In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the question remains. What will become of the sodden city that is 80 percent below sea level after the pumps finish removing the flood waters? Is the damage beyond repair, or should we go ahead and restore the city to a condition resembling its former status?
The real answer to the question of rebuilding is yes, and no. This city will never be totally demolished no matter what happens to it. It has been inhabited continually since the 1700s and will continue to be inhabited for the forseeable future. But the hard questions have to do with the large areas of the city, as well as surrounding communities, that are mostly below sea level.
First of all, how is it that a city came to exist below the level of the sea? In its native condition, it wasn't really that way to begin with. The land that existed before the city did consisted of the Mississippi River and its riverbanks that had built up over time from river sediment. Apart from a few areas, much of the rest of the land the city now occupies was native swamp. Not necessarily below sea level. That process started as eager land developers started looking toward the swamps as a way of developing land into sellable real estate, as the prosperity generated from the port city created a demand for close-in homes. Swamps were drained and then filled in, the land divided into streets and lots and houses. But putting the weight of civilization upon such a muddy base while continuing to pump out water from the land results in a settling effect over time, one that is still occurring.
There have been major efforts to tame the swamps dating back to the 1800s, but the 20th century with its improved technology made the undoable possible. It was obvious from way back that the area was flood prone, and as a response massive levees were built in a process that is still ongoing also. The Mississippi River was always the major worry due to its history of massive flooding. Levees and diversionary channels have allowed the city to even exist at all.
Examining the elevation map (click on thumbnail map) of the city and surrounding suburbs, one can see the obvious problem. Many residential areas are at to noticeably below sea level, here referring to the mean sea level of the Gulf of Mexico which lies 70 miles to the south. The levels of the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain are actually above sea level as they border the city. In other words, the elevation difference is actually worse than it sounds because the main sources of potential flooding exist at a level up to 10 to 20 feet above sea level in New Orleans. That means that land that is at sea level or slightly above is actually in grave danger of flooding as well.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - John Bil
Good post and interesting point.
2 - Nancy
As I mentioned in another thread, Nawlins has been playing Russian Roulette since its beginnings, and this time they lost. The powers that be will allow rebuilding to go on right where it has before, because now there's even MORE opportunity for developers' profits than ever. Greed is already in the way, and unfortunately will always triumph over common sense.
3 - Ken Edwards
It does not matter what it takes, N. O. deserves to be rebuilt. It was one of the greatest cities in the U. S. and it will be again.
4 - ken
if new orleans is to be rebuilt. fill in all the land to way above sea leavel. say 40-50 feet above the sea leavel at high tide.
5 - Frank Waldron
Ken's idea would work, of course, but the city has 180 square miles of land to fill in. If the current city is to be saved, a more likely scenario will be to build levees to that sort of height, which alone would cost an extraordinary amount of money and take many years to complete. This will be the debate you'll be hearing about in times to come.
6 - Tan The Man
Filling the land would be pointless because it doesn't solve the problem that the city has by being situated on soft silt that lowers 3 ft a year.
7 - billy
yes it should be rebuilt. the city is like 250 years old and part of history. but first the dykes should be built to withstand 1000 years.
8 - steve
---a city on the mississippi delta-bad location, will always be in a deteriorating state
---below sea level...next to a large lake
---obviously subject to natural disaster
---too much money going into an economically poor area...will not pay itself back..therefore it is not of interest to american tax payers
---despite the city being new (hypothetically if it were to be rebuilt) the beautiful new city would be turned into an armpit city in just a matter of years. none of the people who lived there showed that city any respect after it was hit
9 - Victor Plenty
Build a dome over it. With a waterproof dome overhead, it won't matter how much more of New Orleans sinks below sea level. I've said this before and I'll say it again. It's the only practical solution.
The dome would also protect it from storm surges, hurricane winds, the accompanying torrential rainfalls, and any flooding that originates upriver in the vast Mississippi drainage basin.
Seriously, people. This is the 21st century, for the love of Pete. We were supposed to already have lots of cities under domes by now. Let's get with the program here.
