They Haven't Always Rebuilt

The plans for New Orleans brings to mind a bit of history of Oregon, and the loss of two significant cities.

Portland has not always been the largest city in Oregon. That distinction was held by a city at the mouth of the Columbia, named Astoria. Astoria has historical significance in that it's the oldest settlement west of the Rockies. At the time it was as large as San Francisco. Then it suffered a devastating fire that destroyed it's entire business section. The city didn't disappear, but the life blood of the community, industry and commerce, didn't choose to return. Instead, commerce moved upriver to the area that the Columbia and the Willamette river met. Though not directly at the mouth of the river, it was still able to maintain a port, and thus Portland grew and became the largest Oregon city.

Astoria is now a town of about 10,000 people and a significant tourist area, due to it's location and historical significance. I understand why it never regained it's potential. Industry and commerce abandoned it. Without industry the people leave; without the people the commerce leaves. It's a balance the develops naturally when conditions are right.

Oregon's second largest city, Vanport, was also destroyed. You won't find it on the map, because it's not there anymore. Similar to New Orleans, it was alongside the Columbia River and 15 feet below it. The Army Corp Of Engineers constructed a levy to keep the waters of the river from flooding the city. In error, they assumed the concrete support sidings holding the bridge of train track could serve as a section of levy. Unfortunately, it was designed to hold up a bridge, but not hold back water. So, in 1948, the Columbia flooded. The railroads barrier didn't hold, and the levy gave way to the rushing waters. The town flooded, destroying everything there.

The city wasn't rebuilt. It was plowed under, and the land was sold conditionally to the city of Portland with the condition it be used only for recreational purposess. It's now a golf course, and something else (I don't remember it's other uses).

These things occurred, I suppose, before the government decided it was their responsibility to rebuild cities and artificially rebuild a destroyed economic system.

I have confidence that the government can indeed rebuild a city. What I'm not so sure of, is whether or not they can populate it and convince commerce it's the place for them. If either fails, the whole thing fails. It sure provides busy work for contractors while they're building, though. After that, what if industry and commerce abandon it?

Excellent lessions here, thanks Empath. I encourage others to post accounts in which it was wise to move on.

I believe that Galveston is another example of sorts. It was essentially destroyed by a hurricane in 1900. The city was rebuilt and the entire island raised signifigantly above sea level behind a seawall, but its growth momentum never recovered from the hurricane; the shipping channel to Houston was dug and Houston became the southeast Texas metropolis that Galveston had originally hoped to become.

Ah, Galveston..

I worked there in the early sixties, chased the girls, and hung out on the beach.

It was probably the richest city in the world in the early 1800's. The only port for the southwest of any consequence. Their shipping rates at the port were kept quite high, in the belief that there was nowhere else to go.

Politicians in Houston thought otherwise, and built the ship channel, bypassing Galveston forever.

I have read that many of our largest insurance companies got their start from the fortunes made in Galveston.

Interesting... I'd heard the Astoria story, but never even heard the name Vanport.

Sometimes, it just doesn't make sense to rebuild.... Since the levee broke, I've kind of though ''they'' ought to reconsider the concept of New Orleans....

But it appears that they are going to dump tax money into it and make the whole country pay to duplicate the infrastructure and conditions of before.... whether it makes sense or not.

Port Royal, Jamaica was a notorious enclave for pirates with a natural harbor supposedly large enough for 500 ships. But on June 7th, 1692, most of it sunk into the ocean and thousands were killed after it was hit by an earthquake and ensuing tidal wave. It never regained its former status but is now an interesting underwater archeological attraction.

http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/pirates/portroyal.html

Thats really interesting, I had never heard of vanport either. Reading about Port Royal was fascinating too!

But who's going to make the decision to bulldoze NOLA? The governor or mayor sure aren't going to come out and suggest that. Bush is on his last term, so he could do some crazy things like telling FEMA not to bother to come up with any money... But I've been disappointed before by end of second term presidents when they could do some good that would not be politically popular and they fail to do anything interesting at all.

The only people really with the power to stop it would be the insurance companies I suppose. Tell people what it will cost to insure them below sea level there and make it impossible for them to afford to rebuild.

