Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild?

The Washington Post ^ | Sept 6, 2005 | Klaus Jacob

[libstripper]

It is time to swim against the tide. The direction of public discourse in the wake of Katrina goes like this: First we save lives and provide some basic assistance to the victims. Then we clean up New Orleans. And then we rebuild the city. Most will rightly agree on the first two. But should we rebuild New Orleans, 10 feet below sea level, just so it can be wiped out again?

[ElCapusto]

And you are, indeed, a Modern Man.

[quadrant]

No one disputes that the Port of New Orleans should be rebuilt. It is essential to the commerce of the United States.
The dispute centers on the wisdom of allowing large scale human settlement in an area that is below sea level. In the Netherlands such settlement can be justified, but its hard to make the same justification in the United States.
My own view is that the French Quarter - and other areas above sea level - should be reopened but human settlement should be forbidden in the rest of the city.

[southernnorthcarolina]

The two extremes are 1) abandon the city entirely, or 2) rebuild it where it is/was, after building stronger, taller levees. Obviously, something between these two scenarios will eventuate.

All of New Orleans is not "10 feet below sea level." Most of the downtown office district, and much of the historic district including the French Quarter, is above sea level. A great deal of what is underwater is low-income residential, presumably little of it owner-occupied. Once the property owners have collected their private and/or federal insurance on the structures which fall into the "total loss" category, all land below a given elevation (sea level would seem a logical benchmark) should be condemned under eminent domain (it would almost have to be a federal program, given the scale), bulldozed, cleaned of toxins using the environmental superfund, and re-flooded so as to serve as a combination of recreational waters and stormwater retention.

New Orleans' population would shrink, perhaps by 25% for the metro area. Some of the folks who have been moved to Baton Rouge, Houston, and elsewhere won't be coming back; not necessarily a bad thing for New Orleans, though Baton Rouge and Houston may not be so happy about it.

As has been well documented in light of the disaster, New Orleans was already in deep trouble before the first breeze or rain shower was felt. It was already an economic basket case; it ranked close to the bottom, if not at the bottom among metro areas of comparable size, in terms of corporate headquarters and corporate investment. Its growth rate recently has been essentially nil in recent decades. New Orleans, like similarly sinking and flood-prone Venice, had become little more than a museum, with lots of food, alcohol, and parties 24/7.

And, of course, there's the crime. New Orleans has always been a "naughty" sin city -- drive-through bars, "go cups" for your cocktails as you wandered the Quarter, "adult" entertainment of whatever persuasion you can imagine, and enough cholesterol to clog millions of arteries. But when "naughtiness" escalates to gang control, police corruption, and a murder rate ten times the national average, it's not so amusing anymore.

As a side comment, I will be surprised if the New Orleans Saints ever return; the metro area was already among the NFL's smallest (ahead of only Green Bay, which is a "special case," and Buffalo (if you don't count Ontario suburbs). Without the corporate heavy hitters to rebuild the Superdome and rent the skyboxes, I don't see it happening, especially since metro population and disposable income will plummet in the aftermath of the disaster.

New Orleans -- or perhaps it should be called New New Orleans -- will be back. But it will come back as a smaller, and, one would hope, cleaned-up city.

[Sam Cree]

"And insurance companies are unwilling to write-off properties as a total loss when clean-up and refurbishment is feasible. I expect that many of the major corporate properties will fall into this situation. And Big Business will rebuild rather than abandon its damaged investment. Smaller companies will rebuild to provide services to the larger ones."

I am fairly sure that you are correct in the above assessment. And what you describe means lots of jobs too, for the little people. NOLA could be a very active place quite soon.

I hope the city will build a new convention center, though. I can't imagine wanting to hold a convention in the old one, after what went on there.

[Willie Green]

...how'd you liek to be the guy who's house is 100 feet past the end of the big new levee..

I think common sense dictates that the "new" levees will be in the exact same location as the "old" levees.
It's a matter of upgrading the ones that already exist, not relocating them somewhere else.
So anybody who was outside the current system would be in the same situation as before.
C'est la vie.... At least they're normally above sea level.
If they choose to rebuild, perhaps architects will provide structural designs that are better able to withstand regional weather conditions. The private sector can be quite creative in that respect.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Good solution. I am not sure the French quarter should come back either, but the port has to. The French quarter tends to tick-off the powers that be (God).

[adorno]

Put a dam across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain and pump the water out. Turn the lake bottom into parkland.

I've been thinking...

How many truckloads of dirt and rock would it take to fill in the sunken areas of New Orleans? If they're thinking of rebuilding, then why not think of filling in the area before building anything? If the government is going to spend $50 billion or more dollars in rebuilding, how much of that money would it take to do the filling in with dirt and rock? Imagine endless convoys of trucks filled with dirt and rock that was loaded from a mountain or two that was knocked down in Goorgia/ or Virginia? How about the dirt from excavations that are happening all the time all over the U.S.?

