Would it be smarter to turn New Orleans into Venice Italy? (work, between)

[Bluesbabe]

I am a firm believer that the earth has been in constant change since its inception, and it's doing it again. Geographically it is trying to shift and change. For the past several thousand years it has stablized enough to form old AND new established cultures, not always with common sense.

No, the 9th Ward should NEVER have been developed for housing. However, that didn't occur until the 1900's; early New Orleans was built on higher ground. I DO think houses in New Orleans should be constructed so that they can "float" during floods. Levees like the ones in Denmark (or the Netherlands?) would be well worth the costs.

And it's like someone else mentioned earlier, San Francisco will always remain unstable because of its earthquakes. However, keep in mind that there are other less-prone areas in the US that could get hit hard with disasters unexpectedly. Here in the northwest, when the time comes for our own big earthquake, we will be in bigger poop than SF.

I don't think the originator's idea of a city in water is that far off-course. We probably wouldn't see it our lifetime, but in order to preserve what NOLA has through future disasters, that could very well end up being the new change.

[MetroBTR]

Originally Posted by CamaroGuy

The title "Paris of America" belongs to San Francisco!!!

uh..no, not so much

[MetroBTR]

Originally Posted by triton1

perhaps it would also have made more sense to just build New Orleans on higher ground.

Believe it or not, back in 1723 the capitol of French Louisiana was moved to New Orleans from Biloxi because of New Orleans was so much less vulnerable to storm activity. As a matter of fact, that is still the case today. Compare the oldest section of Biloxi after Katrina to the oldest section of New Orleans after Katrina and notice how the oldest section of New Orleans was barely touched by this massive storm while Biloxi was nearly wiped of the face of the earth. New Orleans wasn't in that bad of shape until they started building north of Claiborne in the twentieth century.

[MissCookieMoses]

Why doesn't anyone seem to realize that it's not just the east bank of Orleans Parish that is below sea level??

Are we to say that the residents of Chalmette, Meraux, Violet, Arabi, Metairie, Kenner, Gretna, Terrytown, etc. shouldn't rebuild or that they should've never been settled in the first place??

90% of the people I talk to are truly aware of the the fact that it's a lot more involved than they might think. The media has made it look like the Lower Nine was the only part of the city that was settled in an unlikely area. Why wasn't Lakeview or Metairie put to question? This infuriates me, as I personally think it is an issue of poverty, race, and social class.

I present my evidence:
New Orleans' elevation

Map of New Orleans Area

As you can clearly see, the entire area has parts below sea level. The only "safe" areas would be those hugging the mighty Mississippi. Why, then, have so many middle to upper class people settled in these low-lying areas? Why should they rebuild?

[Bluesbabe]

MissCookieMoses is right.

When we went to New Orleans last year we rented a car, and we drove around the affected parts of the city AND it's burbs, and it was a learning experience for us. The "town" of Arabi, gone. Chalmette, practically all gone. But there were a lot of mighty NICE (spendier) neighborhoods towards Lake Pontchartrain that were all gutted out. The brick facades gave a glimpse of the home life that had been there. These were around Metairie, Bucktown, and another district whose name I can't think of.

There is a wonderful interactive link in one of your websites there that shows you how Katrina began and ended. I will come back later this evening and post that link in here so you can see. Need to find it first.

[Bluesbabe]

Map of New Orleans Area

As you can clearly see, the entire area has parts below sea level. The only "safe" areas would be those hugging the mighty Mississippi. Why, then, have so many middle to upper class people settled in these low-lying areas? Why should they rebuild?[/quote]

My belief is that these areas (ALL of them that are below sea-level) probably should never have been developed in the first place. But they were. And because they were, New Orleans has an obligation to maintain what they created as best as they can. It probably won't ever be quite the same, though. As I mention in earlier reply, ferocious earth changes does just that ~ changes. I've a hunch that in another few hundred years North America (and elsewhere) will be geographically different than it is now.

I also think New Orleans-Louisiana-Civil Corp of Eng-Federal have an obligation to obtain the exhorbitant funds necessary to rebuild levees better, stronger and safer than they were.

[Bluesbabe]

Okay, here is that site I promised to send. The Continuous Animated option moves quicker; however, I recomment the Interactive one, because it explains the steps of the storm in captions. This is very informative for those who don't live in Louisiana. I shared it with friends here (Oregon) and they were admittedly surprised to learn that it all happened in different sequence than they thought.

http://www.nola.com/katrina/graphics/credits.swf

[alligatorboy]

I think this is a great idea. But I guess that would mean everything would have to be re-built to have everything above the water. Does anyone know how the buildings in Venice don't sink?

[alligatorboy]

Originally Posted by Bluesbabe

I am a firm believer that the earth has been in constant change since its inception, and it's doing it again. Geographically it is trying to shift and change. For the past several thousand years it has stablized enough to form old AND new established cultures, not always with common sense.

No, the 9th Ward should NEVER have been developed for housing. However, that didn't occur until the 1900's; early New Orleans was built on higher ground. I DO think houses in New Orleans should be constructed so that they can "float" during floods. Levees like the ones in Denmark (or the Netherlands?) would be well worth the costs.

And it's like someone else mentioned earlier, San Francisco will always remain unstable because of its earthquakes. However, keep in mind that there are other less-prone areas in the US that could get hit hard with disasters unexpectedly. Here in the northwest, when the time comes for our own big earthquake, we will be in bigger poop than SF.

I don't think the originator's idea of a city in water is that far off-course. We probably wouldn't see it our lifetime, but in order to preserve what NOLA has through future disasters, that could very well end up being the new change.

The levees you mentioned are in The Netherlands.

[Candiloulou]

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

Incredible idea. I live in New Orleans and it's quite boring since Katrina. We need something new to bring it back to life.