Should New Orleans Be rebuilt?

[Anonymous]

After all the city is Below Sea Level and was built by the French..
Or we could use this opputtunity to build a "NEW" New Orleans with a world class light rail system and state of the art wired houses. But this time perhaps a few miiles inland

[JoeKoh]

hmmm was chicago rebuilt???? was san francisco?of course.new orleans is a vital export import city in the united states.thats why it was fought over in the first place.
stay safe
joe

[Anonymous]

The current site of New Orleans is located at the point where the Mississippi River is no longer navigable by Panamax ships, so it makes the ideal site for a world class port. Whether NO is rebuilt with higher levees, or is elevated to a certain height above sea level, makes no difference. We will rebuild NO, because that's what we Americans do.

[jimrice4449]

I wonder if the exclusive frranchise for "Stilts Are Us" is available?

[Anonymous]

It's very hard too say.........
Allan.

[DPD1]

I really don't think there's a choice... What do you do with all the property that's owned? Just tell those people they are out of luck? The insurance won't pay for a whole property, and I doubt the government will. So that leaves rebuilding.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the NEW TrainTenna LP Gain RR Scanner Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

[BaltACD]

New Orleans needs to become the focal point for an upcoming episode of the History Channel's 'Great Engineering Disasters'. The disaster of New Orleans is the failure of the levee's....the fact that it was instigated by Hurricane Katrina is for the most part coincidental....as the system could just as easily have failed with some 2 inch an hour Afternoon Thunderstorms hanging over the Lake Ponchatrain watershed for 10 to 12 hours (which can occur).

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449

I wonder if the exclusive frranchise for "Stilts Are Us" is available?

Perhaps they should rebuild New Orleans with these house-boats the Dutch are developing which can rise with the water.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DPD1

I really don't think there's a choice... What do you do with all the property that's owned? Just tell those people they are out of luck? The insurance won't pay for a whole property, and I doubt the government will. So that leaves rebuilding.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the NEW TrainTenna LP Gain RR Scanner Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

You might want to check in with some of the victims of the Mississippi River flooding a few years ago. They rebuilt - on higher ground. IIRC, several complete communities moved. Nothing on the scale of NO, but it's obvious that the current situation there is not acceptable.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Without a doubt, if New Orleans hadn't already been there for over 275 years, a city would not be built on that location. But, since a city of half a million people is already there, relocation is not a realistic option and rebuilding will take place. The form that the rebuilt New Orleans will take is going to be subject to a long, acrimonious and occasionally ugly debate, but it will be rebuilt.

[oltmannd]

I think we need to get the French to honor the warranty that came with the Louisianna Purchase. NO has an obvious manufacturing defect!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Always remember the assistance provided by the French during the Revolutionary War by the Marquis de Lafayette and others, such as the French fleet that kept a British supply fleet from landing at Yorktown and resupplying Cornwallis in 1781.

[jchnhtfd]

Part of the city certainly should be. As noted above, New Orleans is a major port and transportation hub. That said, I am horrified and dismayed at the hubris (a particularly vile form of blind pride) of Man that supposes -- even for an instant -- that building in a place which is obviously going to be hit by a natural disaster of this sort (flooding) is supportable. The supposition is that 'something' can be done to keep the natural disaster from happening, or from damaging what is built. In some cases, this may be true, up to a point: Joe makes a comparison with Chicago (which, along with Boston, London, New York, and a bunch of other cities) was damaged extensively by fire. I have to disagree, Joe, but this wasn't a natural disaster, but a man-made one, and as such is subject to Man's control -- and correction. Oddly, San Francisco was also largely destroyed by fire, not the earthquake. Can an earthquake be controlled? No hope. But the damage from it can be significantly reduced. Should there be extensive building/rebuilding in earthquake-prone areas? very honestly, I don't think so. Should there be building or rebuilding in flood prone areas (including beaches and barrier islands!)? Absolutely not, except for facilities which are must be there, such as in the case of New Orleans, the port facilities.

There will be, though... sadly... 'it can't happen again' or 'it can't happen to me' or 'THEY will protect my below sea level house' will be the order of the day. Oh well...

[Anonymous]

Many people, including former high school wrestling coach Denny Hastert, seem to think New Orleans is nothing more than Mardi-gras, tourism, and a bunch of folks on welfare. It is the most critical port and transportation center in the U.S., far more important than Long Beach. Imports and exports from every area served by the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers and tributaries flow through it. It's also a major rail and trucking center and has one of the few terminals able to directly unload supertankers. Saying it shouldn't be rebuilt would be the rail equivalent of saying we shouldn't run ANY trains through Chicago in order to solve the congestion problem. I suspect a lot of Illinois farmers will take issue with Hastert.

