1
   

Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 08:57 pm
I don't know that the primary responsibility is local - that will be argued for years. But certainly the cost is high and wide.

And magic is gone, or I cannot envision a scenario for it showing up again.

If someone were to come along with a salient design for the serious regeneration of the whole Mississippi, and plan for the wetlands, and plan for a beefy but non-extravagent port, and a safe subsidary city, I could go for that.

I think that any revisit of the old French Quarter is a trip beyond Disney, but that is just my take. Even revisited, it would be an obnoxious selling place. I would rather it die loved.

But then, I am not from there.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 08:59 pm
I never got there, to new orleans.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:34 am
Is New Orleans to be re built in a tropical storm zone in a swamp, beneath the water level of the surrounding sea, lake and river?
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:38 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Is New Orleans to be re built in a tropical storm zone in a swamp, beneath the water level of the surrounding sea, lake and river?


Yes, to pest people...
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:46 am
hmm

intriguing sideways take by French intellectual

(What?)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:09 am
littlek wrote:
I never got there, to new orleans.


Isn't that haunting? I've had that thought a few times, myself. I never got there, and whatever it was is probably definitely gone, even if houses are rebuilt and there is a city called "New Orleans."

Maybe not.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:20 am
Seems only Frenchmen go there...
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:23 am
I have many, many fond memories of New Orleans - the Quarter, Jackson Square, the Garden District, Zoo, the fabulous restaurants, the friendly and welcoming people. My last visit was this past April and in our rush to see and do as much as possible, we regretfully put off visiting their new WWII Memorial. I haven't seen any news reports as to the damage it may have sustained.

I'm hearing rumors that Mardi Gras 2006 may still be possible.

My prayers for all those hurt in this catastrophe are with them daily.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:24 am
I have been through NO but never stayed there. A friend of mine was murdered on the street there during Mardis Gras by an unidentified person who was never caught.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:37 am
I attended my first Mardi Gras on crutches, having broken my ankle skiing in New Mexico a month earlier. Having a cast to the knee, as well as crutches, is definitely not helpful in maneuvering crowds or catching beads, but I had an amazing time considering.

A college friend's family had a vacation home on the Tchefuncte River across from Lake Pontchartrain in Covington. I'll never forget her dad's warning to me while water-skiing the river one summer. Just as I got my ski on, he cautioned me to be sure to drop off in the MIDDLE of the river, because there were numerous water-moccasins that congregated near the banks. I couldn't wait to get back into that boat. LOL.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:46 am
I'm reading today that the toxicity will be there for at least a decade.

I'm not much on city planning knowledge, and I never made it to NO either, but I imagine the thing to do is to bulldoze the whole thing. Bring in some dirt. (I'm always seeing piles of dirt from new construction with "free Dirt" signs) Rebuild on top of the old NO, much like they turn our city dumps into playgrounds.

NOT that NO was a dump. Just that is what the damage now reminds me of, and doing it this way would raise the city reducing the bowl affect.

Is that not viable?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 10:06 am
Squinney - I actually saw that suggestion made while skimming some articles over the past week.

I believe the response was that it was not feasible, probably because of the prohibitive cost involved.

I don't think it's a question of whether or not New Orleans should be built. It will be rebuilt, although how and how soon are the questions that remain.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 11:09 am
Squinney
squinney wrote:
I'm reading today that the toxicity will be there for at least a decade.

I'm not much on city planning knowledge, and I never made it to NO either, but I imagine the thing to do is to bulldoze the whole thing. Bring in some dirt. (I'm always seeing piles of dirt from new construction with "free Dirt" signs) Rebuild on top of the old NO, much like they turn our city dumps into playgrounds.

NOT that NO was a dump. Just that is what the damage now reminds me of, and doing it this way would raise the city reducing the bowl affect.

Is that not viable?


That is not a feasible solution, too expensive, and not a permanent solution. The best way to bring back New Orleans is to find a location further north, which would allow the land to heal. New Orleans is sinking quite rapidly into the Gulf. The "bowl" referred to is the natural draining of all the northern areas east of the Rockies into the great Mississippi valley. It's a huge area extending all the way past Texas even into New Mexico. We don't see the scope of that drainage valley anymore due to the engineering changes made to the river.

The engineers fiddled with the river to meet the demands of building a port, and all the commerce along the river. The river was even straightened to make this possible.

It is insanity to try to continue to confine one of the world's largest rivers to satisfy corporate demands. The lower Mississippi must be restored to it's natural drainage with cautious restraint by engineering water containment. The wetlands must be restored as part of that natural drainage system to reduce the loss of land to the Gulf.

