?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sep. 2nd, 2005

Here are some really good pictures of the devastation in NOLA.  I'm sorry to say, but I think they're going to have to scrap that city.  They need to get everyone out and just let nature take it back. It would take decades just to make the city habitable again.  Look at all that polluted water/sludge.  And now there will be fires. There will be natural gas leaks. The water will spread flamable oils/fuels/etc across the water and the city will burn. Uggh. God knows what kind of chemical/industrial plants have started leaking into that quagmire.

Comments

( 21 comments — Leave a comment )
troymccluresf
Sep. 2nd, 2005 05:54 pm (UTC)
I've seen a few reports saying, "it may be days/weeks until the flooding subsides."

Uh, it's below sea level, the Mississippi, and the lake, and the pumps don't work.
democritus
Sep. 2nd, 2005 05:57 pm (UTC)
And even if they do stop the flooding and pump all the water out, the ONLY way to live there is to literally bulldoze every square mile of the city and start from the ground up. Why bother? There's nothing left to save. get the people out and let it sink.
troymccluresf
Sep. 2nd, 2005 06:02 pm (UTC)
It might feel perfectly logical to us, but if the Big One hit here, I could never imagine just leaving San Francisco for dead, even if my brain knows it's by far the most efficient option.
sarahpolk
Sep. 2nd, 2005 06:41 pm (UTC)
True true.

But water damage is tough. It takes all the cellulose out of timber and stuff, so you can't just fix up a house that's been in 10 feet of water for 3 weeks.

And can you imagine the mold?
pucette
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:33 pm (UTC)
Yeah I agree. It's the water damage that makes me think it couldn't possibly be worth it to drain/pump, bulldoze, purify, and rebuild that 80% of the city. Other parts of the coast, in Mississippi etc, will rebuild, just as SF would rebuild whatever wasn't inundated.
democritus
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:19 pm (UTC)
Oh I totally agree and it may turn out to be a compromise, like it probably would for us(for example, let the marina district, which sits on silt and trash fall in to the ocean and recover the rest, etc).
withbutterflies
Sep. 2nd, 2005 09:31 pm (UTC)
Oh there shall be no compromise for all of you. You'll be sailing out in the Pacific holding onto your bits of land and I shall be sipping a cocktail in the pool chair in Vegas Bay™ (tm since Bill Hicks is dead and I don't have a house in AZ anyway).
democritus
Sep. 2nd, 2005 09:39 pm (UTC)
I would love to live on California Island!
withbutterflies
Sep. 2nd, 2005 09:45 pm (UTC)
Go for it :)
democritus
Sep. 2nd, 2005 09:46 pm (UTC)
Re: Go for it :)
lolz!
being_in_itself
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:29 pm (UTC)
they're not gonna scrap it. the nation can't afford to lose one of its biggest ports. and with federal help/insurance money, it should take five years or less.
pucette
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:34 pm (UTC)
A new port could move just upstream of the bowl, couldn't it?
being_in_itself
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:36 pm (UTC)
not when the water in the bowl is only between 10-20 feet deep.
democritus
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:38 pm (UTC)
I think she means upstream along the river.
being_in_itself
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:42 pm (UTC)
unless they moved the city of new orleans upstream, there's not really any infrastructure for that port until you get to memphis.
pucette
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:43 pm (UTC)
That's sort of what I meant. Rebuild, but upstream.
democritus
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:42 pm (UTC)
Actually, looking at a map, it looks like Mobile has an awesome bay with no need of river dredging.
being_in_itself
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:44 pm (UTC)
yeah, i guess that's an option. but some people's homes are perfectly fine. i really couldn't see them scrapping the whole city.
democritus
Sep. 2nd, 2005 07:46 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I agree the parts of the city that are above sea level that aren't cut off from the mainland should be salvaged.
pucette
Sep. 2nd, 2005 08:29 pm (UTC)
Yeah, there's definitely no reason to scrap the French Quarter or other areas that appear to have remained standing and dry. Fortunately it wasn't the whole city that drowned...
karlgrenze
Sep. 3rd, 2005 12:11 am (UTC)
I think I read it on the boards, and I agree (having seen the Mississippi river)... Farther north (Baton Rouge) is not necessarily good, cannot manage as much traffic as New Orleans could.

Not to mention this is Louisiana and the city isn't prepared to cope with all the refugees at present.
( 21 comments — Leave a comment )