Posted on 09/02/2005 12:51:35 PM PDT by orionblamblam
If New Orleans is rebuilt jsut where it is, it will always risk flooding. Well... how about they work *with* that? Instead of streets, have water-filled canals. Boats instead of cars. Homes and buildings on stone pillars to get 'em above the water, but surrounded *by* water.
Heck, might even spur on development of practical amphbious family cars.
A future disaster area, if NO is rebuilt where it currently sits. We see eye to eye on this.
Katrina wasn't a worse-case hurricane for NO, and look at what she did. A 'cane heading toward NO due northwest would only have to be a Cat 3 for truly Biblical destruction.
My thoughts wander to what New Orleans would be if we left it (the inner city proper). For me it's hard to imagine a city without suburbs, which of course is what suffered the most damage. Unless you want to take a gamble rebuilding in a water bowl, (unfortunately now a literal toilet bowl), what can you do to house the population that works there unless you build higher and higher?
Would California type codes be enough?
> Dry land surrounded by what?
Water. Just like Honolulu, just smaller.
How much of Honolulu is under sea level, and what are the odds of it being in the path of a category 5?
I of course can't stop people wanting to rebuild there, and even President Bush fanned the flames of rebuilding yesterday, (plus I know how it feels to give Fate the finger).
Que sera sera....
Gondola-by shootings.
And call it Lake Katrina
That is the ONLY solution for rebuilding that makes any kind of sense to me. As an Arkansas FReeper pointed out, "We've got all the rock you could ever need right over here." If it were done development by development, it could be done. I am beginning to think that ultimately the insurance industry will put the kybosh on any plans to rebuild. If Katrina has shown anything, it has certainly shown that the former "build" of NO is now virtually uninsurable.
Going higher is what I touched on with the California type building codes. I'm just a layman, wondering about high rises in 100 mph plus winds. (What I understand of it all, if a building can be designed to sway, it'll probably hold up in terrific winds?).
People should be encouraged to seriously consider relocation. No, it is not easy to leave an area where one has spent their entire life. Neither is burying the dead.
> How much of Honolulu is under sea level,
Non sequitur with regardsd to the question at hand.
Shouldn't that be "Elderly Man River?"
Honolulu is a cesspit. One of the ugliest places I have ever been. It has a constant cloud of smog that hang over it all the time and is trashy as all getout.
Okay, so it doesn't follow why Honolulu was brought up at all.
None of the highrises in downtown N.O. had any significant problems, and it was a cat5 which means winds were as high as they will ever get.
Read it in context.
> I answered it in context.
Incorrect. Attend:
1: *Parts* of it are gone. The skyscrapers, Superdome, etc. are all standing structurally more or less intact on dry land.
2: Dry land surrounded by what?
3: Water. Just like Honolulu, just smaller.
4: How much of Honolulu is under sea level, and what are the odds of it being in the path of a category 5?
---
Note the original statement that parts of NO are still on dry land, surrounded by water. This is not only true for Honolulu, but every other city in the known universe, startign with Manhattan and including Phoenix. The dry land the city may be sitting on may well be rather extensive in size before you get to the surrounding water, but the fact remains.
The parts of NO that are below sea level are... below water. Those not below sea level are not below water. And thus those parts remain relatively sound and functional. Abandoning them to move up river a few miles woudl be financially silly.
Look, moron, you brought up Honolulu, I answered it. I don't know what your problem is, but you'll simply have to find someone else to unload on.
See ya around....
> Look, moron
Find somewhere else to be.
The History channel had a few shows about the WTC yesterday, one showing the design, actual construction, et al, and Yamaguchi(?) designed the towers to withstand 150 mph winds, so there's one answer to my questions.
All the excavation they took elsewhere, to another part of the island, and it's now one of the richest pieces of real estate in the world (Battery Park). We know that like it or not they're gonna rebuild New Orleans - might as well fill the bowl as best they can, it seems to me, though for all I know it might be a task on the order of the Hoover Dam or Panama Canal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.