The more likely scenario is probably that we spend the billions to rebuild and then industry never returns to the city and it more or less fails by itself over time. I've spoken to one of the folks that has brought their family here to Georgia and they aren't going back. The kids are already enrolled in local schools and he's got a line on a new job. I've heard similar stories on the radio and in the paper from lots of local communities.

What if a significant portion of the people that can find work and life elsewhere do so and stay away? If any industry does return there wont be anybody to work for them anyway. Can a city survive without a working/middle class? "industry" isn't stupid, they know demographics, if there is nobody there they can hire to do the work, the wont go there.

Though slightly off topic, there is no way that FEMA is going to foot 100% of the bill to rebuild anyway. Probably 3/4 of their charter document is related to calculating percentages of cost of things that the local government is going to be expected to come up with. If they don't want to pay their 3 to 6% or so then they dont get the help. This is probably another way of gaging interest in the local people to rebuild. If they are unwilling or unable to come up with some of the cost, then the place isn't going to do well after rebuilding anyway! It wold take an act of congress to change that law and let FEMA pay for it. Or I suppose they could get the money from elsewhere...

I have a feeling the city will only be partially rebuilt, with the port being the most important thing. The CBD and French Quarter are largely intact. After the port, these were probably the most important parts of the city from an economic point of view anyway. Many of the destroyed neighborhoods were places where the poor lived. Most don't have the money to return anyway. Also, in the scheme of things, and at the risk of sounding callous, New Orleans is probably better off without them since many were on welfare or otherwise not contributing a thing to the city's economy. Nothing at all lost by bulldozing their houses and abandoning their neighborhoods. After all, you can collect a welfare check in Texas, Georgia, or Mississippi as easily as in New Orleans. What's left then? You need housing for the port and CBD workers. That's it. It could probably be rebuilt on higher ground. Therefore, you'll likely have a smaller New Orleans and with much of it in places where the need for levees is irrelevant. Depending upon how much economic vitality remains, when future hurricanes destroy what's left of the city it may or may not be rebuilt. My guess is in 100 years New Orleans will be little more than a small town seaside resort.

The government has grown like a cancer in my lifetime. Apparently it's now the constitutional right of anyone to satisfy their urge to live 10 feet below sealevel in hurricane country at other people's expense.

I've heard the expense will be 200 billion dollars. I don't put much faith in such numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more.

So where are the environmentalists when we need them? I'd like to see the environmental impact study on this one. 200 billion dollars sucked out of the pockets of the people that are trying to earn a living must have some kind of impact. I may end up sleeping in the park under newspapers. That would be a big impact on my environment.

It would seem that Bush is feeling magnanimous and the taxpayer will be generous indeed.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

NO was not built below sea level. The Mississippi river has always built up natural levees by depositing tons of depris for thousands of years. Then the enviromentalist got involved in protecting the wetlands. They changed the course of the river and built man made levees. This in turn sunk the city to below sea level and thus the problems we have today with NO.

Now this was just a top of my head distant memory of something I heard or read at one time long ago. So if any of it is untrue please correct me.
I could go through the time to look it all up myself but I am too lazy to do it today.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2125229/?nav=ais From Slate "it's protected by natural and artificial barriers. The city sits on the banks of the Mississippi, where sediment from the river had created areas of elevated land called "natural levees." New Orleans' earliest buildings sat on top of these levees, but as the population grew, houses were built farther inland at lower elevations. To create usable land, water had to be pumped out of the area, which in turn caused the ground to sink even lower. It's possible for part of New Orleans to exist below sea level because the levees that surround the city protect it (most of the time) from floods."

idleprocess said:

It would seem that Bush is feeling magnanimous and the taxpayer will be generous indeed.

Click to expand...

I would rather see my tax money going to rebuild New Orleans rather than flush it down the enemy toilet in Iraq.

All of southeast Louisiana is a giant river delta formed by sediments depositied by the Mississippi as it changed course untold times. Areas not receiving peridoic applications of sediment from floods and as the river cuts new channels sink; coastal marshes not receiving sediment and fresh water ffrom the river are eventually swallowed up by the Gulf of Mexico.