The most difficult task will be to sustain America's most important economic port facilities. The oil pipe lines can be relocated, but a great cost. The port is more important than the city of New Orleans. The City can be rebuilt in some safer location to restore the culture of the area. The port cannot easily be relocated.

If you doubt what I'm saying, I remind you of my immediate thoughts after New Orleans was flooded. I post my concern that all terrorists had to do was to wait until New Orleans was rebuilt, it's current levee system repaired and restored, and then just blow up the levee system. It would be Katrina all over again. What a lesson Katrina has been to the terrorists studying the vulnerable spots in the US and our economy.

We must be smarter than that and do it right this time while we have the chance.

BBB
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 02:55 pm
LA Times article on housing in a future rebuild
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 04:09 pm
I've added a bunch of links on a variety of articles about the rebuilding of New Orleans over on the Land Use Thread on p. 8, mostly taken from ArchNewsNow.com website. There are many more articles on the subject listed on the archnewsnow.com site in the last week or so; I just put in a sampling.

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49823&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=orleans+rebuilt&start=70



This is the archnewsnow link for Sept. 9th, or whatever day of the work week you read this. To see more, click Yesterday's News, and so on, or subscribe to email updates.
http://www.archnewsnow.com/news/TodaysNews.htm
0 Replies
 
dora17
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:40 pm
I haven't read through all 24 pages of this, so this question might already have been answered...apologies if so... anyway, I noticed some were asking where all the people would go if NO isn't rebuilt. I read an article in the SF Chronicle last week that SF and many other cities are already offering housing, monetary aid, and assistance in finding permanent employment for those who wish to make the move for good, to large numbers of the refugees. Many of the cities had already calculated specific numbers of people that they could house and support for a year (although SF's mayor Newsome wouldn't specify how many SF would take). So it seems that there are places for many of these people to go, and money being offered to help them get established permanently in new places. Of course, I'm sure many don't wish to live in new areas, but sentimentality may not be the best way to make the decision on whether to rebuild.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:46 pm
I probably mentioned it before, dora, but cities more or less happen, and cities planned from the ground up don't seem to do so well. Wherever the port facilities are developed is going to draw large numbers of people. That is how I think it will happen, in spite of any planning or lack of planning.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 10:17 pm
Only a handful of the NO refugees that came into Albuquerque were still at the Convention Center just before the weekend. Most have been relocated in private homes or in their own apartments/houses and many have found jobs. I had the opportunity to visit with two young women (I'm guessing age 25-30?) who were among the refugees and they told me they did not plan to go back to NO. As they put it, there was nothing left there to bring them back. One family of eight, however, has already gone back.

I would guess if family units can be reconstructed there, the people will opt to return. Those with no strong permanent ties there will be less inclined to do so; and that will almost certainly be the case if they settle in their 'temporary' homes/jobs/schools etc. long enough for them to begin to feel comfortable.

I don't know that anybody has any demographics of who would fit into which group.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 11:21 pm
Quote:
Why Levee Breaches In New Orleans Were Late - Breaking News

By JOE HAGAN and JOSEPH T. HALLINAN
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

September 12, 2005; Page B1


On Sunday, Sept. 4, Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to explain President Bush's statement that the government couldn't have anticipated breaches in levees in New Orleans.

Mr. Chertoff talked about news coverage. "Well, I think if you look at what actually happened, I remember on Tuesday morning picking up newspapers, and I saw headlines, 'New Orleans Dodged The Bullet,' " he said. "Because if you recall, the storm moved to the east and then continued on and appeared to pass with considerable damage but nothing worse. It was on Tuesday that the levee -- may have been overnight Monday to Tuesday -- that the levee started to break."

But now it is known that major levee breaks occurred much earlier than that, starting in the morning of Monday, Aug. 29, the day Hurricane Katrina made landfall. Even as the storm veered off and many observers felt a sense of relief, the Industrial Canal levee in eastern New Orleans was giving way, and a rush of water swiftly submerged much of the Lower Ninth Ward and areas nearby, trapping thousands of people on rooftops and in attics. The 17th Street Canal levee also was breached early Monday, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers now believes, resulting in a slower-rising flood over a larger area.

Yet it wasn't until Tuesday that most people across the country, apparently including Mr. Chertoff, realized that any levees at all had been breached. Did media outlets get it wrong, as Mr. Chertoff claimed? Some did, some didn't.

A look at news reports of the events of Aug. 29 paints a picture of confusion, miscommunication and conflicting information among some government officials and news media. Several major news outlets, including Viacom Inc.'s CBS network and National Public Radio reported the breaking of the Industrial Canal and flooding on Monday, although not all of the reports acknowledged the extent of the devastation. The Wall Street Journal reported the Industrial Canal breach but no others.