10 - your stupid
your stupid... stop talking... new orleans is stupid
11 - you guys
What the heck are you guys talking about....there was a hurricane...what is new orleans? and who is katrina and what did she do to these people...help me out!
12 - Liberal
---too much money going into an economically poor area...will not pay itself back..therefore it is not of interest to american tax payers
Ah yes, the "I'm rich! Gimmee, gimmee, gimme, gimme some more, fuck the poor, fuck everyone but ME, ME, ME" argument.
"your stupid... stop talking... new orleans is stupid"
And of course, the illiterate moron argument.
I love this site. The worst characterstics of Americans all in one place.
13 - you guys
You're stupid, because for one it's you're not your and you're a liberal and john kerry lost....so bump your ideas!!....actually you're right, they shouldn't rebuild new orleans at least not the slums!!
14 - angel_11
I don't think they should rebuild the city. That's a waste of billions of dollars. They are going to rebuild, get situated and the same thing is going to happen again. Science has already proved that it's only a matter of time before the city is totally underwater. Why waste our hard earnest tax dollars. The city was poor, filthy and horrid anyway. Most people have more now than what they started out with. They had some of the highest poverty and violence, but some lf the lowest education rates in the Nation.
Why resurrect something like that?
I say, if they want to reside in New Orleans they can rebuild with their own money and when they next hurricane wipes out the city, they can start from scratch own their own all over.
American tax payers should not have to pay to rebuild a city that was already in ruins. The people that lived there already knew the risks of living there yet they chose to stay b/c the cost of living was cheap. Us on the other hand made wiser decisions we pay the higher rent but we relatively safe and should have to pay for their bad choices. And say N.O is rebuilt, all the residents(who just so happen to be mostly poor blacks) are going to do is mess it back up. It's going to look like it did before. The city was raggedy. When I visited N.O it seemed like most of the city was poverty stricken slums. The people are going to destroy the new city and it's going to look like the slums all over again.
The convention center situation did have to be as horrible as it was but the group of people made their own situation worst. Judging by the events that took place while they were waiting for evacuation, a city should not be rebuilt for a group of people like. They were totally uncivilized and i can see why the city was in the condition it was in. At times of destruction you have to make the best of a bad situation and the occurrences that took place were not necessary and the sense of unity was totally off. For example, The 7 year old girl that was raped and murdered. With all those people how could someone not have heard her screams. Someone heard and kept going. They could have easily helped her and she would still be alive today. I don't want to promote and help build a city where that kind of behavior is going to go on. They couldn't even act trained nor watch out for each other in midst of a disaster.
The only good thing that can come from the resurrection of N.O is all of the evacuee's leaving my city.[Deleted in line with BlogCritics Comments Policy]
15 - jazmin
i hate ur website
16 - LegendaryMonkey
Thanks, jazmin!
17 - Bob Jonson
Wow, you are all wasting your time, im pretty sure George Bush doesn't care about what your opinion is when (as much as i hate to say it) he makes a decision. Soooo,,, as much as i'd like to keep ranting about your stupidity which i could (except for the liberal, he rocks), im gonna go actually have a life!
18 - jeanne
They should definately re-build New Orleans because that is where I live. It is home to like thousands of people and you cant just not re-build it. I think that everything that angel_11 said about new orleans is just being selfish. THere is no reason why we should not re-build it. Each and every city has its own share of slums and crack heads and alcoholics and mess ups..its not just New Orleans.
During the hurricane the media was showing mostly the bad side of Nola and making every citizen look like a theif and crazy person. If you have never lived there, you have not truely experienced New Orleans. I could not think of any other place that i would want to live, and for the people who just go there during Mardi Gras..you see people at their worst and the city seems sketchy..but who cares! its my home and i want it back so badly.. it means so much to so many people. NOLA FOR LIFE
19 - caitlyn
ANGEL_11... OH MY GOODENSS!! how can you honeslty be SOOO neive!! first of all, your just too dumb to know where the GOOD parts of town are. i COMPLETELY agree with this Jeanne character above me. I cannot beleive that you honeslty think your city (whichever gay stupid one it may be) does not have ANY problems such as slums. have you ever been to lakeview or lake vista? how about old metairie? because obviously, you haven't seen where MOST OF THE CITY LIVES!! and uncivilized...........HOW DARE YOU SAY SUCH A THING! if ANYONE in this situation is uncivilized...its people who think like YOU! we are probably the most cultured, civilized people out there, no matter what ANYONE says. ANGEL_11.....YOU ARE THE UNEDUCATED ONE AND YOU HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEAD WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!