To put it simply, geology hates the site of New Orleans and tirelessly works to undermine it. Southeastern Louisiana is marginally stable on a human timescale, but it's very chaotic in geologic time.

LifeNRA said:

Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Then the enviromentalist got involved in protecting the wetlands. They changed the course of the river and built man made levees.

Click to expand...

I've read of it for years, but have never heard of environmentalists involved other than to complain of the artificial efforts to stabilize the river. I'd always heard it was done for commercial interest, to provide consistency in mapping and to insure lasting value of nearby property. The environmentalist concerns, I'd heard, was that nature would eventually win out in a disastrous way.

Like you though, it's so far back I wouldn't be able to recall the sources.

I guess I'll give my rather standard reply here: It STINKS!

I sure wish W would act like he ain't coming back and DO SOMETHING!

I didn't know about Port Royal unless it is some memory lost amongst many Discovery Channel shows I've watched. I did not know about Van Port. It gives me a sad and odd feeling of loss to know there was a city that is now under a golf course among other things.

Maybe in another thread I'll express my thoughts about a recent speech given on national television about how and to what extent New Orleans would be rebuilt. I've got some strong feelings about that speech that are mostly negative so…I'll save it.

New Orleans. My experiences with NOLA bring back memories not of Mardi Gras but of a few elegant parties, some absolutely scrumptious dinners, wonderful music venues and a few afternoon city strolls with my girl on my arm. I know it has gone down hill since those days but a person could, up until three weeks ago, still enjoy the four things I mentioned.

I told you about this to admit my bias from a visitor's view, my love affair with New Orleans and maybe because it is pleasant to think about.

New Orleans will be rebuilt. This was my opinion from the very get go. I'm not sure what percentages of finance will end up coming from where but it will be rebuilt.

They can't go east. They can't go south. They can't go north. Could they go west? I don't think so but I'm not expert in those things. West is Baton Rouge. The river is powerful. In flat delta areas it likes to wiggle. It likes to surge and subside. I think that if a channel were built From New Orleans to Baton Rouge the mighty Mississippi would defeat it fairly quickly. What about up? Maybe.

If Japan can build a 5.5 sq. mi. island, put an airport on top of it and begin another 5.5 sq. mi. addition, maybe the idea of building NOLA up isn't outside the realm of possibilities. Sounds a little crazy to me but I don't know.

When they rebuild NOLA it would be wise to, as another CPFer pointed out, build a double redundancy system of dikes and levees.

I think I have good reason to have believed and continue to believe New Orleans would be rebuilt. Other than the fact that the Mississippi is the fourth largest river on the planet, I have a few other reasons that I'll list.

Baton Rouge
Memphis
St. Louis
St. Paul
Minneapolis
Kansas City
Omaha
Great Falls
Billings
Denver
Louisville
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Nashville
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Little Rock
Ft. Smith
Oklahoma City
Tulsa

All these cities are navigable for shipping to and from New Orleans. As long as humans exist and all that water wants to go home to the Gulf, the Oceans and the world, New Orleans will be there no matter how many times or how many ways it has to be rebuilt.

Just my obviously not-so-humble opinion.

---------------

- Jeff

The US Government should rebuild New Orleans..but not untill the US can guarantee that all homes and businessess are offered full insurance.

THEN...the government should find a volcano and put the city on top of it.

And wait a bit so mother nature can allow the human race to point fingers at each other in a bigger way.

-----------

This planet is not heaven and no one person, group or country can make it so.

Life is not safe, not fair and usually does not end easily.

The best anyone can do is to not cause suffering in the first place or help alleviate if given an opportunity.

Go Fishing

I believe LifeNRA is correct.

Also I apologize for my tenor and post in the thread. I am more than a little annoyed at the finger pointing and the lack of reporting on the everyday heroism that I KNOW happened.

I should not allow my feelings to spill into discussions here.

I don't know all of the factors involved in rebuilding a large part of a large city. My feeling is that areas with residents who aren't rich will be hard to rebuild. The people that don't have money will not be able to rebuild without loans, and I think it will be hard to get loans and insurance to rebuild in areas like that. Things will be different if the government goes in and starts handing out free money or easy loans.