Nagin criticizes World Trade Center rebuilding

[NorthSideSox72]

I personally believe that the smart plan would involve a lot less rebuilding of homes at all. Rebuild in certain areas that are lower risk for future disaster, and leave the flood plains to be park land, open space, recreation facilities, etc.

 

This would serve all sorts of positive purposes, including...

 

--Condensing the remaining population into less area, making those residential areas faster to recover

--Creating open space and recreational opportunities for a city that has historically struggled with creating a positive lifestyle culture for its residents

--Reducing future damage due to future hurrincanes and floods (which WILL happen again) - this is probably the single most important reason

--Serve as a focal point for marketing the city's recovery, and convincing others to come to NO to live and do business

[southsider2k5]

This is an intersting crossroads. Telling people they can not rebuild in their neighborhood doesn't seem right, but the alternative, houses without infrastructure doesn't work either. I can see why a master plan hasn't been finalized in a year. Could you imagine the infighting that must be occuring? Where would you rebuild in Chicago first? Gold Coast? Southside, Westside, Downtown?

 

Just wait until a monster quake hits LA, then we will find out what the true definition of chaos really is. For all of the fuss, New Orleans isn't even close to as big of an area that sits with a natural disaster bullseye in the United States. Hopefullly we are learning from this mess, not only in our disaster planning, but in the thinking of avoiding areas prone to disaster.

 

I personally believe that the smart plan would involve a lot less rebuilding of homes at all. Rebuild in certain areas that are lower risk for future disaster, and leave the flood plains to be park land, open space, recreation facilities, etc.

 

This would serve all sorts of positive purposes, including...

 

--Condensing the remaining population into less area, making those residential areas faster to recover

--Creating open space and recreational opportunities for a city that has historically struggled with creating a positive lifestyle culture for its residents

--Reducing future damage due to future hurrincanes and floods (which WILL happen again) - this is probably the single most important reason

--Serve as a focal point for marketing the city's recovery, and convincing others to come to NO to live and do business

 

Very good thoughts. To most people it is obvious that NO will never be the same. To me the key if you are going to rebuild there, is to avoid the same stupid mistakes in building, which we can control.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just wait until a monster quake hits LA, then we will find out what the true definition of chaos really is. For all of the fuss, New Orleans isn't even close to as big of an area that sits with a natural disaster bullseye in the United States. Hopefullly we are learning from this mess, not only in our disaster planning, but in the thinking of avoiding areas prone to disaster.

At least LA has been preparing for it, to an extent. I'm more scared for what Memphis and St. Louis will look like when New Madrid goes again (which is past due now, by most accounts). St. Louis has done some things to prepare, but not much. Memphis has wholesale ignored the problem. And whats worse, Memphis is sitting on a sinking bluff of sand and mud - which, if an earthquake occurs, creates what is known as a liquification zone. The effect of the tremors is magnified (unlike in California, where big rocky mountains can quickly dissipate the energy, preventing it from spreading far from the quake, in certain areas). Anything stronger than a 7.0 and Memphis will be an unimagineable disaster area - way worse than New Orleans, and with no warning at all.

[southsider2k5]

At least LA has been preparing for it, to an extent. I'm more scared for what Memphis and St. Louis will look like when New Madrid goes again (which is past due now, by most accounts). St. Louis has done some things to prepare, but not much. Memphis has wholesale ignored the problem. And whats worse, Memphis is sitting on a sinking bluff of sand and mud - which, if an earthquake occurs, creates what is known as a liquification zone. The effect of the tremors is magnified (unlike in California, where big rocky mountains can quickly dissipate the energy, preventing it from spreading far from the quake, in certain areas). Anything stronger than a 7.0 and Memphis will be an unimagineable disaster area - way worse than New Orleans, and with no warning at all.

The other scenario that isn't really talked about much is the NYC hurricane. Try moving 10 million people out of the way of a fast moving nor-eastern hurricane, when much of the city doesn't have a car, and there are a limited number of ways off of long island.

[Balta1701]

At least LA has been preparing for it, to an extent. I'm more scared for what Memphis and St. Louis will look like when New Madrid goes again (which is past due now, by most accounts). St. Louis has done some things to prepare, but not much. Memphis has wholesale ignored the problem. And whats worse, Memphis is sitting on a sinking bluff of sand and mud - which, if an earthquake occurs, creates what is known as a liquification zone. The effect of the tremors is magnified (unlike in California, where big rocky mountains can quickly dissipate the energy, preventing it from spreading far from the quake, in certain areas). Anything stronger than a 7.0 and Memphis will be an unimagineable disaster area - way worse than New Orleans, and with no warning at all.

