<p>Now, I'm no engineer, but building a city of ~500,000 right on the coast several feet below sea level in the inevitable path of several yearly hurricanes simply doesn't sound like the smartest move. After being all but destroyed by Katrina, what sense does it make to rebuild the city where it once stood? Why move the people back below sea level? Wouldn't that be an invitation for another disaster of similar ilk?</p>
<p>They should build the whole city on a big boat, so when the next hurricane comes, the city can just float above the water.</p>
<p>well it's not like the disaster occurs every year or even ten years. It usually doesn't happen. A hurricane may come or they can be affected by it but it's not that severe. Also there is the feeling of "home" you just can't give up especially if u have lived there for a long time and u know a lot of people there.
However i do believe that in the coming years the situation will not be better. Such a disaster will not occur frequently but i've heard that the coastlines r rapidly changing and land is constantly sinking into the sea. It's not like after a few years New Orleans will be under water but after hundred years or more it might be. I think that engineers should focus on stablizing the coastline so that city could persist. New Orleans is an unique cultural center. It has a lot of french history inside along with the american history. Also it is very historical and jazz bloomed there. So I think that there should be some thoughts to the sinking coastlines.</p>
<p>It might not be the best idea to rebulid New Orleans, but it'll happen anyways. It's important to remember that this is not the first major city in America to be destroyed, and need rebuilding... A few others that come to mind are San Franscisco (which much like New Orleans is in a rather poor location), Chicago (think fire), Los Angeles (more the San Franando Valley, which was in bad shape following the 94 northridge quake), even Washington DC (think war of 1812). Much of the south had to be rebuilt anyway following the Civil War. So in some ways this is nothing unprecidented to America, it's just the first time anything like it has happened in a very long time, and it's tragic none-the-less.</p>
<p>As far as location, they're going to rebuild in it's current location. It's a risk yes, but disasters occur all over the place, it's pointless to run for them, the best you can do is prepare. Best example I think is Malibu California. For as long as I can remember that poor city has burned down, slid down hills into the ocean, had the hills slide down into their houses. It's clear that nature does not want houses there, but hey it's nice property and people always rebuild.</p>
<p>I propose that, rather than rebuilding the city, they should instead build the biggest water park known to man.</p>
<p>They should turn it into something like Venice.</p>
<p>The entire city (elevated to higher than it is right now) will sit on top of water that is controlled by a pump. If a severe hurricane should ever occur again, they will just drain it. The water will flow into New Orleans, but it'll be just like normal! Voila!! :)</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>I had thought that it would be a mistake to rebuild New Orleans because of the propensity of the area to have hurricanes and flooding. Then, I read about how the Netherlands is all totally under sea level, but they have an extremely well engineered system of dikes that prevents flooding.</p>
<p>I also read that the Netherlands' officials were shocked at what happened in New Orleans -- that they view it as poor engineering on the part of the U.S. They said that our system of levees must have been similar to that of a developing country.</p>
<p>As a result, I'm now thinking that if the U.S. uses its technological skills to build a state of the art system of levees, it would be feasible to rebuild New Orleans, particularly since its port is very important in transporting materials throughout the country.</p>
<p>Krabble, I believe thats how it was. They had pumps that would just pump water out since it is in a bowl shape I think and below sea-level. The pumps broke and then the city was flooded.</p>
<p>i read somewhere that louisiana was once hit by ALlison some years ago, is that true?</p>
<p>NSM, i would think that america perhaps did not prepare enough for emergencies like this. and like imiracle says, it's not like it happens every year, so it's quite unexpected. analogies - japan has an advanced early warning system against tsunami threats, because their country is always pounded by tsunamis at one time or another. but india, sri lanka and indonesia certainly did not expect a catastrophe as big as Dec 26.</p>
<p>Well, the Netherlands has experienced a Cat 4/5 Hurricane with 130+ mph winds, so I guess they know how to handle it? I don't think anyone, anywhere, has figured out how to handle a Cat 4/5 Hurricane hitting a densely populated area.</p>
<p>That hurricane was not unexpected. The US is hit every year by hurricanes, and and recent years, there have been several near misses for New Orleans. Only someone in deep denial would have assumed New Orleans' time would never come.</p>
<p>Irishbird: You made a good point.</p>
<p>that's what i meant, no one would've figured out how to handle a Category 4 hurricane save for those who has already expereinced it/</p>
<p>somehow I don't feel that the netherlands usually get hit with hurricanes.</p>