Latest Top Gear - New Orleans STILL not fixed?

Many of the buildings destoyed by Katrina were not below sea level and weren't even in New Orleans so I don't know how anyone can say they live there because of stubborn pride. Natural disasters are a part of life anywhere you live in the US and probably the world.

I didn't watch the program, but maybe some of the areas that haven't been rebuilt yet are that way because some residents decided not to move back.

What's sad though is I doubt most residents of New Orleans understood the risk of flooding.
 
What? What does that really matter? Unless CNN just made the fact up the point still stands.
I'm saying I was there, I'm saying my house had damage, and I'm saying I know first hand that there wern't as many contractors and builders as there were jobs waiting to be done. I know the very rich man who bought my house did so because his, halfway through construction, was going to take a looong time to complete. I have personal friends who were physicians who left their practices to be a contractor for a year because it paid more.

I'm saying that if CNN disputes that reality, they are somehow twisting the facts to report what they want, and I'm saying that if you dispute it you are calling me a liar.

Are they caught up now? Are there enough workers to do the job now? Is it reasonable to think that this past year had less of a work rush than the months immediately after the hurricane? Sure. But try having your rebuilding put off for a year and see how that changes your plans... it's likely that building will still be in rubbles today and you'll have moved on.
 
Wrong. Strong winds and rain have a huge effect on how bad erosion, especially around the foundation, can be. Likewise strong wind coupled with alot of water creates huge amounts of pressure behind each wave which can be devastating.

Uhm... the dikes broke -> NO flooded. No matter what, the dikes just wernt strong enough.

Beyond the point, the point is they have the option to and should move.

Having the option doesnt always means its the best, or possible option. I've got alot of options for things I want to do, but that doesnt mean that if I pick that option things are going to work out for me.

Really, these homes are all completely watertight? Doubt it.

Thats why we build good dikes. The ones NO lacks. We dont need watertight houses.

Yep the government is partly to blame as well as the state, but do you think they'll act any differently now? As far as your comaparison, its yet again kind of funny, but you're talking about a one time event (much like San Francisco) where as New Orleans recieves huge amounts of rainfall and gets hit by Hurricanes on a yearly basis. Yearly, not once every 5-10 decades.

Its not my fault american goverment doesnt give a shit. I didnt vote the guy into office. Anyway, does it really matter how often hurricans or floods hit? that isnt a problem if your dikes are build to withstand it and yes that is perfectly possible.

It is, they had an area all picked out where they could of started construction and they declined it. Its a trashed city, not a country.

I think you are underestimating what it takes to move a city. Its not like you build some new houses and your done. It takes a little more than that.

Read what i said about San Francisco because you're beginning to sound ignorant. Just to help you out, Anchorage Alaska would be a better choice then bringing up LA since you continue think massive yearly hurricanes are the same as rare earthquakes anyway.

Oh so now suddenly it matter how often a disaster strikes. If the town get leveld once every 100 years it OK, otherwise move the down. And again, it isnt the hurricane that damaged NO, it was the water. You can easily build dikes to protect the whole town against that. Btw, same goes for hurricans. Everytime I see hurricane damage on tv its woodens houses and trailers. Maybe you should build some decent stone houses. Not saying those wont be damaged, but atleast they will be alot stronger.

Nope it isnt always possible, but in this case it is/was possible.

Based on what?

Are you from Mississippi? Lousiana? Oh.

No need to get angry. I cant help it CNN said that.
 
Do tell, how many hurricanes does Holland have a year on average? :rolleyes:

The Dutch are known for their expertise on water all over the world, and run projects all over the place. You'll be hard pressed to find a large water project that doesn't have Dutch experts involved (including New Orleans, except that their recommendations and warnings have been ignored - like WTC, I might add - Dutch experts had already predicted the towers would be vulnerable to collapsing under these exact conditions). I'm not one to often hang out the nationalistic pride flag, but in this case, we often do know what we are talking about.

The cities weakness was and always will be the threat of flood.

Flood, or hurricanes, or a combination. But a lot could have been done to make this risk smaller rather than bigger, and they simply haven't done what should have been done. One of the most damning things is that I actually read about New Orleans, summarised nicely in Wiki here:

wiki said:
Furthermore, the region's natural defenses, the surrounding marshland and the barrier islands, have been dwindling in recent years.[7] Much of the land was undeveloped swamp on the lake side, and only small levees were constructed in the 19th century. A much larger project to build up levees along the lake and extend the shoreline out by dredging began in 1927. As the city grew, there was increased pressure to urbanize lower areas, and, as a result, a large system of canals and pumps was constructed to drain the city. Drainage of the formerly swampy ground allowed more room for the city to expand, but also resulted in subsidence of the local soil.

Outside of the city, the Mississippi River's natural deposition of suspended sediment built up the river's delta marshlands during periodic flooding episodes. However, the lower Mississippi was later restricted to channels for the benefit of shipping, which interrupted the process that continued to build the Mississippi Delta and prevented its erosion. As the swampy lands of Southern Louisiana shrank, the land began to sink. Entire barrier islands disappeared during periodic storms as the land of the vast delta slowly settled without river silt to replenish the wetlands. Approximately one-third of the land subsidence has been attributed to the large number of canals through the delta. Barge traffic and tides erode the earth around the edge of the canals, and salty Gulf water seeps in along them, slowly salinating the ground and killing the vegetation that the land previously depended on to anchor it.[2]

It statistically gets hit with the most hurricanes of any place in the country and has one of the largest rivers in the country running straight through the center, do you think thats a good decision to rebuild it on the exact same spot when they can move?

Rivers and the point where they reach the sea are typically economically very attractive areas to be, even if you didn't have as many oil fields and refineries as you do over there. It may well be worth the investment and risks involved. It's the same reason why many people live on the fertile slopes of a Volcano. It's all about recognising and reducing these risks though, and in this respect, the ball has been severely dropped.

In my opinion the other places you list as your comparable examples to help you prove your point are totally asinine. The decision to rebuild a city like new orleans where it is, is something i would expect from third world country because they're simply too poor, not the worlds largest super power.

Well, say what you like, but poverty is a factor in the U.S. Difference between rich and poor is a lot larger than it needs to be.
 
The New Orleans situation is more about preventing it happening again by making better levees but now that that's happened, what's the point of living there? Other then construction there can't be any other jobs.
 
Back
Top