Continuing the New Orleans discussion based on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mcbulldawg’s co
Sep. 30th, 2005 10:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jjmaccrimmonContinuing from this post
You bring up a number of very good points. Generally I wonder whether or not it’s worth rebuilding anything down there and wasting money better spent elsewhere. One of the reasons parts (not all) of New Orleans will be rebuilt in some form relates to scales of economies at risk. What's this fluff he's blithering?..
Cities don't die natural deaths. Hell we bombed Dresden and Tokyo to ashes in WW2 and look at them now. Conversely, we've let Detroit wither away to barely a shadow of itself and yet stubbornly the city won't fold up. From what everyone's said about NOLA, it needed a good enema and certainly got one in spades. Many of the rats McBullDawg wrote about have now been driven into other cities around the country and are unlikely to ever return. Maybe the new surrounding and better police departments will keep them in check. The New Orleans PD certainly didn’t seem to have the will to. The fact remains that following the disaster, the city is never going to be the same and that could be a good point to restart from the right way.
I could point out political, economic, security and historical reasons to rebuild some aspects of the city. It's THE primary point of entry for any goods and shipping heading up the Mississippi River. Until the Mississippi eventually escapes the levees and makes a new course down the Atchafalaya Pass (that hydrologists have been fighting for the last 50 years), New Orleans will serve a need.
Yes the crime rate was horrendous (the massive shift in people out of town may help this situation). Any reconstruction and redevelopment must address this situation or major businesses won't return. Yes it was built in the worst possible location for a major US city (below sea level by a flood prone river). Yes the constant strain on the surrounding wetlands is killing the Delta region (wetlands that would have protected the city). The point is there are no good options in any direction. Where do you send 600,000 people from New Orleans and the surrounding areas to live safely, securely and with economic opportunities?
Options:
1. Close the city entirely and cede the area to nature. Although I'm a ghost town enthusiast, and would love to have the chance to explore this urban waste/wonderland in a few years, I doubt I'll get to see it happen. I don't believe any major US urban area has folded up in the past 100 years. Detroit's come close recently, East St Louis, IL is nearly gone, and Monterey, CA is nothing like what it once was, but wholesale closure hasn't happened. The security and economic impact alone would be a bigger concern than the natural disaster.
2. Close the old city and move it to higher ground such as the north side of Lake Pontchartain. This is an option, but the cost to reestablish an entire urban area would be in the hundreds of billions over decades. It would also defeat most of the reasons for the city to exist anyway unless the River was diverted into the lake for traffic. Infrastructure alone would make this a nightmare, but the economic benefits to the region from rebuilding would be incredible.
3. Reduce the city to only the historical and major transportation options. This essentially turns the historical areas into a kind of national park setting. Slowly the private businesses and residences would be bought out over the years through imminent domain rules, and the Vieux Carrie, St Charles, the Garden District and some of the cemeteries would become a National Park or Historical Site. The port and warehouse district would be left to fend for itself as a private enterprise. The question then would be where would the workers come from to operate the port and the park? Algiers perhaps, but that would just move people into another potential flood plain once they expanded past that town's viable borders.
4. Reduce the city and muzzle growth options. This is the route I favor because it recognizes that IF the city is to survive or be reborn, it will need to make massive wholesale changes to the way it’s allowed to rebuild and the way its allowed grow. In my view, anything east of Elysian Fields Ave (ie. the 8th and 9th Wards) should be written off. Sorry but that's where the most horrendous flooding was. Strengthen the remaining levees and start raising up the remaining land within the city above sea level. Anytime a property is built on, the owner must increase the ground level to at least that of sea level. Eventually entire neighborhoods would be viable against long term flooding (bowl effects). Build drainage pumps and power supplies to be reasonably higher than where they would flood out and fail.
5. The remaining option - do nothing and rebuild what's there. I think this is dumber than a box of rocks. Not only would it fail to address the basic problems of the city, but it wastes all the funds poured in when the next storm hits. Unfortunately this course is what Major Nagin is pushing for and failing to recognize that large numbers houses and businesses will never be rebuilt this way. This route without measures to fix the larger problems will lead the city to eventual decline and large scale abandonment.
Put New Orleans now into the wider context of the Gulf Region. Essentially following two incredibly destructive hurricanes, the area from Galveston, TX to Pensacola, FL and inland for nearly 100 miles or more (200 across much of LA and MS) has sustained mind boggling amounts of damage. Reconstruction (using the Civil War analogy) is something of a new national priority. The question now is whether we have the political, social and economic will to put the entire region back together again. It’s never going to be the same, but it could be better and done with a certain measure of planning and common sense.
You bring up a number of very good points. Generally I wonder whether or not it’s worth rebuilding anything down there and wasting money better spent elsewhere. One of the reasons parts (not all) of New Orleans will be rebuilt in some form relates to scales of economies at risk. What's this fluff he's blithering?..
Cities don't die natural deaths. Hell we bombed Dresden and Tokyo to ashes in WW2 and look at them now. Conversely, we've let Detroit wither away to barely a shadow of itself and yet stubbornly the city won't fold up. From what everyone's said about NOLA, it needed a good enema and certainly got one in spades. Many of the rats McBullDawg wrote about have now been driven into other cities around the country and are unlikely to ever return. Maybe the new surrounding and better police departments will keep them in check. The New Orleans PD certainly didn’t seem to have the will to. The fact remains that following the disaster, the city is never going to be the same and that could be a good point to restart from the right way.
