Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
It kind of bugs me that New Orleans will get rebuilt at all. But, since they may turn out to be hell-bent on doing it I won't mind if they do it with the peaking of oil in mind. Others cities can learn from what they do and maybe incorporate it into their cities and towns on some level. What a fascinating experiment New Orleans will be. It will be an experiment.
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Having allowed Katrina to undertake the largely ethnic selection of just whose homes will not be rebuilt,
an organization called "Top 10 by 2010" has its plans for New Orleans' renewal progressing nicely.
In this context the slogan of New Urbanism may be quite useful PR given the number of doubts being raised, such as about:
- just how many died, given that only about 1,300 bodies are admitted, but, according to Am. Red Cross about 6,600 are still missing;
- the need to restore the huge areas of coastal silt-lands eroded due to river engineering,
without which a Cat 3 storm surge will again, inevitably, reach the city;
and the need for levees not, as planned, for a Cat 3 but for a high Cat 5 before it's rational to rebulld a city on such a site,
And as to why the levees were neglected for so long ? Well "Top 10 by 2010" began its commercial planning way back in the '90s . . . .
regards,
Backstop _________________ "The best of conservation . . . is written not with a pen but with an axe."
(from "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold, 1948.
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
backstop wrote:
- the need to restore the huge areas of coastal silt-lands eroded due to river engineering,
without which a Cat 3 storm surge will again, inevitably, reach the city;
and the need for levees not, as planned, for a Cat 3 but for a high Cat 5 before it's rational to rebulld a city on such a site
Why even rebuild the low areas of the city? They are destined to flood again even if they are turned into a new urbanist utopia. It's time to rebuild up higher. Even if higher is around Baton Rouge.
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Revi -I will agree - The intensification of hurricanes, let alone potentially several metres of global sea-level rise, make building on higher ground the only choice that is both rational and affordable.
regards,
Backstop _________________ "The best of conservation . . . is written not with a pen but with an axe."
(from "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold, 1948.
Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1682 Location: Republic of Texas
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
backstop wrote:
...make building on higher ground the only choice that is both rational and affordable.
Rationality and affordability won't have ANYTHING to do with how New Orleans is rebuilt.
Those who suckle at the government teat are already lined up shoulder-to-shoulder at that trough.
Mayor Ray Nagin: "New Orleans WILL be a Chocolate City at the end of the day".
Translation: We are getting our piece of this pie! Make no mistake about it!
Let the feast begin. _________________ Conform . Consume . Obey .
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
How many drowned cities are we going to rebuild? Who is going to insure the place? Would you spend a lot of money to build a nifty new urbanist house in a place that could flood next hurricane season? Do you think the government that can't rebuild anything else is going to rebuild New Orleans? I doubt it. They aren't building enough affordable housing now. I have a feeling that they will stick in a bunch of FEMA trailers and call it good. If the doors are closed during the next hurricane maybe they'll float to higher ground!
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:12 am Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Revi wrote:
How many drowned cities are we going to rebuild? Who is going to insure the place? Would you spend a lot of money to build a nifty new urbanist house in a place that could flood next hurricane season? Do you think the government that can't rebuild anything else is going to rebuild New Orleans? I doubt it. They aren't building enough affordable housing now. I have a feeling that they will stick in a bunch of FEMA trailers and call it good. If the doors are closed during the next hurricane maybe they'll float to higher ground!
Obviously, if the government is going to rebuild NOLA, they should only build and densify the corridors that aren't flood-prone. That's where New Urbanism comes in; you can achieve larger, yet comfortable, densities and center it all along rail transit lines. Affordable housing can be arranged for the displaced throughout the redevelopment, rather than piled together in draconian apartment blocks that only encourage further government infantilization. Arguing about whether the government should be involved in a top-down fashion is moot; they've made it clear that they will be heavily involved. Now we're just arguing about what would make a better investment: build back what was there, only to be destroyed again, or encourage urbanism to make a resurgence in NOLA, letting the low-lying areas return to wetlands. _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Take a look at a map of New Orleans. Check it out on Google Earth or something. The only land is built up areas around roads. There are not many places for infill development, because there is no dry ground to put them in. All the back bayous are just strips along roads. There is no dry ground around there to put all this redevelopment into. Mississippi is a different story. There we could spend a lot to redevelop it and a hurricane could knock it down, but at least it's above sea level.
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Revi wrote:
Take a look at a map of New Orleans. Check it out on Google Earth or something. The only land is built up areas around roads. There are not many places for infill development, because there is no dry ground to put them in. All the back bayous are just strips along roads. There is no dry ground around there to put all this redevelopment into. Mississippi is a different story. There we could spend a lot to redevelop it and a hurricane could knock it down, but at least it's above sea level.