What would it take? 1 or 2 or 3 billion dollars? And maybe a year or two to do the filling of that hole?

Wouldn't it be safer to build above the water level?

Oh well... there I go again with my silly thoughts!

[SunnySide]

Some of the folks who have been moved to Baton Rouge, Houston, and elsewhere won't be coming back; not necessarily a bad thing for New Orleans, though Baton Rouge and Houston may not be so happy about it.
...

Remember towns and cities like Houston have "effective" infra-structure and law enforcement with low to zero tolerance for criminal activity and this sudden (unavoidable) population boom which evaded the corrupt N.O. area for decades.

[Modernman]

And you are, indeed, a Modern Man.

Thanks. And quite proud of it.

[SunnySide]

"From what I read, local homosexuals are having a scaled back Southern Decadence Days. Good for them. That's true American grit, if you ask me."

No POS, John Wayne and General Honore were and are examples of True American Grit. The Disaster Relief and Rescue people on the scene are True American Grit. Your queer posse are do nothing party addicts.

[Alberta's Child]

The Army Corps of Engineers has done a number of cost-benefit analyses in the past, and it was determined that the cost of upgrading the levee system around New Orleans from its current "Category 3" protection to a "Category 5" system would not have been justified.

If the cost of protecting an existing city of 450,000 people could not be justified, then how can it possibly make sense to: 1) provide the protection against a Category 5 hurricane; AND 2) rebuild that entire city of 450,000 people?

[Mountain Dewd]

"If rebuilding is desired, then building codes need to be changed."

"Homes shall have escape hatches in the roof" will need to be added to that list.

[Conservative4Ever]

I agree with you..rebuild on higher ground. Nix the theme park idea, though.

[kittymyrib]

Rebuild so that the same corrupt politicians who squandered their FEMA preparedness grants can have $150 BILLION (today's new number) to play with? Absolutely NOT.

[Alberta's Child]

Ninety percent of the buildings are still standing and structurally sound.

In a disaster like this, the structural integrity of these buildings is not the big issue. The most destructive element after this flood will not be structural damage -- it will be mold and milder infestation. Based on the duration of exposure and the humid climate, I'm guessing that no more than 20% of the buildings in New Orleans are going to be worth saving.

One could use similar arguments to support a position against rebuilding the WTC.

You're right. In case you haven't noticed, there's still a great big hole in the ground there in Lower Manhattan -- four years after 9/11. At that rate, I'd say it will take 5,000 years for New Orleans to be rebuilt to the size it was before Katrina.

[southland]

I agree!! Don't rebuild NO with my tax dollars.

[Modernman]

No POS

Personal insults, eh? How nice.

I hope the queers in NO have a really good time and engage in tons of decadence, just because it will piss off people like you.

[Non-Sequitur]

You can ask that same question about any city in Florida or South Carolina or Alabama or Mississippi. Gulfport may be above sea level but if you hit it again with a Category 4 hurricane it's going to be destroyed. So why rebuild it just to have it destroyed again? Pensacola and the Florida panhandle got hit twice last year. Why rebuild there when it's just going to happen again? Let people live there at their own risk, and if they get their home leveled, well, they knew the hazards and chose to ignore them.

[SunnySide]

No POS
Personal insults, eh? How nice.

I hope the queers in NO have a really good time and engage in tons of decadence, just because it will piss off people like you.
...

They won't have time to P.O. anyone since they'll be too busy scrubbing off all that liquid disease and bacteria besides the hurricane water n sewage bacteria. (smirk)

[Wiseghy]

The risk of flooding every 10 years or so used to be a very common problem for river cities in the US before widescale hydrodynamic engineering.

The Nineteenth century citizens of Sacramento would have been downright puzzled by our extreme reaction, the extent of damage and loss of life and the fact that this issue of moving the city is even being discussed.

After a few floods, they simply built new stories on their Victorians and relegated the old first floor to "basement" status, for storage, canning, etc.

I expect that is what will happen here. It is the cheapest and easist solution, since all the houses will need to be demolitioned anyway, leaving a concrete slab to build on. NO will become a new city, with better constructed tall houses with garages and storage underneath, an organized civil defense system and better building codes for escape hatches, attic escape boats, etc. These codes and systems will also help bring back up the value of the property in the area and attract new residents to the city.


This solution will also spread the burden more evenly between insurers and owners who must comply with the new codes, as well as the large government and NGO assistance programs.

Talk of moving or drastically regrading the city is simply silly. Our forebears had resolve, imagination and determination to rebuild, and so must we.