"Phoenix and New Orleans will become ruins we visit in the future"

[Atman]

Simon Winchester was just on CNN talking about the all the havok going on around the world, and pointed out the lunacy of ever building in places like New Orleans in the first place. But he went a bit further than that, and it should really cause one to stop and think. He said not only New Orleans, but Phoenix and even San Francisco, will one day be merely ruins that we visit as historical sites.

Kind of a freaky scenerio when one considers the number of people living in these cities. But, he said, between SF's major earthquake faults, Phoenix's lack of water, and NO's obvious excess of same and below-sea-level location, they're virtually assured to be eliminated by nature, probably in the not-too-distant future.

Enjoy your day!

[ret5hd]

1. and las vegas (nt)

[henslee]

2. S.F. submerged would be a cool scubadiving experience.

[whatever4]

3. That was my point

When Katrina hit, on here I had a go around with someone about rebuilding New Orleans. My point was, we sure as heck should rebuild it, but, maybe not in the same location.

The argument was given that it is foolish to entertain the idea of moving an entire city, for weather or for cost concerns, any reason, he thought it was a foolish idea to rebuild a city in another location.

I countered with the idea that MANY cities will eventually have to move, because between global warming, rising sea levels, peak oil decreasing transportation overall, and natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, there won't really be any choice for a LOT of people in a LOT of cities. There just isn't any way around it, as far as I can see, a lot of cities will NOT be sustainable. So I said, no, it wasn't a silly concept to rebuild a city somewhere else for reasons like this, disaster or weather. It's going to be happening a lot, no matter what we do. I asked for argument over the point, and got none.

I never really thought about the relics. Wow but we're going to have relics.

[Coventina]

4. Well, that is being really one-sided.

Building New Orleans where it is isn't "lunacy". :eyes:
There were very GOOD reasons for where it was built. Otherwise, it would not have been built in the first place. Shipping being the main reason.

Was Venice "lunacy"? The Netherlands?

Yeesh. Yeah, all these places have their drawbacks, but a group of insane people didn't found these cities. Insane people are not capable of building cities.

The climate has changed, making coastal living more problamatic. But how were people supposed to know that 400 years ago?

Or the people who founded San Francisco? They don't have the technology we have now to know that the area was potentially dangerous. I guess that makes them "lunatics". :eyes:

[semillama]

5. not to mention

even 150 years ago, there was 100 miles of marshland protecting NOLA. plus active delta formation by the mississippi. NOLA had protection from its environment.

I think that if we're going to rebuild NOLA, those marshes and wetlands are going to HAVE to be restored. Not to mention barrier islands. This will likely mean a trade off in that land now occupied by humans around NOLA will have to be abandoned and converted back into wetlands. I don't see that happening.

[whatever4]

6. Weeeeeeeeeeeell

Just to throw out, they didn't know 400 years ago, but they've certainly known in the last 5 years, with the loss of the swamplands and decreased funding for levees, that they had aggravated the problem, and basically written off the welfare of their city.

It's just loony the way they maintained this city. I agree completely it had a valid reason to be, it's a major port. Pity they didn't treat it like a major port.

[bigscott]

7. almost every city

has it's drawbacks - whether it is flooding from the oceans or rivers, earthquakes, fires, tornados or droughts. Man either needs to learn to cope (levees that are strong and high enough comes to mind) or move to a more favorable location. I am just not sure where the "ideal" place is anymore!:shrug:

[anarch]

11. The "ideal" is just that...

"A conception of something in its absolute perfection," and thus by definition doesn't exist in reality.

All human achievement -- hell, in fact all of everything -- is impermanent. All our cities will eventually be destroyed by winds, water, sands, earthquakes, volcanoes...or maybe all at once by a huge meteorite or something. Who knows? It's not worth it to worry yourself to death about it in the meantime. We're all living on borrowed time no matter what.

...

Ozymandias

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

-Percy Bysshe Shelley
1792-1822

Edited to add: Which is not to say we should just wantonly continue destroying our natural defenses (wetlands, etc) with unbridled development and pollution. Just wanted to add that, 'cause there's a few good points in this thread along those lines....

[raccoon]

9. And yet, the coastal areas have been built up tremendously

over the past, say, 40 years, and continue to be.

Who benefits from this? Mostly wealthy developers who have the right contacts with the movers and shakers.

[Atman]

10. New Orleans was ALWAYS below sea level

And it has always been in a hurricane zone. That alone makes its location lunacy, but modern engineering exacerbated it when the ACOE straightened out the Mississippi River. There are reasons rivers meander. You can't just straighten out a massive water flow like the Mississippi and expect there not to be ramifications. In this case, the silt would normally, naturally, be deposited along the bends and banks of the river, constantly adding more material to the shore. Instead the silt was simply washed down the delta, building up around the lower edges of New Orleans. This had the effect of making New Orleans "sink" even farther into a bowl. It is sinking literally, as well, as the entire land mass is just a thick soggy mush.

