Re: New Orleans ......... from Wikipedia

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"TomCAt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There have been a couple of post here about the hurricane. People want
to blame Bush, Clinton, FDR, G Washington.

The blame belongs to A Baldwin Wood and all the civic, state, federal
agencies who came later. New Orleans was doomed because it should never
have existed in the first place. It is a "bathtub".

As much as Katrina is causing all kinds of problems, if it didn't happen
this year if would have happened maybe next or the year after that.

New Orleans should never be rebuilt. Period. Until the federal
government stops trying to beat mother nature, this mess will continue to
happen again and again.

<scarcasm>
And Homestead Florida lies in the path of Hurricane central so we
shouldn't have bothered with that, and San Francisco lies right on a huge
fault, that should have never been rebuilt all the way back in 1906 let
alone the several times after, and Washington and Oregon are surrounded by
volcanos, those places shouldn't be populated either. We should only act
on what should be, not what is.
</scarcasm>

================================================================================

Fred, look up the geography of New Orleans. It is 30 feet below sea level
in some areas.

Sarcasm may make you feel good, but it doesn't fix the problem. The city
of New Orleans is 30 feet below water level.

Quoted message said:

TomCAt reacted to a previous post with:

Quoted message said:

Fred, look up the geography of New Orleans. It is 30 feet below sea level
in some areas.

Sarcasm may make you feel good, but it doesn't fix the problem. The city
of New Orleans is 30 feet below water level.

The point is, lots of places shouldn't have been built. Should we
therefore just abandon them? Maybe in this case, we should. Or maybe
we should take a hard look at how we should protect it in the future.

Honestly, I'd love to hear where you think it is safe to build a big
city.

Austin

AustinMN said:

Honestly, I'd love to hear where you think it is safe to build a big
city.

Somewhere above sea level might be a good start. Notice from the news
photos that the French Quarter doesn't appear to have much water in it!
The places where people have been living for 400 years are apparently
the ones least hard-hit by the flooding. Imagine that.

The cause-and-effect here are pretty simple: build houses in flood
plains, and they're going to get flooded. Sooner or later.

CC

AustinMN said:

Honestly, I'd love to hear where you think it is safe to build a big
city.

Austin

When the towers were bombed in NYC, I gave up on finding a "safe"
place. What is the definition of "safe?" A place where nothing bad
can happen? I think that exists only in our dreams.

Maggie

"Dreaming permits each and every one of us to be quietly and safely
insane every night of our lives."
William Dement

AustinMN said:

TomCAt reacted to a previous post with:

Quoted message said:

Fred, look up the geography of New Orleans. It is 30 feet below sea level
in some areas.

Sarcasm may make you feel good, but it doesn't fix the problem. The city
of New Orleans is 30 feet below water level.

The point is, lots of places shouldn't have been built. Should we
therefore just abandon them? Maybe in this case, we should. Or maybe
we should take a hard look at how we should protect it in the future.

Honestly, I'd love to hear where you think it is safe to build a big
city.

Not in a flood plain is a good starter. We (residents of rural,
mountainous Arizona) used to quip that a river was a river in Phoenix
when it did not have water and a flood when it did. Phoenix is built
at the confluence of three rivers, rivers that are often dry. But in
wet years they flood, and three flooding rivers meeting at the point
where folks have freely built in their flood plains leads to obvious
and expensive results. In the (wet) winters of the late 70's and early
80's there were a number of occasions where freeways were underwater in
Phoenix, and one year Sun Devil Stadium at ASU started to split in two
and break as one end (built in the river bed) started to subside.
Lessons were not learned as building in those flood plains, and many
others across the country, proceeds. In Phoenix, the developers and
pro-development politicians argue the issue is that the (federal)
government was not building enough dams to manage nature. New Orleans,
like Phoenix, has been a disaster waiting to happen, a predictable
event. We can, at times in limited ways, manage the effects of nature.
On the grander scale, we cannot. It seems foolish to throw a lot of
money at building something we know will just cause problems down the
road. A few years ago when the upper Mississippi River flooded there
were areas where rebuilding was not permitted; sometimes that might be
the prudent course.

- rick

"TomCAt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred, look up the geography of New Orleans. It is 30 feet below sea level
in some areas.

Sarcasm may make you feel good, but it doesn't fix the problem. The city
of New Orleans is 30 feet below water level.

Well, many a city or town in the world, including the west is built in bad
topography one way or another.
Naples - volcano
San Francisco/Los Angeles - major earthquake fault line
Tokyo - earthequakes again
London - sea level rise could flood it (Thames Barrier having to be raised
more and more frequently)
New York - on an island - under threat from sea-level rise
East coast of America generally - under threat from mega tsunami (Canary
Islands volcano on the move, mega tsunami is a possibility)
Netherlands - much at or below sea-level - threats from storm surges and
sea-level rise
Parts of East Anglia (UK) at or below sea-level. Another 1953 type storm
could cause major flooding - also under threat from sea-level rise
Mexico City - volcano nearby.
Istanbul - major earthquake zone again

I sure there's a lot more than that too.

