NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, so, as a native New Orleanian, before becoming President of Zynhova, I am very much concerned about what to do with my city.

If you've noticed, no one has done much since Katrina opened up her can of whup-ass.

What are your suggestions about rebuilding? I don't want to hear crap about not rebuilding or how stupid it was to build NOLA underwater in the first place (an EXTRA-EXTRA-EXTRORDINARY ignorant view, by the way, since the city was built so very long ago before there were ever levees or an Army Corps of Engineers).

My idea ignores expense, but you don't have to.

My idea is to build the low-lying areas Venice-style, but better. Venice has it's own problems with sinking. The land in NOLA is waterlogged and soft. When you build on it water is continuously squeezed out of the land from weight and pressure and what you build sinks. Venice is also having this problem.

NOLA used to have a lot of canals to direct water flow. Lots of these have been filled in. I wish they would make them larger, with overflow capability. Built residences and commercial up, including utilities. Include an extensive monorail system and skywalks. These can be used during dry times, when you can drive your car around) and during seasonal flooding (Hurricane Season and Springtime). There will need to be cleaning crews to transfer the soil deposited from the floods to areas suffering from erosion, which should be better now that we allow flooding.

Destroy the levee system in the city. Modify it as it follows the River to the Gulf to include overflow pools.

In the high areas, like the Crescent (ie, the Garden District, etc), leave them. They were built before levees and built on land that doesn't easily flood.

Naturally, this is an incomplete idea, but you get the picture.

Just for kicks, I've included a poll. Some of the choices are dispicable, but they're things I've heard some people say. Other choices are silly. But,hey, it's for kicks.

Pick up, move ten kilometers inland and uphill, start over.

I do with it what they did with Galveston. Raise it up.

That is, if we're ignoring cost.

suggestions for rebuilding? start now

I would say... make stronger levees and build better protection against future Katrina-like disasters, just in case they may come again. And I like the idea of making New Orleans into a Venice-style structure, it makes a lot of sense.

It would make economic sense to build the city above sea level. I mean, with this suggestion, you're only rebuilding the city. No expensive walls or anything. Just the easiest and cheapest solution, besides moving everyone to other cities. Sometimes, you just have to let go of your childhood memories and move on to higher, less watery places. Sure, every place has its problems. California is known for earthquakes and mudslides. Southern Nevada is in a severe drought. The east coast seems vulnerable to snow storms and hurricanes. The midwest has tornadoes. Canada has some stuff, mostly snowrelated. Mexico is a resource-rich hellhole of political corruption and poverty, even though some people say that this is somehow America's fault. The Middle-East has little nutjobs violently killing people to honor a religion that's supposed to preach peace. Africa has a hell lot of problems brought on by years of colonial rule. China is just a communist hellhole.

Every place has problems, I know. If you have to trust the government to maintain the levees, your house is going to be underwater. That's the problem. The governments of the world are almost all made up of incompetence mixed with stupidity with a side of severe mental retardation. It's going to fail and anarchy is even worse.

It was build where it is for a reason. Like all real estate, it's all about location. New Orleans was built there because of all the access to water. The Ports of New Orleans and Baton Rouge combined (a little more than 10K uphill) are the largest in the country for goods coming in. If Baton Rouge could handle it alone it would have surpassed NOLA, but it never did. No access to the lake from Baton Rouge.

The main issue I see with rebuilding is that sprawl has to be stopped, and if necessary existing areas need to be reclaimed by demolishing and turned in to new wetlands to replace the ones lost over the past few decades to urban sprawl. One of the biggest vulnerabilities of that area has been the devastation of its wetlands, which compromise both the security of the city as well as its ecological diversity and environmental sustainability. Much of the problems with erosion and lack of drainage or flood control is directly due to wetlands destruction. If we reestablish the wetlands and reverse the erosion/lack of drainage caused by that destruction, New Orleans will be made much more secure and able to resist disasters even before improvements to its levees are complete. That doesn't even factor in the unique ecology of the wetlands; a healthy wetland environment would be a boon to tourism, research, and the overall condition of the region's environment.

The other issue is how to rebuild. New Orleans should be rebuilt where possible along principles of Smart Growth, with emphasis on walkable communities, green space, and central commercial/industrial eras served by expansive public transportation. The poorer areas should be the focus of intensive movements to provide both affordable housing and high quality of life; if necessary, they should also be raised higher and rebuilt in a way that reduces their impact on the environment and improves their security in the event of disaster. Preserving historical and cultural treasures is also a must, and no expense should be spared to restore or expand them.

Lastly, the levees should be improved to the best standards possible, with the goal being a full upgrade and expansion that leaves the city secure from another Katrina-type disaster. Rebuilding New Orleans is a vital task that we must undertake to preserve part of our history; it will be expensive, but it should be done because the city's contributions to America are equally as rich as any of the other major cities of our country and it would be woefull neglect of our past to ignore that in favor of squabbling over politics or dollars and cents.

I say rebuild it smarter, better, and stronger. New Orleans is an invaluable cultural and historical treasure to the US, and its port/industrial complexes are a vital part of our energy industry as well as our overall economic well being; that port is literally the shipping gateway to the Midwest and we can't afford to lose it...nor can we lose its hundreds of years of history or unique culture.

I said it is a great city...
because we are states united, and we should help them out

Crawfish please. Also:Pick up, move ten kilometers inland and uphill, start over.

Nothing wrong with New Orleans that about a billion tons of concrete can't fix.

I hate New Orleans.

If you have to rebuild it, this time forget the damned vevees and built it like the venice.

I hate New Orleans.