The New Orleans office of the National Weather Service issued a flash flood warning at 8:14 a.m. Monday, saying "a levee breach occurred along the industrial canal at Tennessee Street. 3 to 8 feet of water is expected due to the breach." The media largely ignored it. The NWS's source of information was ham-radio transmissions by the Orleans Levee Board, a city-state agency. The 8:14 warning was the last one the local office issued before its communications were cut off. The statement was repeated only once more, at 10:52 a.m., by the National Weather Service office in Mobile, Ala.

Yet some government officials certainly appeared aware of a breach and said so on network television. At 7:33 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 29, Gov. Kathleen B. Blanco said on NBC, "I believe the water has breached the levee system, and is -- is coming in."

In its Aug. 29 online edition, the New Orleans Times-Picayune first reported a breach in the 17th Street Canal levee at 2 p.m., citing City Hall officials. No other major news outlets picked up that report. The newspaper's Web site also reported massive flooding near the Industrial Canal, writing that city officials "fielded at least 100 calls from people in distress in the Lower 9th Ward and eastern New Orleans." At about 2:30, it reported that the Industrial Canal had been breached, citing a National Weather Service report.

But in the hours immediately following the storm, some news organizations seemed to play down the damage in New Orleans. Introducing "World News Tonight" on Aug. 29, anchor Charles Gibson said: "In New Orleans, entire neighborhoods are underwater, but the levees held. The nightmare scenario of an entire city underwater did not happen." A spokeswoman for ABC, a unit of Walt Disney Co., had no comment.

Officials with the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers said last week that one canal breach came to the attention of corps personnel early Monday, Aug. 29 and another by midday. But the "fog of war" and "massive logistical problems with communications in the hours after the storm hit" created some confusion, said John Rickey, a spokesman for the corps.

No major newspaper printed a headline that literally said New Orleans "dodged a bullet," as Mr. Chertoff claimed. But some did say the city had escaped a direct hit -- which was true, but misleading -- while others focused on the levees along the Mississippi River. Meanwhile, it was the levees along canals extending south from Lake Pontchartrain that gave way.

"But the city managed to avoid the worst of the worst," read a front-page Washington Post article on Tuesday. "The Mississippi River did not breach New Orleans's famed levees to any serious degree, at least in part because Katrina veered 15 miles eastward of its predicted track just before landfall."

Leonard Downie Jr., the Washington Post's executive editor, says the paper's reporting was hampered by communications problems caused by the hurricane. "Unfortunately, where our communication was good was where it wasn't flooding," he says. "All the media were hampered by the fact that people on the ground didn't know what happened."

In the 5 p.m. news report on News Corp.'s Fox News Channel, anchor Shepard Smith informed viewers of "late word" that the levees had held. But a few minutes later, in the same program, a public-health expert told the channel the exact opposite: "Well, the National Weather Service are reporting that one of the levees was breached. ... People have been forced out onto the roofs of their homes."

Why the confusion? A Fox News spokeswoman says Mr. Smith was referring to levees near his "physical location," which was Bourbon Street in the French Quarter -- that is, levees on the Mississippi.

Many reporters, working on foot, isolated in higher, drier sections and focused on the survival of the city's tourist districts, were unaware of the unfolding disaster in poor neighborhoods of New Orleans. It wasn't until Monday evening that a private helicopter company, Helinet Helicopter Services of Los Angeles, began feeding the first aerial images of New Orleans to Fox News, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS. By early Tuesday morning, most major media had become aware of the awful extent of the destruction.

Confusion over the difference between a breach of a levee and a mere overrun may also be to blame. Locals have long known that an actual break in a levee would mean catastrophic and irreversible damage. But if flooding was only the result of water sloshing over the top of a levee, combined with 12 inches of rainfall and possible storm surges, then the situation could have been far less serious.

Some National Weather Service statements on Aug. 29 described levees in the Orleans and St. Bernard parishes as "overtopped." On its Aug. 29 "World News Tonight" broadcast, ABC News showed a computer-generated model of water pouring over a levee, but not breaking it. The wind-lashed correspondent in New Orleans, Jeffrey Kaufman, said, "It was simply the volume of rain that left many areas under water. ... This was not the apocalyptic hurricane that many had feared."


Source
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 08:41 am
i jsut can't imagine NO not being rebuilt. I wonder of tjhe House of Blues and the Voodo Garden (new avatar) are still standing?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.39 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 07:17:30