Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

When everything's drained, should there be efforts made to rebuild New Orleans? From what I understand, the salt water's going to destroy most of what it touches... what about building that weren't torn apart, but were in salt water? What if we rebuild, only to have another large hurricane go through the area?

I'm pretty ignorant on rebuilding on such a large scale anyway... if anyone's more knowledgable about the practical implications of rebulding, please enlighten me!

The same was thought after 9/11 , I don't know if it is a good idea or not.
I guess its best to let the people decide, but with global warming accelerating, I would have thought the chances of a similar event being likely.

Jensa said:

When everything's drained, should there be efforts made to rebuild New Orleans? From what I understand, the salt water's going to destroy most of what it touches... what about building that weren't torn apart, but were in salt water? What if we rebuild, only to have another large hurricane go through the area?

I'm pretty ignorant on rebuilding on such a large scale anyway... if anyone's more knowledgable about the practical implications of rebulding, please enlighten me!

Click to expand...

I don't know if there is anyone around that can give an informed answer to that question Jensa. I don't think that we in America have ever been tasked with an undertaking like this. It is a huge city we are talking about here and I think that it would be comparable to our role in hte rebuilding of Berlin and other cities in Germany after WWII. I definitely think that the first thing we would have to do is look at a the engineering behind protecting the city from such an event again. We may need to call the Netherlands to ask how they keep the sea back. Once that is done, if we can find the right way to do it, it is just a matter of time and money. I do think that we owe it to our fellow citizens in New Orleans to try to find a way to do it, if it can be done. But, honestly, I don't know if it can given the enormity of the undertaking.

I think it is time that the World took stock of the problem of the ever escalating dangers caused by Global Warming - a subject in which, it seems as if, GW doesn't want to be involved.

Even if New Orleans is rebuit, the damage done to any fero-concrete by the exposure to sea water will render that unstable and dangerous; the rust will crack the concrete. Every building would not only need to be rebuilt, but any traces of the prvious building would have to be clleared first - and, IMO, to rebuild on the same site would be foolhardy.

It's New Orleans!! The people will choose. But I don't see why they wouldn't. Natural disasters come and go. Buildings go down, and humanity has always built up once again.

~Victor

It should be rebuilt in a different area unless they can come up with a method of preventing such a disaster from occuring again.

I think it should be rebuilt, but who is going to pay for it?

Most of the buildings will have to be deconstructed because of all the structural damage to the foundation. Hundreds of millions of tons of concrete and rubble will have to be carried out and recycled for a year or two. Even with this and all the other complicated factors involved, there is still the issue that New Orleans might not be seeing any skyscrapers soon because of the soil foundations are probably saturated to the point where they will not support anything excessively heavy for a good while.

My understanding is that New Orleans was originally above sea level. It has been slowly sinking during the years. I have never been there so I have no idea how large of a city it is or what it is like. I can't see it ever becoming swamp land, but perhaps it is time to build a new kind of New Orleans.

Estimates are that there won't be any rebuilding works for at least 12 months.It's going to take a minumum of 3 months before people will even be able to look at going back...some sections won't even be completely drained for 80 days. Not to mention what the toxic soup that's sitting around the place may actually do to the ground; not only in terms of destabilisation, but also with regard to toxicity. There's a good chance the soil in some areas may be too toxic to allow people to rebuild on it. Then, experts say there's going to be a toxic slurry sitting off the coast in the long term.

So far as I can see, it's not a question whether New Orleans should be rebuilt or not... It will be rebuilt. No doubt about it, that's just the way we do things.

it must be rebuilt, even if we must move a mountain..(of dirt)..

new orleans is in the center of a bowl, eventually, the water will overflow again and destroy the city... again. I think it would be wiser in the long run to relocate New Orleans to somewhere above ground, it would be very foolish to rebuild it on the same spot.

As I understand it, the original section of the city is not only largely still standing, it's dry. Everything that was flooded was originally marshland.Perhaps people should consider that building on what is naturally boggy ground isn't really that good an idea.

Investors in the area will carry a lot of the weight of that decision. All metro's that come into existance came about due to nearby by rural farming/ranching and/or industrial interest. Entertainment is generally (usually ) a by-product of that cities induction. A cost benefit analysis conducted by various enterprises will determine the number and amount of re-investments by the companies in contemplation.

It isn't a black and white decision of build all the way or don't build but more a shade of gray of building based on each investors (company) level of committment.

My prediction is that the city will be rebuilt but not near to the level it once was. The companies that will reinvest will either do so for emotional reasons or those with smaller overhead to operate as they will have less risk. The entertainment aspect will dimish greatly due to the strong negative shift in the economics of the area and the lost time of rebuilding the entertainment industry in that city. It is just a prediction though.

New cities spring up entertainment districts based on the economics of their religion and I think in this case infostructure will carry a larger liablity than tradtion can wrangle with.

new orleans is in the center of a bowl, eventually, the water will overflow again and destroy the city... again. I think it would be wiser in the long run to relocate New Orleans to somewhere above ground, it would be very foolish to rebuild it on the same spot.

Click to expand...

And that bowl is center 10 feet under sea level. I am thankfull that when the levis were destroyed, it was during a disaster and most were evacuated. That would have been terrible if they would have given out during an ordinary day when the city is filled with residents and tourist.
I think if they rebuild, they should build in the opposite direction. Start in the French quarter, then go the direction that is above sea level.

...and nobody has mentioned that maybe they can rebuild NO to handle such natural events. When Chicago was rebuilt, it was the best thing to happen to the city, when San Fransisco was rebuilt it was the best thing to happen to it, when Oahu Hawaii was rebuilt, it was the best thing to happen to it.

Maybe they cant just use your cheapo crapo materials, but you will see, it happens everytime something like this occurs. Great architects and builders alike work together to create something wonderful. Nothing is nature proof, but who says we shouldn't try?
The people of Louisiana will figgure this out, and it will mysteriously come together. Leave the politics out of it, if everyone wants to fight for what they think, nothing happens. Just let the darn place have its quest with father time.

wow...i'm glad i got to see the old tourist attractions before this happened. never gonna be the same again i think.

robtex said:

Investors in the area will carry a lot of the weight of that decision. All metro's that come into existance came about due to nearby by rural farming/ranching and/or industrial interest. Entertainment is generally (usually ) a by-product of that cities induction. A cost benefit analysis conducted by various enterprises will determine the number and amount of re-investments by the companies in contemplation.

It isn't a black and white decision of build all the way or don't build but more a shade of gray of building based on each investors (company) level of committment.

My prediction is that the city will be rebuilt but not near to the level it once was. The companies that will reinvest will either do so for emotional reasons or those with smaller overhead to operate as they will have less risk. The entertainment aspect will dimish greatly due to the strong negative shift in the economics of the area and the lost time of rebuilding the entertainment industry in that city. It is just a prediction though.

New cities spring up entertainment districts based on the economics of their religion and I think in this case infostructure will carry a larger liablity than tradtion can wrangle with.

Click to expand...

That's a good point - which makes me think immediately of insurance; if I was an actuarian, no way would I insure a building rebuilt below sea level, in the same area.