![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A unique opportunity for NOLA...
It occurs to me that NOLA is at a crossroads for how they choose to get past Katrina.
Obviously, the levee system wasn't up to snuff. Obviously, getting it so would be immensely expensive now. Obviously, another Cat 4 (or 5) hurricane *WILL* hit sometime in the future.
People have been talking about how rebuilding on the same spot would be, well, stupid. I understand people wanting to stand their ground, rebuild what they had, and get on with their lives, but... it's not a safe place to build. Period.
The idea has been floated about moving NOLA, but... where? Much of the city, particularly the historical districts and downtown, can also be repaired. They didn't suffer the devastation that other portions did. Moving it doesn't seem practical.
Well, why not take another look at the problem? The problem is that the city was built lower than the water around it. So fill it in.
Yeah, it sounds crazy, but it was done in Seattle after the 1889 fire. 120 acres of downtown Seattle were raised 22 ft, on average. Large section of NOLA have 80-100% devastation, where most of the regions will have to be bulldozed and started over from dirt anyway. The infrastructure is (was) above ground due to groundwater problems, so it's gone too. Why not raise the city level in those regions to the point where future catastrophes like this won't happen? Certainly not *all* of NOLA can be raised, but the sections hardest hit could be.
What's the benefit? The resources that are now stretched thin to protect the entire region can be concentrated on protecting smaller areas of the city. Small concrete retaining walls can be quickly built on the fill area to provide a second level of flood control, instead of relying on massive earthen levees across broad distances. If future calamities occur again, in the still sunken regions, fill them in as they get wiped out.
Raze the sections of the city that need it. Just fill in before you start building again. This will be the *one chance* NOLA has to do this, and get it right for the future. They have a clean slate, and they need to take advantage of it.
If it could be done in 1889, it can be done in 2005.
Obviously, the levee system wasn't up to snuff. Obviously, getting it so would be immensely expensive now. Obviously, another Cat 4 (or 5) hurricane *WILL* hit sometime in the future.
People have been talking about how rebuilding on the same spot would be, well, stupid. I understand people wanting to stand their ground, rebuild what they had, and get on with their lives, but... it's not a safe place to build. Period.
The idea has been floated about moving NOLA, but... where? Much of the city, particularly the historical districts and downtown, can also be repaired. They didn't suffer the devastation that other portions did. Moving it doesn't seem practical.
Well, why not take another look at the problem? The problem is that the city was built lower than the water around it. So fill it in.
Yeah, it sounds crazy, but it was done in Seattle after the 1889 fire. 120 acres of downtown Seattle were raised 22 ft, on average. Large section of NOLA have 80-100% devastation, where most of the regions will have to be bulldozed and started over from dirt anyway. The infrastructure is (was) above ground due to groundwater problems, so it's gone too. Why not raise the city level in those regions to the point where future catastrophes like this won't happen? Certainly not *all* of NOLA can be raised, but the sections hardest hit could be.
What's the benefit? The resources that are now stretched thin to protect the entire region can be concentrated on protecting smaller areas of the city. Small concrete retaining walls can be quickly built on the fill area to provide a second level of flood control, instead of relying on massive earthen levees across broad distances. If future calamities occur again, in the still sunken regions, fill them in as they get wiped out.
Raze the sections of the city that need it. Just fill in before you start building again. This will be the *one chance* NOLA has to do this, and get it right for the future. They have a clean slate, and they need to take advantage of it.
If it could be done in 1889, it can be done in 2005.
no subject
At least.
no subject
I'd think that the level of Lake P*mumble* would be the absolute minimum, and then you'd still be sitting below the river by a considerable amount. *Optimally*, bring it up to river level.
no subject
The quarter is basically above river level, it's one of the few places that didn't get any flooding. The 9th Ward (North East section) is about 10 feet below lake level. Not surprisingly where the poorest live.
The Wikipedia entry has lots of entertaing charts, but one that would be nice is income vs. altitude.
The problem with silt is that it's highly organic (from what I understand), so it compacts over time as it decays. I'd want rock and clay. And more rock.
no subject
Good point on the silt though.