Quantcast

New Orleans

VTApe

Monkey
Feb 5, 2005
189
4
Vermont
I'm in the middle of a huge project for geology on the construction/design/failure of the levees that kept the ocean out of New Orleans. I am continously amazed at what was attempted in building the city... I came across this pic

http://www.geog.nau.edu/courses/alew/ggr346/text/ft/south/n-orleans/1812-levee.jpg

thought some of you might find it interesting. The logic/sense, or lack thereof, of placing a huge city, and one of the USA's largest ports on a dry delta just astounds me.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,494
2,167
In my pants
It's even tougher to put a port on a wet delta.:D


There are spots like that all over the city where you're looking up at the river or sections of ponchatrain.

I kind of think of it like something similar to the hoover dam. As long as nothing goes wrong, there's a great feat of engineering achieved. If something goes wrong, it was overly ambitious and in direct opposition to common sense.
 

VTApe

Monkey
Feb 5, 2005
189
4
Vermont
Yeah, I know what your saying. Because the city was built on a delta, without sediments replenishing it from the Mississippi, thats supposed to run through it, the city itself is continously sinking, and will continue to do so. Pretty scary, really.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
While I think it would be neat to live under the surrounding water level, I would also have my house sitting on pontoons, anchored to stilts so it would float just in case.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,412
0
SF
sugarbushrider1 said:
Yeah, I know what your saying. Because the city was built on a delta, without sediments replenishing it from the Mississippi, thats supposed to run through it, the city itself is continously sinking, and will continue to do so. Pretty scary, really.
Well, New Orleans people don't really care. Everyone that moves back proves this. Are they fools for doing so? Probably.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
are they more foolish than those in Cali in high earthquake zones? Or those living in tornado alleys? Or in Key West (South of Florida) in hurricane paths?
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,844
11
So Cal
LordOpie said:
are they more foolish than those in Cali in high earthquake zones? Or those living in tornado alleys? Or in Key West (South of Florida) in hurricane paths?
No... they're just as foolish. At least here in Cali we know that the earthquakes are fairly infrequent and we have been making the buildings earthquake safe (as much as one can anyway). Living in a trailer in a tornado zone is dumb. Rebuilding the trailer in the same place after it's been blown away is just freaking stupid.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
MMike said:
Nothing compared to the FIRST most dangerous volcano in the US...
Yeah, but you never know when it is going to go off and bury Seattle under a few tons of ash or whatever.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
29,948
2,751
Portland, OR
I have a great picture of a house in the 9th Ward that slid into the middle of the street and sits curb to curb, nearly centered. I'll try and post it tonight.

I thought it was a dead end street when I saw it from 2 blocks down, but I noticed one side was resting on a power pole. From the look of the houses I went into, they will never be rebuildable.
 

Jabuttri

Monkey
Sep 16, 2005
157
0
Bellingham & Portland
I think it is way worse to live under the water level. at least you dont have to go swimming when an earth quake hits. in addition no level of neglect will make an earth quake more possible where in neworleans as we have seen when you neglect the dikes you get floods.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
MMike said:
I live in a pretty "natural-disaster-free" zone

Nothing interesting ever happens here.....
Our natural "disasters" are good publicity for tourism.

Ooh, another blizzard in Colorado? Granted, the highway is closed at the moment, so getting to most resorts, too difficult.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
Jabuttri said:
I think it is way worse to live under the water level. at least you dont have to go swimming when an earth quake hits. in addition no level of neglect will make an earth quake more possible where in neworleans as we have seen when you neglect the dikes you get floods.
ah, we need a little dutch boy ;)
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
sugarbushrider1 said:
I'm in the middle of a huge project for geology on the construction/design/failure of the levees that kept the ocean out of New Orleans. I am continously amazed at what was attempted in building the city... I came across this pic

http://www.geog.nau.edu/courses/alew/ggr346/text/ft/south/n-orleans/1812-levee.jpg

thought some of you might find it interesting. The logic/sense, or lack thereof, of placing a huge city, and one of the USA's largest ports on a dry delta just astounds me.
I think that you need to put part of your criticism in historical context. Its not like these decisions were made with modern knowledge.
 

VTApe

Monkey
Feb 5, 2005
189
4
Vermont
Jabuttri said:
I think it is way worse to live under the water level. at least you dont have to go swimming when an earth quake hits. in addition no level of neglect will make an earth quake more possible where in neworleans as we have seen when you neglect the dikes you get floods.

The big houses that celebs and the rich build on CA's steep slopes are almost as dangerous as New Orleans. They are so prone to mud/rock slides that many of the houses out there are actually made with huge doors on them, so as to pass debris through the house, rather than have the house fill up and slide away with the rocks/debris.
 

VTApe

Monkey
Feb 5, 2005
189
4
Vermont
DRB said:
I think that you need to put part of your criticism in historical context. Its not like these decisions were made with modern knowledge.
I realize that, but in order to develop New Orleans, the Largest river in the country had to be artificially moved, which in itself took a lot of engineering/thinking. I can only assume if there was enough technology back when New Orleans was built to achieve that, the developers couldn't have been oblivious to the fact it was a dangerous place to build a city.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
sugarbushrider1 said:
I realize that, but in order to develop New Orleans, the Largest river in the country had to be artificially moved, which in itself took a lot of engineering/thinking. I can only assume if there was enough technology back when New Orleans was built to achieve that, the developers couldn't have been oblivious to the fact it was a dangerous place to build a city.
I guess you can assume that if you wanted to. I wouldn't but its your study.
 

VTApe

Monkey
Feb 5, 2005
189
4
Vermont
http://www.madere.com/history.html

"The answer to each question, the French found, was "yes," but a tentative yes. There was a site for a city, but there were numerous problems associated with it. The site where New Orleans would be founded and eventually flourish can best be described as "wretched." The geologists Kolb and Van Topik describe it as "a land between earth and sea, belonging to neither and alternately claimed by both." The Mississippi's delta is noted not only for its swampy, geologic terrain, but also for its difficult environment. The delta is a region prone to excessive heat, annual floods, heavy rain, hurricanes, mosquitoes and disease. "
 

VTApe

Monkey
Feb 5, 2005
189
4
Vermont
manimal said:
ok, but with the knowledge we have now...is it prudent to rebuild?

it's like building a city on the turd in your toilet bowl, it's gonna get flushed again.



True... it will obviously be rebuilt, but what happens when the next huge hurricane hits?
It sound like a $h!tty thing to say, but are we supposed to feel bad for people who rebuild in such an area?
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,659
26
behind the viewfinder
Jabuttri said:
I think it is way worse to live under the water level. at least you dont have to go swimming when an earth quake hits. i
tell that to the pakistanis. what was the death toll from katrina, about 2000? i think the recent quake is about 80,000 and it will rise as no one's got lodging for the oncoming winter.