Would it be smarter to turn New Orleans into Venice Italy? (Ida: construction, tornado)

[SunnyKayak]

I was watching of course some post Katrina special on TV and of course as usual it always about the problems and not the solutions.

So I was thinking wow New Orleans almost sounds like Venice with all the canals and topography in relation to all the lakes, river and ocean nearby why spend this money on flood walls but instead let the water in and build around it. The whole city doesnt have to be underwater but maybe the areas that are struggling to revive.

It would put a new meaning to New Orleans and be the most romantic city in the usa with all the tourist coming in wanting to ride gondolas

[Vampgrrl]

No.

No.

No.

No.

[CiCi23]

Actually, I think that sounds like a cool idea.

[Vampgrrl]

New Orleans is still a city, not a playground.

Venice is a museum and playground for the rich.

I actually live in New Orleans now...no, that is a terrible idea..and not practical. venice is like it is because housing sits on islands. If you flooded NOLA, much of the city would just be underwater...NO.

[Uc2it]

You may find this question humorous, but 200,000 people that lost everything and their culture of 200+ years are gone. There were many deaths too. It's ridiculous to flood New Orleans to produce Venice. Lets abandon the West Coast because of earthquakes. The middle US, because of Tornado's, and the East Coast because of Hurricane threats. Then there's forest fires and the rest. So, we've narrowed it down to Idaho! New Orleans is over 300 years old, and we provide the nation with 30% of it's energy. Let alone our port. So, if you don't want to help pay for Louisiana's mess, pay $6.00 for gas.

[CiCi23]

I live in Louisiana. I was not trying to be humurous with my comment that I may towards the orginal whom posted this question. If you think about it the city will be under water in years to come due to it being below sea level, scientist say it will be gone. This city can't even keep their deceased under water, they float to the top when it rains..It seems logical to rebuild in a way that would adapt tp the land and people so theat they may be safer and less destroyed God forbid if somethinglike that happend again!!!

[SBCmetroguy]

Originally Posted by Vampgrrl

New Orleans is still a city, not a playground.

Venice is a museum and playground for the rich.

I actually live in New Orleans now...no, that is a terrible idea..and not practical. venice is like it is because housing sits on islands. If you flooded NOLA, much of the city would just be underwater...NO.

Clearly the original poster had the best of intentions, and while your initial response was childish at best this one is much better.

Still, it could be achieved. You're not talking about as much city as you were before, because most of the city is useless as of right now and probably will be for a long time. The focus would be on the downtown areas, and it's not exactly the worst idea I've ever heard. Beats the idea of scrapping the city altogether, doesn't it?

By the way, underneath its facade Venice is a real city as well.

[Wr4927X]

You know Venice is sinking right???

I do think you'll get your wish one day...only with no gondolas.

[SBCmetroguy]

Originally Posted by Uc2it

You may find this question humorous, but 200,000 people that lost everything and their culture of 200+ years are gone. There were many deaths too. It's ridiculous to flood New Orleans to produce Venice. Lets abandon the West Coast because of earthquakes. The middle US, because of Tornado's, and the East Coast because of Hurricane threats. Then there's forest fires and the rest. So, we've narrowed it down to Idaho! New Orleans is over 300 years old, and we provide the nation with 30% of it's energy. Let alone our port. So, if you don't want to help pay for Louisiana's mess, pay $6.00 for gas.

This is a ridiculous response. When did the original poster mention abandoning the city? It was recommended that the city give into the inevitable and flood itself in order to recreate itself.

The West Coast region, the Heartland region, etc are different situations altogether. Had this occurred there, the same question likely would have been raised. To my knowledge, however, in the United States only New Orleans has ever dealt with a flood of this magnitude so it truly is a different situation.

The suggestion was more along the lines of adaptation rather than abandonment. The West Coast region has adapted by putting into place security measures and implementing construction guidelines to help curb damage caused by earthquakes. In the Midwest, aka Tornado Alley, people build shelters to keep themselves safe from storms.

In New Orleans if you were to build shelters underground you wouldn't have to worry about nature, because you'd drown yourself. We already know that the levee system is sub-standard and likely will not ever be repaired to an acceptable level. So then the question becomes, why not adapt? Adaptation to the water that surrounds that city - it's not such a bad thought. If anything, it's a decent compromise to the mere notion of abandoning such an important national treasure.

[Vampgrrl]

One report presented to Congress says that most areas in New Orleans have stopped sinking. If I could find it again I would...the Times Picayune carried it. And there is much of the city around the river area that is at or above sea level.

Only 2 big threats to New Orleans are wetland loss and crime.