Cheers, helen s

wafflycat' waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk said:

"TomCAt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred, look up the geography of New Orleans. It is 30 feet below sea level
in some areas.

Sarcasm may make you feel good, but it doesn't fix the problem. The city
of New Orleans is 30 feet below water level.

Well, many a city or town in the world, including the west is built in bad
topography one way or another.

<snipped the list>

Quoted message said:

I sure there's a lot more than that too.

But you simply do NOT build a modern city in a river delta on an area
that's significantly under sea level. It's really never been a
question of "if", but of "when". Now we know.

Sure there are other "bad locations" - in the path of frequent
hurricanes or on faults, but NOT in an area where a fairly probably
incident is going to make it look like the top half of Venice...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What
ANYONE was thinking when building framed wood houses in SE Florida is
beyond me. Many of the two-story houses are masonry on the bottom and
wood on top, so you can expect to lose at least the top floor.

What WERE they thinking?

They were thinking about the huge profits they'd make in the real estate
boom in southeast Florida. Their avarice blinded them to the lessons taught
them by the three little pigs.

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

AustinMN said:

Honestly, I'd love to hear where you think it is safe to build a big
city.

Somewhere above sea level might be a good start. Notice from the news
photos that the French Quarter doesn't appear to have much water in it!
The places where people have been living for 400 years are apparently
the ones least hard-hit by the flooding. Imagine that.

The cause-and-effect here are pretty simple: build houses in flood
plains, and they're going to get flooded. Sooner or later.

Build houses in earthquake zones, there will be an earthquake. Build houses
in a tornado zone, there will be a tornado. Build houses in the desert,
there won't be any water. build houses in the north, there will be
blizzards. Build hoses in the mountains, there will be landslides.

I didn't ask where not to build. I asked where to build. The point (which
you clearly missed) is that there is no safe place.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Mark Hickey wrote

Quoted message said:

wafflycat' waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk said:

Well, many a city or town in the world, including the west is built in bad
topography one way or another.

<snipped the list>

Quoted message said:

I sure there's a lot more than that too.

But you simply do NOT build a modern city in a river delta on an area
that's significantly under sea level. It's really never been a
question of "if", but of "when". Now we know.

Sure there are other "bad locations" - in the path of frequent
hurricanes or on faults, but NOT in an area where a fairly probably
incident is going to make it look like the top half of Venice...

Another one misses the point.

Austin

AustinMN said:

Build houses in earthquake zones, there will be an earthquake. Build houses
in a tornado zone, there will be a tornado. Build houses in the desert,
there won't be any water. build houses in the north, there will be
blizzards. Build hoses in the mountains, there will be landslides.

I didn't ask where not to build. I asked where to build. The point (which
you clearly missed) is that there is no safe place.

I didn't miss the point. In any environment, fault zone, desert,
mountains, swamp, what have you, there are _sustainable_ ways for
people to live. Which is why I mentioned the French Quarter in New
Orleans, which is even now still dry. (Check it out for yourself with
the 2 September Ikonos image at spaceimaging.com). The problem is not
that people live in these areas, the problem is that development in
many, many places is being done in an unsustainable way. Think
flood-irrigated lawns in the sprawling suburbs around Phoenix, or huge
tracts of cul-de-sacs cut out of fire-prone forests around Denver, or
energy-intensive exurban sprawl around just about any city you might
like to mention in the Midwest. My understanding is that in the case of
NO, there used to be wetlands which had the capacity to absorb much of
the effect of a storm surge, thus protecting the city. But those were
all paved over in an orgy shortsighted suburban development. So what
might have been a serious, but survivable problem for the city (a big
hurricane) turned into a catastrophe. Building the city right back up
the way it used to be would be really, really stupid.

Bad things will always happen. That doesn't mean you throw up your
hands and say there is nothing you can do to plan for and mitigate
their effect.

CC

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:42:57 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But you simply do NOT build a modern city in a river delta on an area
that's significantly under sea level. It's really never been a
question of "if", but of "when". Now we know.

Sure there are other "bad locations" - in the path of frequent
hurricanes or on faults, but NOT in an area where a fairly probably
incident is going to make it look like the top half of Venice...

[censored]. NO is a little more inconveniently situated than that, but you
actually build plenty of stuff in a river delta that's significantly under
sea level. That describes the 4 largest cities in my country and their
surrounding area with a collective easy 70-80% of the 16 million
population. The problem with NO is bad maintenance of the dikes, not
enough money to make them higher as necessary, and that there's a major
freaking river right next to the lake flooding dangers.