Actually, California has a bunch of other threats that are worth noting, and I think most of them are more likely than the New Madrid. First and foremost, here are the recorded events on that fault: 2244 BC+/-269 to 1620 BC+/-220, AD 900, AD 1450, and AD 1812. There's somewhere between 500-1000 years between each of those events, so just statistically, I don't think the odds are very good that we'll see anything on that particular fault in my lifetime.

 

There are, however, other faults certainly within these sorts of areas that are under stress. It's a lot more likely that if another big one happens away from a continental margin, it'll happen somewhere that we don't expect on a fault we don't necessarily know about.

 

California, on the other hand, has a bunch of fault-related worries. There's a river delta up in the North which is basically a New Orleans waiting to happen. 100+ year old levee systems, highly populated areas, shockingly close to several big faults, very flat land, lots of agriculture. There's going to be a bond issue this fall to raise funds to fix that thing, but honestly, it may well be too late even if it does pass.

 

There are other random seismic hazards as well. Lake Isabella is a man-made lake up in the Sierras that is held in place by a 50 year old dam. That dam just happens to run right across the Isabella fault, an active Normal fault with an unknown recurrence interval (one of my friends here just did a thesis on that fault). If that dam were to be breached, Bakersfield ceases to exist.

 

Los Angeles and San Francisco are starting to get their acts together, but it's still going to take a lot more money and less annoyance from some of the politicians to do the job right (i.e. several hundred million dollars were spent designing a new suspension bay bridge that would be earthquake proof, then Arnold delayed the thing by years by telling it to go back to the drawing board.)

 

The other scenario that isn't really talked about much is the NYC hurricane. Try moving 10 million people out of the way of a fast moving nor-eastern hurricane, when much of the city doesn't have a car, and there are a limited number of ways off of long island.

And that is one that we're certainly overdue for. Boston as well. A couple of those storms hit New York in the late 1800's, and none have come through since. The skyscrapers in the area will be a major part of the new story, as having those there will create wind tunnels that will make the winds move much faster than they would have without those buildings. That is one that I think we should expect within our lifetimes.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, California has a bunch of other threats that are worth noting, and I think most of them are more likely than the New Madrid. First and foremost, here are the recorded events on that fault: 2244 BC+/-269 to 1620 BC+/-220, AD 900, AD 1450, and AD 1812. There's somewhere between 500-1000 years between each of those events, so just statistically, I don't think the odds are very good that we'll see anything on that particular fault in my lifetime.

 

CUSEC:

http://www.cusec.org/S_zones/NMSZ/nmsz_home.htm

 

and Live Science:

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/...new_madrid.html

 

Seem to feel differently. Looks like about 90% chance of 6.0 or greater in next 50 years, 20-40% for 7.0 or greater, 7-10% for 9.0 or greater.

 

A 6.0-7.0 quake in that region would be devastating.

[Rex Kickass]

Los Angeles and San Francisco are starting to get their acts together, but it's still going to take a lot more money and less annoyance from some of the politicians to do the job right (i.e. several hundred million dollars were spent designing a new suspension bay bridge that would be earthquake proof, then Arnold delayed the thing by years by telling it to go back to the drawing board.)

And that is one that we're certainly overdue for. Boston as well. A couple of those storms hit New York in the late 1800's, and none have come through since. The skyscrapers in the area will be a major part of the new story, as having those there will create wind tunnels that will make the winds move much faster than they would have without those buildings. That is one that I think we should expect within our lifetimes.

 

You know what's weird? A direct hit on New York would be easier on the city than a direct hit on where I live. Apparently, that's the WCS. Because it would cause storm surges to shoot up the Hudson and, to a lesser extent, the Delaware. Which means most of Brooklyn disappears underwater and literally thousands dead, and potentially a million homeless.

 

(I live on the Central New Jersey shore)

[Balta1701]

CUSEC:

http://www.cusec.org/S_zones/NMSZ/nmsz_home.htm

 

and Live Science:

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/...new_madrid.html

 

Seem to feel differently. Looks like about 90% chance of 6.0 or greater in next 50 years, 20-40% for 7.0 or greater, 7-10% for 9.0 or greater.

 

A 6.0-7.0 quake in that region would be devastating.

I will say that I'm not completely certain, but I did just read through the Nature papers that are talked about in the Live Science article, and I'm left unconvinced that they actually know well enough how this fault behaves to give that specific of a prediction. There's a lot of current deformation there, but we don't know very much about intra-plate tectonics compared to what we see at plate boundaries, so the deformation may be happening without significant stress on the fault, or it may be a response to the last set of events, or it could be a sign of rebuilding stress.

 

I'll stick with my story and say a magnitude 8 on the San Andreas is more likely in the next 50 years than a magnitude 7 on that fault based on everything I've read. But then again, we're still only talking probabilities, and the White Sox were what, a 1-100 shot at winning the 2005 World Series?