New Orleans and San Francisco (Baton Rouge, Lafayette: apartments, wage, living)

[Vampgrrl]

Well until the levees are built correctly...

Plus certain areas that flooded, that are struggling to come back like NO East...should have been left alone and not allowed, but that would have created racial issues in New Orleans.

Point being, the sliver by the River is the future and (the past) of New Orleans. I live in a non flooded area that has largely recovered.

NO won't likely get a direct hit from a Cat 4 or 5 until the wetlands have eroded away more. The continetal shelf and shallow waters tend to take some of the punch away.

I'm confident it can be done, but the losers running this city have got.to.go.

[IloveNOLA]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Sorry, but that isn't what they are saying in the link you attached.
They picked specific portions of just 3 parishes....and that section of NO is 50% below sea level.

Here is a source for the 80% of New Orleans....

Louisiana's Wetlands @ National Geographic Magazine

"In calculating the proportion of the city above sea level, sparsely
inhabited areas such as Bayou Sauvage were not accounted for." "Of the city's 181 square miles, the study focuses only on land where most people live, a section
of roughly 84 square miles."

If you are familiar with New Orleans, it is densely populated. Although not every inch of New Orleans was covered in the Campanella survey, the areas that were excluded were hardly populated because they were part of a wildlife refuge and/or marsh. So it not inaccurate to say that 50% of the habitable parts of New Orleans is at or above sea level.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by IloveNOLA

"In calculating the proportion of the city above sea level, sparsely
inhabited areas such as Bayou Sauvage were not accounted for." "Of the city's 181 square miles, the study focuses only on land where most people live, a section
of roughly 84 square miles."

If you are familiar with New Orleans, it is densely populated. Although not every inch of New Orleans was covered in the Campanella survey, the areas that were excluded were hardly populated because they were part of a wildlife refuge and/or marsh. So it not inaccurate to say that 50% of the habitable parts of New Orleans is at or above sea level.

I never said 50% was innacurate did I?
I was responding to someone questioning the accuracy of the 80% number that I posted first.
So, I showed a link to it and acknowledged that we were talking about apples and oranges.

Now, here I have yet another person disagreeing with me over something I never said.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Vampgrrl

Well until the levees are built correctly...

Plus certain areas that flooded, that are struggling to come back like NO East...should have been left alone and not allowed, but that would have created racial issues in New Orleans.

Point being, the sliver by the River is the future and (the past) of New Orleans. I live in a non flooded area that has largely recovered.

NO won't likely get a direct hit from a Cat 4 or 5 until the wetlands have eroded away more. The continetal shelf and shallow waters tend to take some of the punch away.

I'm confident it can be done, but the losers running this city have got.to.go.

The wetlands are going away pretty fast. Couple in the fact that every year NO sinks an inch or so and the oceans get a tiny bit higher and warmer.

Go read the NG article I linked to, it was excellent.

[Vampgrrl]

NOLA still has life, lots of new construction starting and posed to start here soon.

As well as a huge article with Time/CNN about gas production depends of wetland restoration. the Feds may not want to pay for it but seeing as how 1/3rd of this nation's oil supply comes through Louisiana, as long as oil and gas are important it will.

[telepicker]

Originally Posted by PollyThePrimate

Hi folks.


I am afraid that since it (San Fran) is such a wealthy city, that it will be too fru-fru and professional and possibly uppity. It might not be that way to someone from the East Coast, for example, but New Orleans is so nitty-gritty that it gives a different perspective.


Thanks for any input!!

I think it boils down to the type of disaster you prefer: earthquake or hurricane.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by telepicker

I think it boils down to the type of disaster you prefer: earthquake or hurricane.

This is an excellent point.

I haven't researched this thoroughly but I'd guess that the odds of NO being hit by a CAT 3+ in a given year is higher than a strong earthquake hitting the San Fran region....especially with the current higher ocean temp cycle.

I'd probably rather risk NO than live in one of those places built down by the bay on top of fill.

[violet70]

san phelmigo said it best, for sure. I've lived both in NOLA (uptown) and SF (Mission) and while I loved both I think I'm just not a west-coaster. I lived for 7 years in Europe in between the two and expected a lot more out of SF... expected it to be more European (which it isn't)... it's a spread out city with bad public transport (believe me, I know, I didn't have a car there). I found that everyone was into their own neighborhood and it was very cliquish. There is so much to do and see thereabouts, I love it as a city but to visit only. That said, I have several friends who live there now and love it (although most have moved to the east bay area). It is just so expensive too. I just don't want to live like that and never be able to travel and do other things that are important to me.


New Orleans is an original. It's my favorite city in the U.S. (I've got to say too, I grew up in Louisiana but not in NOLA, so I know I'm biased.) There are so many problems there but there is just something about it. And I'm not even a Mardi Gras fan. I just love the people there, the restaurants, the music, the architecture.

Good luck!

[Timmo]

Hello,
Just tuned in to this thread, haven't been here awhile. After reading a few posts, I decided to put in my two cents, for what it's worth.

I never lived in SF (visited a few times, lived in SD), but I have lived in New Orleans for several years. From my impressions of San Francisco, it's more like New York than New Orleans; it's like comparing apples to oranges. I would compare New Orleans more with a Providence than a big city like SF. One previous poster (forgot the name) really did a great job describing both places, but New Orleans is a small city, was small before Katrina. It's very provincial, backward, and is really like a third-world country in the "way it conducts business". Being from the Northeast, I have become very frustrated with this city and the non-existent recovery.

Sorry Vampgrrl, I was like you once and believed that people can make a difference and change things, but people here don't want to change. This is not suburbia or the rest of America: corruption, inefficiency, laziness, complacency reigns here. People are a result of habits, what they've done, their mama has done, her mama, etc. New orleans has always been that way, and always will. I used to believe like you, but this is the reality. Unfortunately, people don't want to improve, they're proud of their fourth-grade educations. You get ahead because someone knows "your mama and 'em".

[smarino]

New Orleans is hot and muggy and poor and dangerous.


San Francisco is cold and windy and expensive and dangerous.


There.