Smart people do stupid things. Perhaps the original settlers in New Orleans were okay; a small number of them, as tenders of the mouth of a large shipping channel. But when the planners (or lack of planners) allowed it to turn into a major metro area, THAT was lunacy. Once the first flood inundated the place, they should have realized "whoops! Bad location!"

I'm not as convinced that SF is "lunacy," although we've yet to see "the big one" which will come. It is going to happen, no way around it. Would you build a town atop an ammunition dump, and then just cross your fingers that no one ever start a fire in the wrong place? No, you'd likely consider building a town in such a place "lunacy." Since we KNOW places like New Orleans and San Francisco are specifically vulnerable to major, inescapable catastrophic geographic and climatalogical events, why do you consider building there any less "lunacy" than building upon a live munitions dump?

[MadHound]

8. Phoenix I can understand, along with Las Vegas and L.A.

In a world of ever decreasing water resources, it is natural that these cities that are so reliant on water brought in from long distances will eventually dry up and blow away. They are, in the long run, unsustainable.

But I don't get SF and NO. Building below sea level is something that has been done for hundreds of years, witness Holland. Also, mankind has always built in earthquake prone areas, and will continue to do so.

But I do understand the desert cities. They really are unsustainable, and sadly they are draining our water supply at an alarming rate due to the fact that people move out there and want the place to be green rather than appreciate the natural beauty that the desert holds. Desert communities are only sustainable with very small populations. Large sprawling cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas cannot be sustained and sooner or later will be abandoned.

[pitohui]

12. what a dillweed

i wish for him what he wishes for me, that he be forever homeless

let a tree fall on his house, the waters rush in, the tornado take off the top, and then a giant earthquake open and swallow up the remains

let him try to explain all that to his various insurers of flood, earthquake, and homeowner's and let them fight amongst themselves abt who will help him recover for so many yrs that he is gasping on his deathbed and still hasn't had an insurance check cut

there will be plenty of wankers & naysayers looking for any excuse to cheap out on us in the rebuilding, dammit, i wish a voodoo curse on all of them

to you on this thread who concur w. this jerk, shame on you, for shame, WHEN and not IF the hurricane hits manhattan, you will be the first to cry out to rebuild, after that is "real" people since it's a big rich financial center, we are not real since all we do is the hard dirty work of the world of transporting your food, drilling for your damn gas, and creating your chemicals

oh you would like us to move elsewhere? so now you WILL let us drill offshore yr precious california, you WILL let us manufacture chemicals in yr backyard, and i guess as far as transporting the food goes you've got star trek working on a transporter for that

i will give a clue train to the ignorant folks who know nothing of basic geography, look at a map of the usa, see that big river that, it's a pretty famous one, you should prob. know abt it, it's called the mississippi, educate yourself before hanging out yr ignorance in public

new orleans is where it is for a PURPOSE & the purpose is not titty bars

it was good enough for tom jefferson, it's good enough for me

[Atman]

15. Not a very enlightened response.

He "wished" nothing upon you, or the people of New Orleans. I'm apparently the only one posting in this thread who actually saw the piece on television. It was lengthy, and detailed, and pointed out historical patterns dating back for centuries, which man has known about for centuries. Comparing the buildling of a city below sea level, in a hurricane ally, to a random act of nature is simply wrong. The only thing "random" about the occurence in New Orleans comes from the fact that man only lives about 70 years. Natural patterns are spread out over much longer terms.

Obviously, people living in the locales he mentions (and they weren't just in the US), have great pride in their home towns. That's wonderful. But it doesn't change the science behind his assertions.

[Bridget Burke]

17. Where do you live?

Please let us know what part of the country is 100% safe.

(I'm in Houston. We're too far inland to be destroyed by storms, but rising sealevel will get us eventually.)

[tx_dem41]

18. Who cares about "pride"....

How would you distribute food and products to the rest of this country if you do not rebuild New Orleans?

[Mrs. Overall]

13. And Seattle is built near the foot of a volcano.

[Bridget Burke]

14. Let History be the judge.

The world is full of ruins. But it's also full of cities built on the ruins of their predecessors.

San Francisco was less damaged by the earthquake than the fire that followed. Unfortunately, city fathers allowed building on earthquake rubble; therefore, the Marina District suffered in the Loma Prieta Quake. Strict building codes & seismic retrofitting can lessen damage in the future.

Investment in the New Orleans environment can lessen its vulnerability. The city's location is commercially important & its culture (already damaged) would be lost by relocation.

Venice continues to be propped up. And the area around Vesuvius thrives, over the ruins of Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis & Stabiae.

Phoenix? Perhaps it will be left to the saguaros. We'll see.

[tx_dem41]

16. What does he suggest about the fact that a port is absolutely

necessary at the mouth of the Mississippi River and that New Orleans is the only place to put it? Sounds like a writer that is a wee bit narrow-minded.