Friday, September 02, 2005

let me have your opinion

series of questions
should we rebuild new orleans?
if so, why?
if not, why?

please answer in the comment area. this debate is in the papers, on the news, etc. and i'm kicking it around here now.

4 comments:

Lefty said...

Part of me wants to have Nawlins rebuilt, but it would be a monumental waste of money, time and resources to rebuild and then have the next natural disaster come in and tear it all down again. I'm reminded of the bible homily about where the wise man builds his house, taking out of context from its real meaning of course.

Sam said...

not an easy answer - from the historical and emotional standpoint, yes. The archtecture is incredible, the history is palpable, the vibe very cool. But I keep asking myself, if someone were to want to build a city there today - would they? Could they? From the practical, no. I hate the idea that it could be lost, though. To think of what the city has seen, withstood - from its earliest years, through the Civil War and occupation, to the 1900's and the birth of all that great American music. And, heck, where else could we have Mardi Gras in the states? No easy answers.

edluv said...

i say save it. i was watching a program tonight and they were talking to the mayor. he was naming off most of the historic sites that were reletively untouched. they showed pictures. the rest of the city is wrecked, but it can be rebuilt. and hopefully as they do it they will fix some of the problems of being a city below sea level.

Adam said...

You can't fix a city built on sinking ground. I think it's a ridiculous idea. But, of course, we'll do it. I mean, they build homes in Kansas where tornadoes are commonplace and deadly. They build rich homes on the fire-prone chapparel slopes of Malibu. LA is riddled with structures that are not anywhere near earthquake safety standards. We're Americans, we can do whatever we want, even if it is dangerous or stupid. Like Sienfeld says, we invented helmets to protect our heads from "head-cracking activities" rather than discontinue the activities.

I also think that historical landmarks should be irrelevant in deciding whether or not we built homes for people in paths of danger. "What, the French Quarter is intact? You mean we can still have an orgy/riot once a year? Sweet, let's move half a million people back into a floodplain with some half-assed levees around it."