Anywhere in NOLA that's solely dependent upon a levee for flood protection (9th ward comes to mind) is ripe for a return to marshland. The French Quarter escaped relatively unscathed, and new development should be concentrated in and around areas with similar elevations. Now, NOLA may never be able to support 500k residents again, but such is the history of cities. I think NOLA will top out around 300-400k, even if NU is implemented throughout in a thoughtful manner. If not, NOLA will probably never see 200k again.
*edit* not a lot of options, from wiki:
_________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Kingcoal wrote:
What was wrong with the old New Orleans? A whorehouse and Jazz club on every corner.
Strange enough, despite the talk from the televangelists and the like, is that French Quarter area of New Orleans, that sinful part, is what survived the flood the best.
Old New Orleans still lives on.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1248 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
emersonbiggins wrote:
Obviously, if the government is going to rebuild NOLA, they should only build and densify the corridors that aren't flood-prone. That's where New Urbanism comes in; you can achieve larger, yet comfortable, densities and center it all along rail transit lines. Affordable housing can be arranged for the displaced throughout the redevelopment, rather than piled together in draconian apartment blocks that only encourage further government infantilization. Arguing about whether the government should be involved in a top-down fashion is moot; they've made it clear that they will be heavily involved. Now we're just arguing about what would make a better investment: build back what was there, only to be destroyed again, or encourage urbanism to make a resurgence in NOLA, letting the low-lying areas return to wetlands.
The land is subsiding by 8 ft. (2.5 m.) per century. Even if the sea level doesn't rise, NOLA is toast. Soggy toast
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3449 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:22 am Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Keith_McClary wrote:
emersonbiggins wrote:
Obviously, if the government is going to rebuild NOLA, they should only build and densify the corridors that aren't flood-prone. That's where New Urbanism comes in; you can achieve larger, yet comfortable, densities and center it all along rail transit lines. Affordable housing can be arranged for the displaced throughout the redevelopment, rather than piled together in draconian apartment blocks that only encourage further government infantilization. Arguing about whether the government should be involved in a top-down fashion is moot; they've made it clear that they will be heavily involved. Now we're just arguing about what would make a better investment: build back what was there, only to be destroyed again, or encourage urbanism to make a resurgence in NOLA, letting the low-lying areas return to wetlands.
The land is subsiding by 8 ft. (2.5 m.) per century. Even if the sea level doesn't rise, NOLA is toast. Soggy toast
Thats easy to fix if they want to spend the money, just put 16 foot steel pilings around each house, as the ground subsides raise the house. You are good for two centuries that way and you keep hauling bottom mud in from dredging the river to fill in the low spots. You effectively raise the structures, they fill under them to bring the surface back up to sea level.
Expensive way to live, but entirely doable technically. _________________ Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which addiction invariably ends in death.--Isaac Asimov
Joined: Dec 03, 2005 Posts: 657 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Disney should buy it and incase it in a bubble. If it floods, who cares, it'll be like a better marineland. _________________ "Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1248 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:03 am Post subject: Re: Rebuilding Mississippi, New Urbanism Style
Tanada wrote:
Keith_McClary wrote:
emersonbiggins wrote:
Obviously, if the government is going to rebuild NOLA, they should only build and densify the corridors that aren't flood-prone. That's where New Urbanism comes in; you can achieve larger, yet comfortable, densities and center it all along rail transit lines. Affordable housing can be arranged for the displaced throughout the redevelopment, rather than piled together in draconian apartment blocks that only encourage further government infantilization. Arguing about whether the government should be involved in a top-down fashion is moot; they've made it clear that they will be heavily involved. Now we're just arguing about what would make a better investment: build back what was there, only to be destroyed again, or encourage urbanism to make a resurgence in NOLA, letting the low-lying areas return to wetlands.
The land is subsiding by 8 ft. (2.5 m.) per century. Even if the sea level doesn't rise, NOLA is toast. Soggy toast
Thats easy to fix if they want to spend the money, just put 16 foot steel pilings around each house, as the ground subsides raise the house. You are good for two centuries that way and you keep hauling bottom mud in from dredging the river to fill in the low spots. You effectively raise the structures, they fill under them to bring the surface back up to sea level.
Expensive way to live, but entirely doable technically.
According to your SIG "Every day above ground is a GOOD day!"
Maybe you should add: "Every day above water is a GOOD day!"
Why not support all the houses on floats made from recycled styrofoam coffee cups?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
and you keep hauling bottom mud in from dredging the river to fill in the low spots. You effectively raise the structures, they fill under them to bring the surface back up to sea level.