It's relatively easy to patch the levees and get the industrial infrastructure, the refineries, chemical plants, and docks fixed, but the problem is who's going to operate them and where will they live. Many of these jobs don't pay that well so there's a lot of working poor. These people need services - food, garbage, police, fire, and these jobs don't pay really well either. The problem with re-developed high-tech cities is the service people can't afford to live there. This is already happening in Colorado as well as many areas re-discovered for redevelopment in other older cities.

Whether one buys into the theories on Global Warming, it is a fact that sea levels are rising and other critical coastal cities are also in danger. One example that was destroyed by a Hurricane in the past is Galveston. And a major Hurricane almost hit NYC a few years back, another city very close to sea level. I don't want to get into all the finger pointing as to who should have done what, rather what's disturbing to me is that 5 years after 9-11 and billions spent on Homeland Security, things are more disorganized than before with many of the exact same problems.

My understanding of the Hurricane models for NO is that a Cat 5 storm surge would over-top the levees and result in some flooding, but nothing near what resulted from a levee breach. Maybe what's needed is a much faster way to fix a levee, similar to the railroads use of panel track. And rather than a Mega-Engineering project to raise the city, perhaps there's a way to reduce the storm surge of a Cat-5 hurricane on Lake Ponchatrain down to Cat 3 levels the levees can handle. This would spare other parts of LA as well.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

Many people, including former high school wrestling coach Denny Hastert, seem to think New Orleans is nothing more than Mardi-gras, tourism, and a bunch of folks on welfare. It is the most critical port and transportation center in the U.S., far more important than Long Beach. Imports and exports from every area served by the Missippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers and tributaries flow through it. It's also a major rail and trucking center amd has one of the few terminals able to directly unload supertankers. Saying it shouldn't be rebuilt would be the rail equivalent of saying we shouldn't run ANY trains through Chicago in order to solve the congestion problem. I suspect a lot of Illinois farmers will take issue with Hastert.

It's relatively easy to patch the levees and get the industrial infrastructure, the refineries, chemical plants, and docks fixed, but the problem is who's going to operate them and where will they live. Many of these jobs don't pay that well so there's a lot of working poor. These people need services - food, garbage, police, fire, and these jobs don't pay really well either. The problem with re-developed high-tech cities is the service people can't afford to live there. This is already happening in Colorado as well as many areas re-discovered for redevelopment in other older cities.

Whether one buys into the theories on Global Warming, it is a fact that sea levels are rising and other critical coastal cities are also in danger. One example that was destroyed by a Hurricane in the past is Galveston. And a major Hurricane almost hit NYC a few years back, another city very close to sea level. I don't want to get into all the finger pointing as to who should have done what, rather what's disturbing to me is that 5 years after 9-11 and billions spent on Homeland Security, things are more disorganized than before with many of the exact same problems.

My understanding of the Hurricane models for NO is that a Cat 5 storm surge would over-top the levees and result in some flooding, but nothing near what resulted from a levee breach. Maybe what's needed is a much faster way to fix a levee, similar to the railroads use of panel track. And rather than a Mega-Engineering project to raise the city, perhaps there's a way to reduce the storm surge of a Cat-5 hurricane on Lake Ponchatrain down to Cat 3 levels the levees can handle. This would spare other parts of LA as well.

Please note that I definetly think that the port aspects of New Orleans should be rebuilt. No question. I do not think that the other industrial facilities, which do not require direct access to water, should be rebuilt.

As to where will the people live, there is ground free of flooding in the area. Lots of it. Good mass transport can and should be provided so that those who work the port can get to it -- also no question. There is, of course, the minor detail that most of that safer high ground is owned by the more wealthy. Wonder why...

However, my friend, it is the last paragraph that inspires me to quote you. I am a professional civil engineer, and have been for almost half a century now. If I have learned one thing, and one thing only, it is that Man and his works are no match for mother nature and her works. Could we build higher stronger levees? Sure. Would they be overtopped (and once overtopped, destroyed -- it's inevitable)? Sure. Bet your boots. Could the storm surge from a hurricane be reduced in height? Say again? The power of even a Category One storm is greater than all the power produced by Man, all over the world, while it is going. Mankind needs a little humbleness in the face of the forces of nature.

[mersenne6]

Major cities have been relocated in the past so there doesn't seem to be any reason why you couldn't chose that option. Obviously there would be a ton of details to work out and there would be problems galore. Another possibility is to do what Galveston did after the hurricane of 1900 - raise the town. Since the current verbiage suggests a huge portion of the town will have to be torn down completely there is the possibility of filling in to raise the town to at least sea level before starting with a rebuild effort. Would that be a lot of dirt - you bet but again, its been done before.