Jasper

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:22:04 -0500, "AustinMN" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ask the Dutch. Huge areas of their country are below sea level.

About half, with all the big cities and 70-80% of the population. I live
above sea-level mainly because I'm on the third floor (counting ground as
first), although I don't think we'd get much more than 50 cm if magically
all the dikes broke.

Quoted message said:

It's actually quite simple. Make the sides of the bathtub high enough.

Also, sufficient pumping capacity. On many polders, the big old steam
engine pumps are still maintained for emergency use, and where available
due to museum functions even the windmills still pump in emergencies.

Jasper

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure there are other "bad locations" - in the path of frequent
hurricanes or on faults, but NOT in an area where a fairly probably
incident is going to make it look like the top half of Venice...

[censored]. NO is a little more inconveniently situated than that, but you
actually build plenty of stuff in a river delta that's significantly under
sea level. That describes the 4 largest cities in my country and their
surrounding area with a collective easy 70-80% of the 16 million
population. The problem with NO is bad maintenance of the dikes, not
enough money to make them higher as necessary, and that there's a major
freaking river right next to the lake flooding dangers.

If you have engineering and construction talent and adequate $$$, you can
build a safe, livable city damn near anywhere.

It's becoming rapidly clear that although it was known improvements to New
Orleans' levee system were necessary to be able to survive a Cat 4 or 5
hurricane, actually doing something about it was not a priority.

Chris Neary
[email hidden]

"Prize the doubt, low kinds exist without"
- Inscription at Ramsmeyer Hall, Ohio State University

AustinMN said:

Mark Hickey wrote

Quoted message said:

wafflycat' waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk said:

Well, many a city or town in the world, including the west is built in bad
topography one way or another.

<snipped the list>

Quoted message said:

I sure there's a lot more than that too.

But you simply do NOT build a modern city in a river delta on an area
that's significantly under sea level. It's really never been a
question of "if", but of "when". Now we know.

Sure there are other "bad locations" - in the path of frequent
hurricanes or on faults, but NOT in an area where a fairly probably
incident is going to make it look like the top half of Venice...

Another one misses the point.

What point would that be? None of the other cities on the list
(AFAIK) would be virtually destroyed by something that's very likely
to happen during any given year. Shaken up by an earthquake? Coastal
damage by a hurricane? Sure. Destroyed? Nope.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Chris Neary said:

If you have engineering and construction talent and adequate $$$, you can
build a safe, livable city damn near anywhere.

In this case, I believe that should be "dam near anywhere." <g>

Jasper Janssen said:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:42:57 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But you simply do NOT build a modern city in a river delta on an area
that's significantly under sea level. It's really never been a
question of "if", but of "when". Now we know.

Sure there are other "bad locations" - in the path of frequent
hurricanes or on faults, but NOT in an area where a fairly probably
incident is going to make it look like the top half of Venice...

[censored]. NO is a little more inconveniently situated than that, but you
actually build plenty of stuff in a river delta that's significantly under
sea level. That describes the 4 largest cities in my country and their
surrounding area with a collective easy 70-80% of the 16 million
population. The problem with NO is bad maintenance of the dikes, not
enough money to make them higher as necessary, and that there's a major
freaking river right next to the lake flooding dangers.

I'd say history is on my side here... the system that "protected" NO
was simply not up to the task in the event a category 4-5 hurricane
scored a direct hit. Could the system have been dramatically upgraded
to survive such an event? Yep. Would it have been economically
feasible to build and maintain? Apparently not.

I'm not aware of the your local conditions, but doubt that any of your
area is subject to huge storms with 150mph (240km/h) winds that would
produce a 20-30 foot (6-9m) storm surge. Correct me with historical
fact if I'm mistaken...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

I'd say history is on my side here... the system that "protected" NO
was simply not up to the task in the event a category 4-5 hurricane
scored a direct hit. Could the system have been dramatically upgraded
to survive such an event? Yep. Would it have been economically
feasible to build and maintain? Apparently not.

I'm not exactly /sure/ that economic feasibility is established simply
by understanding whether or not one party chose to fund it.

Neil Brooks said:

Mark Hickey said:

I'd say history is on my side here... the system that "protected" NO
was simply not up to the task in the event a category 4-5 hurricane
scored a direct hit. Could the system have been dramatically upgraded
to survive such an event? Yep. Would it have been economically
feasible to build and maintain? Apparently not.

I'm not exactly /sure/ that economic feasibility is established simply
by understanding whether or not one party chose to fund it.

Of course not - I'm not aware of anyone who proposed enough spending
to actually upgrade the system to withstand something of the magnitude
of Katrina - and this going back many decades.

The whole concept of New Orleans was built around building on the
"high ground" (notice that very little of the French Quarter was
damaged). The REAL problem is development of the low-lying areas with
the very real possibility of them being totally wiped out with a
breach in the system.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame