I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 09:10:33 -0400, wrote:

I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.

The oldest parts of the city were not below sea level when it was
built and it sunk. The whole city is built on peat and it is
subsiding. Once they built the levees and drained the other parts they
built them up. Those were the ones that were under 6-8 feet of water
after Katrina.

The question we should be asking as tax payers is WHY FEMA waived the
rules we have to live under in the rest of the country and allowed
them to build back after Katrina below sea level. If my house required
50% worth of work for ANYTHING (flood fire tornado or just want to
add an addition) I would need to be 14' ASL before I could even get a
permit.

They should have put all of those out of work people up in coal
country to work loading barges, fill that bowl up well above sea level
and build the place back on high ground. I understand it still might
subside in another couple hundred years but we would save enough in
flood claims by then to make that a very sound idea.,

Ok, Now it makes sense. Thanks for the info.
I suppose all that peat is from silt that came down the river.

I agree they should have filled it in. However I dont know how they
would raise those large historic buildings like the cathedral. Homes can
be moved and/or raised, but I dont know about those huge stone/brick
buildings. I guess anything is possible if there is enough money and
powerful enough machinery though....

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 09:10:33 -0400, wrote:

I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.

The oldest parts of the city were not below sea level when it was
built and it sunk. The whole city is built on peat and it is
subsiding. Once they built the levees and drained the other parts they
built them up. Those were the ones that were under 6-8 feet of water
after Katrina.

The question we should be asking as tax payers is WHY FEMA waived the
rules we have to live under in the rest of the country and allowed
them to build back after Katrina below sea level. If my house required
50% worth of work for ANYTHING (flood fire tornado or just want to
add an addition) I would need to be 14' ASL before I could even get a
permit.

They should have put all of those out of work people up in coal
country to work loading barges, fill that bowl up well above sea level
and build the place back on high ground. I understand it still might
subside in another couple hundred years but we would save enough in
flood claims by then to make that a very sound idea.,

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 09:10:33 -0400, wrote:

I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.

The oldest parts of the city were not below sea level when it was
built and it sunk. The whole city is built on peat and it is
subsiding. Once they built the levees and drained the other parts they
built them up. Those were the ones that were under 6-8 feet of water
after Katrina.

The question we should be asking as tax payers is WHY FEMA waived the
rules we have to live under in the rest of the country and allowed
them to build back after Katrina below sea level. If my house required
50% worth of work for ANYTHING (flood fire tornado or just want to
add an addition) I would need to be 14' ASL before I could even get a
permit.

They should have put all of those out of work people up in coal
country to work loading barges, fill that bowl up well above sea level
and build the place back on high ground. I understand it still might
subside in another couple hundred years but we would save enough in
flood claims by then to make that a very sound idea.,


Makes sense, but you surely would be called a racist for making such sense.

**** on NOLA. I will never spend a dime there. Well, willingly.

wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 09:10:33 -0400, wrote:

They should have put all of those out of work people up in coal
country to work loading barges, fill that bowl up well above sea
level and build the place back on high ground. I understand it still
might subside in another couple hundred years but we would save
enough in flood claims by then to make that a very sound idea.,

Ok, Now it makes sense. Thanks for the info.
I suppose all that peat is from silt that came down the river.

Peat is compressed plant matter, not silt (which is rock particles).
When you have a marsh, stuff grows. It dies and more stuff grows. Repeat
that enough and you have peat. Keep it up, add some pressure and heat and
you'll have coal.

On 4/9/2016 9:10 AM, wrote:
I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.


With fore knowledge of potential problems people should be free to build
anywhere they want but take responsibility for anything that happens to
the property.

From New Orleans to New Jersey the tax payer has been screwed in paying
for it in taxes and increased cost of their own insurance.

On 4/9/2016 10:10 AM, Frank wrote:
On 4/9/2016 9:10 AM, wrote:
I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.


With fore knowledge of potential problems people should be free to build
anywhere they want but take responsibility for anything that happens to
the property.

From New Orleans to New Jersey the tax payer has been screwed in paying
for it in taxes and increased cost of their own insurance.

There was an attempt to fix the flood insurance program by adjusting
rates to cover the risk and those that built in flood-prone areas got
their congresspeople to limit the increases to far less than they should be.

So yes, the taxpayer is subsidizing those the deliberately build or buy
in flood prone areas.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:12:36 -0400, wrote:


I agree they should have filled it in. However I dont know how they
would raise those large historic buildings like the cathedral. Homes can
be moved and/or raised, but I dont know about those huge stone/brick
buildings. I guess anything is possible if there is enough money and
powerful enough machinery though....