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeKoh

hmmm was chicago rebuilt???? was san francisco?of course.new orleans is a vital export import city in the united states.thats why it was fought over in the first place.
stay safe
joe

Yes indeed, both Chicago and SF were rebuilt...by the people who lived in those cities, NOT the Federal Government. If the people of NO want to continue to have their city in the same spot and accept the risks of living in that "bowl" then, fine, let them rebuild it, but NOT with our Federal tax dollars being used.

[DrummingTrainfan]

Perhaps they could raise it with trash. I know they make artificial hills out of garbage (and build on them)...why can't they build a city on it? It's a win-win, save some landfill room and rebuild NO.

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I think we need to get the French to honor the warranty that came with the Louisianna Purchase. NO has an obvious manufacturing defect!

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

We could make a lot of stilts out of that Eifel tower.[;)][:D][8D]

[oltmannd]

Should NO be rebuilt? Yes, but with a very thick layer of UV resistant polyurethane...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Raising the city is not a real option. New Orleans was actually seven to eight feet ABOVE sea level when it was established. I know that that is a small figure, but it is an improvement over the current situation. As New Orleans was built up, the city settled under the weight of the buildings and other structures over the years. Using fill to raise the grade would not stop the settling. Also, the Mississippi River is higher than it used to be due to silting up of the river bottom and building up of levees to control flooding. There are other factors involved that the engineers could explain better than me.

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd
That said, I am horrified and dismayed at the hubris (a particularly vile form of blind pride) of Man that supposes -- even for an instant -- that building in a place which is obviously going to be hit by a natural disaster of this sort (flooding) is supportable. The supposition is that 'something' can be done to keep the natural disaster from happening, or from damaging what is built.

What place is not subject to some sort of disaster? I live in Denver, which I consider to be fairly safe, compared to other cities. Still, in the 5 years I've lived here, I've been subject to 2 major blizzards, one of which dropped 4+ feet of snow (9+ in some of the foothills). I have pictures of a wall cloud that went on to produce an F2/F3 tornado. I've seen lots of wildfires, including some as close as Golden, and of course the very large Hayman Fire (125,000+ acres). There have been droughts and floods. Flash floods are a real threat, as the 1970's Big Thompson Flood can attest to. And like I said, I feel pretty safe here!

What about Oklahoma City? They got hit by an F5. Were they wrong to rebuild? Oklahoma has the highest rate of F4/F5 tornadoes in the world. What about Florida after last year's hurricane season? Florida felt the first effects of Katrina (when she was still a pretty tame Tropical Storm). Based on the probabilities that Florida will most likely be hit by more strong hurricanes, was it wise for them to rebuilt? How about the entire state of Wyoming, and really the whole western United States? Basically the whole of Yellowstone Park is one giant volcano that is overdue for an eruption that would make Mt. St. Helens seem like a fire cracker. Ash from that could make it thousands of miles.

Man might be a little pride filled in his attempts to conquer nature. Still, we do a fair to meddling job of it most of the time, and if we respect nature that other .01% of the time, we should be OK. I'm not sure there's much other option.

[Anonymous]

yes, def. ,, they need to raise the town on ballest by 10 feet. how many millions of cubic yards would that bee...is there that much granite avail?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jesus1st

yes, def. ,, they need to raise the town on ballest by 10 feet. how many millions of cubic yards would that bee...is there that much granite avail?

And the weight of that much ballast would still settle into the underlying muck, not doing a whole lot of good in the long run.

[eolafan]

When Chicago was rebuilt after the Great Chicago Fire they used the rubble to extend the Chicago lakeshore line about a quarter mile out into the lake and that is what Soldier Field, the Field Museum, Miggs Field, and todays Lake Shore Drive is built on. The original Lake Michigan shore line was orginally about where Michigan Ave. runs today. Why can't we use this same idea on N.O. and raise the city on the rubble.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by jesus1st

yes, def. ,, they need to raise the town on ballest by 10 feet. how many millions of cubic yards would that bee...is there that much granite avail?

And the weight of that much ballast would still settle into the underlying muck, not doing a whole lot of good in the long run.

That's true. NO used to be above sea level, 'til they started building on it, then it sank 7 feet below. Dumping a bunch of rocks would weight down the undermuck even more, and you'd end up right where they are now, 7 feet under. I don't know if they could pile drive some stability, anyone know how far down it is to bedrock?