I could point out political, economic, security and historical reasons to rebuild some aspects of the city. It's THE primary point of entry for any goods and shipping heading up the Mississippi River. Until the Mississippi eventually escapes the levees and makes a new course down the Atchafalaya Pass (that hydrologists have been fighting for the last 50 years), New Orleans will serve a need.
Yes the crime rate was horrendous (the massive shift in people out of town may help this situation). Any reconstruction and redevelopment must address this situation or major businesses won't return. Yes it was built in the worst possible location for a major US city (below sea level by a flood prone river). Yes the constant strain on the surrounding wetlands is killing the Delta region (wetlands that would have protected the city). The point is there are no good options in any direction. Where do you send 600,000 people from New Orleans and the surrounding areas to live safely, securely and with economic opportunities?
Options:
1. Close the city entirely and cede the area to nature. Although I'm a ghost town enthusiast, and would love to have the chance to explore this urban waste/wonderland in a few years, I doubt I'll get to see it happen. I don't believe any major US urban area has folded up in the past 100 years. Detroit's come close recently, East St Louis, IL is nearly gone, and Monterey, CA is nothing like what it once was, but wholesale closure hasn't happened. The security and economic impact alone would be a bigger concern than the natural disaster.
2. Close the old city and move it to higher ground such as the north side of Lake Pontchartain. This is an option, but the cost to reestablish an entire urban area would be in the hundreds of billions over decades. It would also defeat most of the reasons for the city to exist anyway unless the River was diverted into the lake for traffic. Infrastructure alone would make this a nightmare, but the economic benefits to the region from rebuilding would be incredible.
3. Reduce the city to only the historical and major transportation options. This essentially turns the historical areas into a kind of national park setting. Slowly the private businesses and residences would be bought out over the years through imminent domain rules, and the Vieux Carrie, St Charles, the Garden District and some of the cemeteries would become a National Park or Historical Site. The port and warehouse district would be left to fend for itself as a private enterprise. The question then would be where would the workers come from to operate the port and the park? Algiers perhaps, but that would just move people into another potential flood plain once they expanded past that town's viable borders.
4. Reduce the city and muzzle growth options. This is the route I favor because it recognizes that IF the city is to survive or be reborn, it will need to make massive wholesale changes to the way it’s allowed to rebuild and the way its allowed grow. In my view, anything east of Elysian Fields Ave (ie. the 8th and 9th Wards) should be written off. Sorry but that's where the most horrendous flooding was. Strengthen the remaining levees and start raising up the remaining land within the city above sea level. Anytime a property is built on, the owner must increase the ground level to at least that of sea level. Eventually entire neighborhoods would be viable against long term flooding (bowl effects). Build drainage pumps and power supplies to be reasonably higher than where they would flood out and fail.
5. The remaining option - do nothing and rebuild what's there. I think this is dumber than a box of rocks. Not only would it fail to address the basic problems of the city, but it wastes all the funds poured in when the next storm hits. Unfortunately this course is what Major Nagin is pushing for and failing to recognize that large numbers houses and businesses will never be rebuilt this way. This route without measures to fix the larger problems will lead the city to eventual decline and large scale abandonment.
Put New Orleans now into the wider context of the Gulf Region. Essentially following two incredibly destructive hurricanes, the area from Galveston, TX to Pensacola, FL and inland for nearly 100 miles or more (200 across much of LA and MS) has sustained mind boggling amounts of damage. Reconstruction (using the Civil War analogy) is something of a new national priority. The question now is whether we have the political, social and economic will to put the entire region back together again. It’s never going to be the same, but it could be better and done with a certain measure of planning and common sense.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 11:13 am (UTC)I am that bored, but am trying desperately to limit my internet-at-work-time (obviously suffering a set-back today.
By the way, I have at least one box of rocks at home. :P
no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 11:38 am (UTC)I'm waiting for the workday to end because tonight I'm going to see a movie with a friend in LA. I just have to be careful since the CHP is running a huge speed trap today and tonight near Placerita Canyon on the 14.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 12:40 pm (UTC)Good luck avoiding the CHP and hope you enjoy the movie! And the company. Say 'hi' for me, if it would be appropriate. =)
*hug*
no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 11:40 am (UTC)Although, I doubt that will really happen.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 01:42 pm (UTC)Look how long Amsterdam has remained dry while being below sea level.
My feeling is you can try to (futilely) contain and force nature against it's will or you can work with it and guide it while using it to your advantage.
Besides...how cool would NOLA be with canals?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 01:59 pm (UTC)We'd still have to raise the levels of 60% of the building (remaining in town, but that fits in with general redevelopment ideas I mentioned earlier. It's do-able
rebuilding
Date: 2005-09-30 06:41 pm (UTC)The main trouble is this: You, JJ, are thinking with a clear head. You are using reason and being rational. Your motives are that of a good man. You do not seek to profit off of the welfare community that runs amuck here. No, for you are a person with values and morals and you use the gray matter in between your ears for good things. You are not a vile person. You wish not to keep those who are down, down. See, my gentle friend, being a good person goes against everything NOLA. :)
Perhaps it can all be cleared up here.
http://www.geocities.com/cajunbymarriage/NOLA.html
I think that should do it.
-=McB=-
Re: rebuilding
Date: 2005-10-01 12:42 am (UTC)Re: rebuilding
Date: 2005-10-01 08:29 am (UTC)Too true!
-=McB=-