Rebuild it or Bulldoze it?

[Gavin Allan]

So, what is the consensus here? Should New Orleans be rebuilt, or should it be bulldozed and moved farther inland?



I think any money spent rebuilding is a waste. They have known for years that this disaster was possible. Now it is time to cut their losses and move to higher ground.



All those poor people down there can be trained in construction skills and they can be put to work on the rebuilding effort.

 

[Robert Stanton]

I wondered the same thing at first, but thought better of it. Not all of the city is under water, and even those parts that are can be rebuilt. The key is to strengthen the levees around the city and make it a safe place to live. The Dutch perfected levee building years ago, after a disaster in the 60's killed thousands there. All it takes is the willingness (read: money) to do what needs to be done and it can be an even better city than it was.

 

[John Mastrocco]

This will be debated and the city will be rebuilt. Someone already owns all the usable land around the city, so how do you rebuild?



It will be rebuilt. The levees and pumping system will be updated and upgraded. And somewhere down the line a bigger hurricane will have a direct hit and it will all happen again.



If you build in a flood zone/10' below sea level, you will eventually get flooded no matter what precautions you take.

 

[Deleted deleted]

Mother Nature will always win in the long run.

 

[Robert Stanton]

That's true, but we do have the technology and capability to stave it off.

 

[Heather Kudela]

I feel that it is pointless to rebuild as the city was originally built so far under sea level anyway, if it is rebuilt they are just asking for trouble.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Yeah, but do we have the money?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I hope they rebuild, there or somewhere else...I love cajun food and jazz and always wanted to go to "Nawhlins", just never got the chance.



TJR

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

They will of course rebuild- its a beautiful, vibrant and fun city, with some danger- natural and unnatural- in the mix.

 

[Steven Hartford]

Let's tear down one of the many mountains that are complietely unpopulated and just going to waste in Nevada and fill in New Orleans to above sea level - truck load by truck load. Those buses going to Texas are empty on the way back, we could just fill those up, too. Sure, they'd lose all the two story buildings, and those sky scrapers would become 20 feet shorter, buti It's a lot easier to pump out a basement than pump out a city - unless some looters shoot you and steal your pump.

 

[user 62785]

Personally I say move Nawlin's to higher ground. Floods there aren't the exception to the rule... its only a matter of time before they happen. That city has been around since 1718 when it was first built by the French and its seen more than its share of natural disasters.



Man can build levy's to try to hold off Mother Nature but, in the long run, we cannot win that battle. Of course we COULD build five foot thick block walls around the city but somehow I doubt the New Orleans tourism folks will be able to use that as a feature to market the city... :wacko:

 

[Dreman]

I think you underestimate tourism folks!

 

[RYAN TURNER 2]

I heard on the news last night that these people should get a governmant job and be paid 20-30 dollars an hour and I almost flipped my lid when I heard that. I mean come on 20-30 an hour alot of us in the us dont make anywhere near that by an means. and yes I do understand they loss everything but if they were to do that just think of how bad the poverty in other states is going to be and where would they get that kind of money to pay them ? Yes these people are in a terrible tragedy but they need to cut there losses and move to higher ground. then what will they do with all this garbage that is going to be left over in the city. just stop and thing about it they have a whole city to throw away where do you put that?

 

[Jeff C]

I hope they rebuild. I go to New Orleans 6-8 times a year; Thanksgiving, New Years, Mardi Gras, b'days, 4th of July, etc. It's an amazing experience and a city unlike any in the world with rich heritage, awsome food, and it's just a lot of fun to visit, even for only a few days, though you could spend a month there and not experience it all.



If they do abandon, at least I will be able to tell my kids that I was at the last major sporting event to be played in the Superdome (AU vs VT, Nokia Sugar Bowl, January 3, 2005). But I really don't think they will abandon the city.

 

[Teddy GreeneII]

Ryan, I respectfully disagree. I think paying people down there 30 bucks an hour to rebuild is a great idea. who needs it more, us or people below the poverty line. I know everyone busts their butts for a living, but this is an opportunity to get them money they desperately need, get work done that desperately needs getting done, and possibly getting some people a trade all at the same time. If what they're saying is true, that a lot of these folks are on welfare and things like that, maybe a construction job for the rest of their lives could help them and others. I do agree with you about where though, I know we're always impressed with our wonderful accomplishments but that only lasts until a shuttle blows up, or some evil bastard flys a plane into a skyscraper, or mother nature hiccups and it wipes out entire regions. Saying we can build below sea level and it will last forever just on the face of it seems nuts. Of course we're capable of building better and stronger and smarter, but I dont know if we can outbuild nature. What if the next one's even bigger, and yes, it could take 30-50 years to get here but so what? that's not enough time to justify lives being lost. there isnt enough time for that. And I think we do have the money, if we worry half as much about our citizens as we do "lending" money to other contries, I imagine we would be just fine. billions of dollars would do a lot of good here..

yikes.......gotta stop these OT's!

 

[Bill V]

If they rebuild, will they rename it "New New Orleans"?



Seriously, though, I have to wonder if they're going to have difficulty rebuilding it, simply for the financial reasons. After all, what insurance company is going to want to insure anyone there anymore? And lots of people (especially the middle class) will cut their losses and move out of town if the insurance is either unaffordable or unavailable. Which may be enough of a demographic change to make rebuilding not viable.

 

[Shawn Hennessy]

They need to pull back away from the delta. Bad bad bad. Levees and dikes are should not form your cities boundaries. Good opportunity build anew. Might as well let the river have it's area back.

 

[Teddy GreeneII]

Bill, dont worry aobut the insurance companies, they'll do what they did to us in carolina after Hugo, they'll claim bankrupcy, after taking our premiums for 25 years, open up 4 months later under a new name, and back in business.

 

[Bill V]

Teddy--To clarify, I'm not worrying about the future of the insurance companies--but if I were wanting to build in that area in the future, I'd be worried about whether those insurance companies would touch me with a 10-foot pole. If they won't, I wouldn't build there--and I doubt others will either.

 

[John Mastrocco]

Insurance companies stopped offering flood insurance decades ago. Flood insurance in the USA is from the good ol' US Gummint.



In other words - we're paying for this front and back like it or not.