[Anonymous]

On one fo the news shows tonight there was a photograph of the delta just beyond NO. Without going into any great detail, it looks like the Mississippi River is trying to reclaim what it thinks belongs to it in the first place.

m

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

However, my friend, it is the last paragraph that inspires me to quote you. I am a professional civil engineer, and have been for almost half a century now. If I have learned one thing, and one thing only, it is that Man and his works are no match for mother nature and her works. Could we build higher stronger levees? Sure. Would they be overtopped (and once overtopped, destroyed -- it's inevitable)? Sure. Bet your boots. Could the storm surge from a hurricane be reduced in height? Say again? The power of even a Category One storm is greater than all the power produced by Man, all over the world, while it is going. Mankind needs a little humbleness in the face of the forces of nature.

I'm a little disappointed but not surprised. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when we need him? The forces are great, but they occur over a wide area and are known. A structural engineer might be more interested in tons per square foot and design accordingly. The Transamerica building doesn't fall down after every eartquake and I suspect the engineers who build nuclear containment buildings would strongly disagree with you. The land based hotels in Gulfport are still standing.

The actual construction phase of the first Transcon railroad took 4 years using mules, carts, shovels, and black powder. Today 15 miles of expressway takes longer and it falls apart within 5 years or falls down after the first minor earthquake. In a sense Iraq is the ideal public works project, they blow it up even before it's finished so it can be started over and over again. If you're saying it can't be done due to the poor quality of public works projects then I guess throwing in the towel may be the best answer.

I agree about not rebuilding or protecting beach houses, but an entire city is a different matter. The delta is NO's natural barrier against most hurricanes and the channeling and dredging practices south of the city are causing it to disappear. If that's not dealt with, the high ground will be just as vulerable 50+ years from now. It's true Chicago was jacked up, but that's only part of the story. The flow of the river was reversed and the Deep Tunnel may have finally ended most flooding. There will always be flooding in low lying areas and most of LA is vulnerable. The issue is what to do with a given volume of water. Just raising the lowest areas spreads the water over a wider area. The alternative to storing it is to reduce the amount in the first place and since it's extremely unlikely the commercial and historic parts of NO will be abandoned, we're going to be rebuilding those levees anyway. If the situation in the delta is corrected, the major threat is storm surge off Lake Pontchatrain. The Dutch have some ideas that might be useful. Mother nature's barrier islands also do a good job of knocking down storm surge. On thought that comes to mind would be sacrificial outer levees or seawalls. We're becoming a nation of nay-sayers when it comes to large endeavors. I think a little Hubris is exactly what's needed.

[Modelcar]

I have never been to N O.....No expert. But we're asking for opinions...and mine is this: Engineer the levee system to stand what can be expected it might have to endure....I don't know who's responsibility it would be to do this...and who pays......But if that would be done, than include a flood free pump system with it's own fuel and power supply to be able to go on line under these circumstances and continue the job of pumping out when torrential rains hit......I suppose the city must be rebuilt just like any other American city is rebuilt when disaster hits.....and of course that takes years and years.....

[Anonymous]

Some thoughts from a fellow engineer....

You can't win a war against Mother Nature. She's bigger than you, stronger than you, and relentless. She's a mother.

You MUST plan for the failure of any man-made device or structure. Everything man makes, will eventually fail. If you're not comfortable with the failure of something, then you've failed in your plans.

Only a fool would base his life on the successful operation of a single piece of critical equipment. Redundancy can reduce the odds of failure, but failure is still a certainty, eventually. If you don't plan for failure, you've failed to plan.

The only successful designs are the ones that are inherintly simple and self-sufficient. Elegance in design is often discussed, and most often creates the most successful design. I'm not talking about the artistic merits of a design, but about the simpleness and completeness of a design.

The way you make a place so it won't flood is to make it higher than the surrounding water.

If you want to prevent N.O. from flooding in the future, you have few options:

1. Raise it above the surrounding water.

2. Move it away from the water.

Higher levees, more levees, self-contained pumping systems, etc., will only reduce the magnitude of the next flood from a levee failure, but will not prevent it.

For those areas with 3' or less water in them, I say RAISE them to above the water line.

For those areas in deeper water, break up the areas with more levees. Build the levees to withstand the overflow of the storm surge from a CAT 5 hurricane. This will require building levees to withstand the erosive effects of the water cascading over them.

Seriously consider protecting areas by RAISING the surrounding areas to above sea level, effectively creating mega-levees.

Install pumps above sea level for pumping, so they are not damaged by catastrophic flooding. Backup generators are a must.

Finally, in the future deny flood insurance for all structures below sea level or Lake Ponchartrain.

Mark in Utah