20 - Katie
ANGEL_11... WHOEVER YOU ARE...I SUGGEST YOU LIVE IN A PLACE BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT... IT IS KINDA LIKE WALK IN SOMEONES SHOES BEFORE YOU JUDGE THEM... [Deleted in line with BlogCritics Comments Policy] I AM SURE YOU WOULD NOT WANT ANYONE TO SAY THAT ABOUT WHERE YOU ARE FROM... NEW ORLEANS IS WHERE I AM FROM... WHAT YOU SAW ON TV WAS NOT THE "REAL" NEW ORLEANS... NEW ORLEANS IS THE BEST CITY ON EARTH AND WE HAVE SO MUCH LOVE AND WE WELCOME EVERYONE INTO OUR CITY WITH OPEN ARMS... OUR CITY IS SO UNIQUE... AND A LOT OF CITIES CANNOT SAY THAT... NEW ORLEANS IS JUST THE BEST PLACE AND EVERYONE I MEAN EVERYONE WHO LIVES THERE IS PROUD TO CALL IT HOME... NOT EVERYONE IN OTHER STATES OR CITIES IS PROUD TO CALL IT HOME... BUT I KNOW FOR SURE EVERYONE IN NEW ORLEANS IS PROUD TO CALL IT HOME... THERE WERE SOME PLACE SURROUNDING THE CITY THAT DID NOT GET WATER... DO YOU EXPECT EVEN THEM TO LEAVE AND NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME OF THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES NOT COME BACK HOME AT ALL..MY GRANDPARENTS LIVED IN A PART OF MET. THAT GOT FLOODED AND MY HOME IN NEW ORLEANS DID NOT GET FLOODED... DO YOU EXPECT THOSE FEW LITTLE HOUSES THAT DIDN'T GET FLOODED TO NOT SEE THEIR FRIENDS OR LOVED ONES ANYMORE? NEW ORLEANS IS SO FAMILY ORIENTED. SO HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NEW ORLEANS... NEW ORLEANS IS A GREAT CITY... AND FOR ONE THING WE WOULD NEVER EVER EVER WANT SOMEONE LIKE YOU TO LIVE THERE... AND IF YOU DO LIVE THERE THEN YOU BETTER GET THE HELL OUT! WE DON'T NEED NEGATIVE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD LIKE YOU!
21 - katie
you guys whoever you are..you are right we don't want the slums back..but that is not what all of new orleans is about...if you live there you would know..if you don't live there then don't comment on what you saw on tv..that wasn't the "real" new orleans!
22 - johnny
ANGEL_11........im not saying anything i am pretty much speachless
NEW ORLEANS IS THE BEST PLACE ON EARTH
23 - Luke
"The people that lived there already knew the risks of living there yet they chose to stay b/c the cost of living was cheap. Us on the other hand made wiser decisions we pay the higher rent but we relatively safe and should have to pay for their bad choices."
You're absolutely right, it's their fault for not selling enough crack or pimping enough ho's to make enough money to move to a wealthier neighbourhood. <--this is sarcasm by the way
24 - Luke
Comment 12 posted by Liberal on September 15, 2005 11:16 AM:
---too much money going into an economically poor area...will not pay itself back..therefore it is not of interest to american tax payers
Ah yes, the "I'm rich! Gimmee, gimmee, gimme, gimme some more, fuck the poor, fuck everyone but ME, ME, ME" argument.
You're absolutely right, New Orleans should be rebuilt so that poor people in the future can be killed by natural disasters, therefore it's a good investment, because that reduces the drain on welfare.
25 - adam
how in the hell can you say new orleans should be gone i beet you from northern states and you all rich and shit so what if school bad this place is home for many people how would you feel if someone said this to your state so if you want to say anything else about my city you beeta reconize mother