Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

Why does the entire city have to be rebuilt?

Besides that I live in a (suburbian village of a) city which was built in 1185 [quite some hundreds of not some thousands of cities were built during the medieval ages] about 350 cities, towns and villages have been re-built in The Netherlands after the flood of 1953.

By the way, a private businessman from San Diego
chartered a commercial plane, spent $ 250,000 of his
own funds, and offered the flood victims a stay in San Diego. Around 90 people took his offer and arrived last night
in San Diego, where they probably will stay for good, as
there is nothing to come home to.

New Orleans residents should be moved and integrated
to other parts of the country, since there won't be any
employment opportunities in New Orleans for a long time
to come, the infrastructure has completely dissolved.

That was another wonderful story of humankindness and sacrifice. I'm glad to hear each one of them.

Noddy, the entire city doesn't have to be rebuilt. I'm sure there are portions that require repairs ranging from minor to major and others where the devestation is more complete. Perhaps there is even a neighborhood or two that was unscathed. The size of a city is determined by the needs of the people who live there, the availability or buildable land and the infrastructure to support the populace. It certainly doesn't all have to be rebuilt and, of the areas that do need rebuilding, it doesn't all have to happen at once.

Thanks, Walter. "Doing it better next time", as was done in The Netherlands, is certainly a better mantra than "Tough luck, Charlie."

Actually, they started the famous "Delta project" parallel to the immiate help, the very same day.

A little off topic but anyway - Federal Express does not insure for loss incurred from a natural disaster. My packages at the FedX facility in Kenner (by airport) may or maynot be ok - will have to wait weeks if not longer to find out.

Duplicate

I agree with nearly all of the analysis that Asherman has put forward - excepting only a few points. Economics is not a zero sum game. Massive and costly undertakings by people, ranging from wars to the reconstruction of cities, very often stimulate productive economic activity that would otherwise not have occurred, resulting in more general wealth than was expended in the project (often though at the uncounted depletion of natural resources). WWII was a good example. The costs of the war and the government debt accumulated through it were enormous. However, the country entered the war in the trailing torpor of the Great Depression and emerged from it into the longest sustained period of economic growth and prosperity in our history. On the down side we seriously depleted our petroleum reserves - the war, by all the Western Allies was fought with American oil

The specific problem of New Orleans must be evaluated in the context of the larger issue of the management of the Mississippi river. For generations we have served the interests of commerce, cities, and agriculture by attempting to confine a wild river which historically altered its course on time scale of decades and centuries, into a fixed course with levees and flow control measures designed to promote predictable use of adjacent lands, fixed boundaries for the river; and continuous water depts for boat and barge traffic, The results are very complex, but they involve higher flow velocities,; greater storm surges; and reduced deposits of silt in the delta. These factors have affected cities and land use throughout the length of the river.

Some here may recall the governments decision about eight years ago to curtail future efforts to compensate people for property in the river flood plain for damage resulting from floods. This was a result of reoccurring floods and reconstruction in the same areas in the Mid West. This principle could be applied to new Orleans as well - however I believe it is unlikely.

On the other side of the coin, New orleans and the surrounding delta has in part been the victim of some of the flood control measures taken far upriver. The Mississippi delta in particular is disappearing due to reduced deposits of silt. These enormous wetlands are nature's filtration and treatment systems for the pollutants and excess nutrients poured into the Gulf by the river system. We destroy them at our ultimate peril.

A complex story filled with contradictions and competing interests.

I believe the city will be rebuilt. mostly because the government (properly) lacks the power to prevent it. If you accept that as fact then the conclusion is we should focus our efforts on doing the job wisely and well. A new balance must be struck with respect to the management of the whole Mississippi River. The lowest lying regions of New orleans nearest Lake Ponchatrain should probably not be rebuilt. The local community should either tax itself to construct adequate stormwater control measures and exercise its zoning powers wisely to be sure the two are self consistent. Pumping stations and water outflow systems should have reliable backup power supplies and should be designed against current understanding of the risks before us.

This sounds offtopic but actually isn't - re wetland rebuilding being crucial

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/05/MNG69EIHUK1.DTL

I'm warmed to hear that story, Jane. Anyone who doesn't wish to return should, by all means, be encouraged to resettle and start over. I don't think that would apply to too many. I might be wrong, I haven't spoken to them individually, and it's too soon to take their pulse on staying and rebuilding.

If we do not offer our full support to the rebuilding of New Orleans, we are making a statement to the people of the earthquake zone of the west coast, the hurricane zone of the southeast, and the tornado zone of the plains and midwest that we will no longer support the rebuilding of your communities in the event of a natural disaster. If, after turning our backs on the people of New Orleans, we decide in the future to rebuild San Fransisco, Miami, or Oklahoma City if need be, there will be hell to pay. There's no turning back from this decision. We are either a nation of individuals who will stand by each other or we aren't, and God help us if we aren't.

Re: Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

Yes.


Why not?

Thomas
Why not say you. Is that your considered opinion?

Frankly I don't see how the question needs much considering. You don't refuse to eat today because tomorrow you'll be hungry again. You don't refuse to save a drowning man because in thirty years he'll die anyway. You don't throw away 300 years worth of national heritage just because there will be another Katrina in fifty years. That's all the considering I need to do.

But of course, I'm not the kind of pot who would call a kettle black for thinking heretical thoughts.

Thank you, Thomas!

Throwaway/disposable society?

Well, I see the case for not reusing every Kleenex ever made -- but we are talking about New Or-fücking-leans here. Come on!

Brooklyn on the other hand ... I'm sure au will be happy to peacefully go the way of the Dodgers whenever Al Quaeda gets through with it. Right au? Not much point in rebuilding that.

very interesting link not sure if I have seen it posted yet
Link

Elevation map for New Orleans
map

Thomas
How much of that national heritage you speak of can be restored. The city has been destroyed along with it's treasures. What is left standing will have to be razed. Will New Orleans if it is rebuilt be the New Orleans you speak of or a completly new city?