If you have to rebuild it, this time forget the damned vevees and built it like the venice.

Venice is sinking. Amsterdam would be a better example. Or Atlantis.

Venice is sinking. Amsterdam would be a better example. Or Atlantis.

They're going to fill it with mer-people?

Raze it to the ground, move 20 miles inland, and start over.

Let Nagin be mayor of...a senior retirement home.

I suggest we move whatever is left of New Orleans to a place less sinky and call it New New Orleans. Otherwise, you'll have to maintain levees and we know how well that went.

I keep seeing this idea of moving the city but I've already explained that it can't be done. There is already a city not too far on higher ground. It's called BATON ROUGE and it's the state capitol. And it's been around for a while, too. There is a specific reason why Baton Rouge never became New Orleans. WATER ACCESS.

I kind of like the idea of a venice style. Personally I thought Venice Italy was amazing. But for one they should not rebuild in a flood prone area like it was. It is like the people that build homes in a flood plain next to a river. Everytime a flood comes they expect other people (the government) to pay for the repairs. I personally am tired of having to bail people out because of there bad choices of where they live. I personally would never live on an active flood plain. Below sea level such as parts of New Orleans. On the side of an active volcano or in a river valley below it. Also wouldn't live on the Florida coast. Any of these are just asking for trouble. In my opinion no Federal aid for rebuilding in areas that do not have an adequate plan for loss prevention. This includes at the moment large areas of the gulf coast.

Long poll options made me tick all the boxes :) [/ralphwiggum]

Long poll options made me tick all the boxes :) [/ralphwiggum]

That was kinda the point....There are only about 3 things in there that were meaningful. The rest are a reflection of my personal biases (the GREATEST city!) and disdain (clean the city of all the Blacks) and some silly things.

I keep seeing this idea of moving the city but I've already explained that it can't be done. There is already a city not too far on higher ground. It's called BATON ROUGE and it's the state capitol. And it's been around for a while, too. There is a specific reason why Baton Rouge never became New Orleans. WATER ACCESS.

Join Baton Rouge. *eats crawfish*

But for one they should not rebuild in a flood prone area like it was. It is like the people that build homes in a flood plain next to a river. Everytime a flood comes they expect other people (the government) to pay for the repairs. I personally am tired of having to bail people out because of there bad choices of where they live. I personally would never live on an active flood plain. Below sea level such as parts of New Orleans. On the side of an active volcano or in a river valley below it. Also wouldn't live on the Florida coast. Any of these are just asking for trouble. In my opinion no Federal aid for rebuilding in areas that do not have an adequate plan for loss prevention. This includes at the moment large areas of the gulf coast.

There is absolutely no place in the country safe from natural disasters. None. You just hear about hurricanes (Gulf and East Coasts) and earthquakes (West Coast) and volcanoes (Washington) because they do spectacular damage. But...we have spring flooding down the whole of the Mississippi watershed, which by the way, serves the bulk of the country. Remember that it's likely that your area benefits from the River that dumps out in MY area. We also have tornadoes in middle of the country.

I hear your argument all the time. If it washed then it would have already been done. The problem is, the ENTIRE country benefits economically from these areas. Specifically for NOLA, where do you think most of the oil in the country is refined? Where do most of the goods come in?

Since this is a country we cannot every argue for abandoning a single part of it. The only moral argument is for rebuilding the smart way. For any of these areas.

Well, about half the population of NOLA was in Baton Rouge at one time after Katrina. The population of BR doubled, from somewhere north of 200K to almost half a mil. The city was about to topple because the infrastructure can't adapt so fast (think sewer and other utilities, roads and highways, public schools).

But the main reason that doesn't work is the water access. BR has the river, but nothing else. BR is already its own Port (two, Port of BR and Port Allen, right next door).

Well, about half the population of NOLA was in Baton Rouge at one time after Katrina. The population of BR doubled, from somewhere north of 200K to almost half a mil. The city was about to topple because the infrastructure can't adapt so fast (think sewer and other utilities, roads and highways, public schools).

But the main reason that doesn't work is the water access. BR has the river, but nothing else. BR is already its own Port (two, Port of BR and Port Allen, right next door).
If you'd get rid of the levees, NO would fill up and that can be your water access. Live in BR, commute.

Not all of NOLA would fill up, just the low areas, just like in the 1800s before the levees were EVER built. It used to be that the flooding was allowed to happen, which kept the wetlands healthy, which protected the city.

I agree, get rid of the levees (not the entire levee system that runs all the way down to the estuaries. That would impact way too many towns and those levees are fine the way they are).

The commute to NOLA from BR is ~2 hours. No one will do that. My town is halfway between both cities and no one likes THAT commute.

Raze it to the ground, move 20 miles inland, and start over.

Let Nagin be mayor of...a senior retirement home.

woe to the person without transport to the retirement home... Nagin won't order the school buses in to save them.

hehe

1. Move the Saints to LA.
2. Concentrate on rebuilding Bourbon Street, since that is the only worthwile place to go in New Orleans.
3. Let the swamp claim the rest.


New Orleans is better off as a small tourist trap, with a seasonal explosion come Mardi Gras time.

Not all of NOLA would fill up, just the low areas, just like in the 1800s before the levees were EVER built. It used to be that the flooding was allowed to happen, which kept the wetlands healthy, which protected the city.

I agree, get rid of the levees (not the entire levee system that runs all the way down to the estuaries. That would impact way too many towns and those levees are fine the way they are).

The commute to NOLA from BR is ~2 hours. No one will do that. My town is halfway between both cities and no one likes THAT commute.

Go to the area between your town and NO.