coming, whether soon, or in another 36 years (the time between Camille and Katrina), but only a fool doesn't understand that 'it' will come. And, it could be bigger!

Now, before folks start to throw 'reality' about how difficult, or even improbable the likelihood of doing what we discussed last night is, realize that this is the start of brainstorming. As a rule, brainstorming is done without regard to the problems of 'the how'; just get the ideas out, and see what can be taken from the ideas generated. . . As ideas go, it is obviously an expensive one. Maybe the ground is too poisoned to even build twenty feet or more above the current level, but what is the cost of moving the current contaminated rubble, versus merely covering it up, and starting again, on higher ground. If people would be willing to have the city re-built right were things are now, the higher ground would at least be that much removed from the poison now soaking the ground over most of the city. Higher ground means no need for the overwhelmed pump system to be replaced and maintained.

Regardless of whatever is done, it will be a hugely expensive task. I hope that the future costs are taken into account when the initial investment is considered. Do we spend billions more now to lessen the impact of the future storm that we know will come, or do we weigh the lives that it will cost, and discount them, rebuilding on the cheap (and ignore the national, if not global economic impact that will also take place).

I won't get into a debate on this, but will suggest that anyone interested in this topic should read: The Control of Nature by John McPhee. It discusses the inevitable collapse/destruction of New Orleans and was written 15 years ago. There is more to the story then just elevation.

You can't very well relocate the city as you'd have to then call it New New Orleans.
Elevating the land has possibilities but then so does just leaving it flooded, raising all the buildings and making it the Venice of North America. Canal Street would really be a canal then.

The Discovery Science channel has done a special on this several times. It seems to be a very complicated matter... but the bottom line is that Louisiana is loosing at least 25 miles of coastal land a year. Loosing that much, they can rebuild - but you wonder just how long it will take before New Orleans is completely gone.

Mya

The smart thing to do is clean N.O. up right quick and then leave it be...settle somewhere else, what would be more costly, relocating, or rebuilding?

johnny

Well if some people want to live there, so be it. It's their choice to live in a swamp on marginal land.

There's no point spending huge amounts of other state's public money on rebuilding and trying to fight nature though. The residents can pay for that with their own cash, if they so choose

They rebuilt Galveston. They didn't rebuild Pompeii.

Forgive the ignorance, but what does Galveston have to do with it. Was it destroyed by Mother Nature?

On Sept. 8, 1900, Galveston, Texas was submerged beneath the waters of the Gulf of Mexico due to a major hurricane, not unlike New Orleans right now.

Galveston, being a thriving port, was quickly rebuilt. The money was there because Galveston knew they could make it back quickly once Galveston was up an functioning again.

It was also at that time where the phrase, "They re-built Galveston. They didn't re-build Pompeii." started.

This might be strange to ask BUT where are all the animals from the Audubon Zoo and the aquarium? Are they abandoned? Anyone know?

Ellen

New Orleans rich heritage is what makes New Orleans, New Orleans. And the people are the biggest part of that great heritage. And sadly, even if rebuilt to a perfect replica - which would take many years - if it was even possible, many of the people will never be back. Obviously, some died. But many more are now so far from N.O. that they will never be back. They will start new lives far from where they lived. And although I wish them all the best. I will mourn the loss of their part in the heritage of New Orleans.

Should it be rebuilt? Absolutely. The levee issue could have been addressed years ago. It should have been addressed years ago. It will be addressed now.

From a purely practical point of view. It is an incredible opportunity to really get it right. The city that evolved can now be planned, and built up with proper infrastructure, and attention to transportation and other logistics that were never possible with a city that grew as New Orleans did, over hundreds of years.

Save what can be saved, but reconstruct everything using what can be reused, but don't just clean it up and fix it up again. As it was, New Orleans was a typical city with typical city issues. Bad infrastructure, slums, transportation problems, etc. Now, it can really become far more than it was.

The human tragedy; lives lost and many displaced from the only home they have ever known is overwhelming, but we need to grieve as go forward.

In a relief trip this weekend to the Mississippi Gulf, I met a smiling local with a "so thick you cut it" Cajun accent, and will never forget his sparkling eyes and smile as he said, "we gonna doot jus fine. we's ulive. we's fine." He had walked a couple of miles to the gas station where we met and had three two liter bottles of soda pop and three big bags of taco and potato chips he was taking home to his family. It was dinner. With no electricity, they only could eat what they got daily. (his "caw was wit his gurauge", but wuz gon, and he "don know wur thot wus now") so he wuz walkin. No thanks, he didn't need a ride, "das awrite, aint faw." So he smiled again and waved as he walked away, "be jus fine", he said.

Mississippi, Louisiana, all the places hit by Katrina, Yep, they gonna be jus fine.

BroDavid

New Orleans is the capital state of voodoo. My family was actually thinking of going there next summer. So much for that tho. Personally, I think they should rebuild and start over. Too much history there to leave. I'm sure some people wont be going back tho. It soo sad.

If the news story I heard yesterday got it right, they raised the level of Galveston when they re-built the city.

Yes, there is an opportunity to fix some of the things in New Orleans that might apply to any city that grew over many generations. Of course, property rights might influence the ability to do it as freely as one might wish.'

Raze what cannot be saved, raise what sits below sea level, and just maybe rays of tomorrow's Sun will shine down upon a glistening new New Orleans a decade from now. (Sitting behind an adequate sea wall!)

PS, Anyone know a magician in NOLA who might be known as Bosco (his screen name in another forum)? He works the streets, and loves Cup & Balls. Some of us over on that site are wondering his fate. . . The only active *"bosco"* here is from Singapore.

I'm still trying to find out about Warpo a Svengali pitchman friend of mine who lived in N.O.
Anyone with info please PM me.
Thanks Don

Make sure and check out the "I'm OK" Katrina registry and the Red Cross's Locator page for those you're worried about.

The animals are not doing so well - someone has made the call that human lives come first, thus there is a water shortage for the animals at the zoo. Not to mention an untold number of abandoned pets in the cites, few shelters allow pets which is obscene in my view! Most people that ride out storms do so because they don't want to leave their animals.

JoeJoe

Ellen,

Here's a story on the fate of the Aquarium and Zoo:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/......dex.html

In case this link doesn't last, the aquarium lost many animals, the zoo fared better.

Yours,

Paul

Thanks for the animal link dr.w...

I just heard on NPR that in 100 yrs if hit again, because LA is sinking anyway, the french quarter will totally be destroyed...
NPR spoke about how Louisiana is all on loose sediment that keeps on sinking and even if we build it up, it will still continue to sink. That's the type of soil/ground they have.

Ellen