To change the subject a little, about 50 years ago, 1966, I got a
driveaway and went with two other guys to New Orleans for Mardi Gras.
We got there early and had a day to kill before we had to deliver the
car to Houston, and we drove around the area south of the city (the
delta?). This part was flat, with a lot of tall trees, the roads are
paved with broken shells (clams? crabs? oysters?) and the lots in
the residential area were pretty big, and 4 out of 5 houses were built
on 8 or 10 foot stilts (maybe higher, it's been a long time), to
prepare for the flooding.

But one out of about 5 houses was built right on the ground, and they
were modern houses, no older afaict than the ones right next to them
on stilts. Even then this seemed very strange. Now I would stop and
talk to someone, even look for someone, but iirc we didn't see anyone
outside.

On 4/9/2016 10:50 AM, sms wrote:
There was an attempt to fix the flood insurance program by adjusting rates to
cover the risk and those that built in flood-prone areas got their
congresspeople to limit the increases to far less than they should be.

So yes, the taxpayer is subsidizing those the deliberately build or buy in
flood prone areas.

And in areas prone to earthquake, hurricane, tornado, etc.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:54:34 -0400, Micky
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:12:36 -0400, wrote:


I agree they should have filled it in. However I dont know how they
would raise those large historic buildings like the cathedral. Homes can
be moved and/or raised, but I dont know about those huge stone/brick
buildings. I guess anything is possible if there is enough money and
powerful enough machinery though....


Most of those historic buildings are built in the areas that did not
flood. If a home is more than 50% damaged FEMA rules say it should be
torn down and rebuilt the required distance above the datum plane


To change the subject a little, about 50 years ago, 1966, I got a
driveaway and went with two other guys to New Orleans for Mardi Gras.
We got there early and had a day to kill before we had to deliver the
car to Houston, and we drove around the area south of the city (the
delta?). This part was flat, with a lot of tall trees, the roads are
paved with broken shells (clams? crabs? oysters?) and the lots in
the residential area were pretty big, and 4 out of 5 houses were built
on 8 or 10 foot stilts (maybe higher, it's been a long time), to
prepare for the flooding.

But one out of about 5 houses was built right on the ground, and they
were modern houses, no older afaict than the ones right next to them
on stilts. Even then this seemed very strange. Now I would stop and
talk to someone, even look for someone, but iirc we didn't see anyone
outside.

For some reason NOLA seems to be exempt from FEMA rules but they still
get paid when it floods. I know in Florida they do a FEMA survey
before you can even drive the stakes for a house and they inspect
again at "tie beam" before they can put the roof or second floor on
the house. The thought is that until you cap it, you can raise the
finished floor and make the walls higher if it is non-conforming. In
my area that is 14' ASL to the finished floor. We are 5 miles from the
gulf

On 4/9/2016 1:50 PM, sms wrote:



With fore knowledge of potential problems people should be free to build
anywhere they want but take responsibility for anything that happens to
the property.

From New Orleans to New Jersey the tax payer has been screwed in paying
for it in taxes and increased cost of their own insurance.

There was an attempt to fix the flood insurance program by adjusting
rates to cover the risk and those that built in flood-prone areas got
their congresspeople to limit the increases to far less than they should
be.

So yes, the taxpayer is subsidizing those the deliberately build or buy
in flood prone areas.

If you want to build in a flood zone, fine with me. But don't ask me to
bail you out when the water comes rushing in.

On 4/9/2016 1:50 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/9/2016 10:10 AM, Frank wrote:
On 4/9/2016 9:10 AM, wrote:
I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.


With fore knowledge of potential problems people should be free to build
anywhere they want but take responsibility for anything that happens to
the property.

From New Orleans to New Jersey the tax payer has been screwed in paying
for it in taxes and increased cost of their own insurance.

There was an attempt to fix the flood insurance program by adjusting
rates to cover the risk and those that built in flood-prone areas got
their congresspeople to limit the increases to far less than they should
be.

So yes, the taxpayer is subsidizing those the deliberately build or buy
in flood prone areas.

I heard Ted Cruz was criticized for not wanting to subsidize rebuilding
after hurricane Sandy in NJ. That's a plus for him in my column.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:54:34 -0400, Micky
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:12:36 -0400, wrote:


I agree they should have filled it in. However I dont know how they
would raise those large historic buildings like the cathedral. Homes can
be moved and/or raised, but I dont know about those huge stone/brick
buildings. I guess anything is possible if there is enough money and
powerful enough machinery though....

To change the subject a little, about 50 years ago, 1966, I got a
driveaway and went with two other guys to New Orleans for Mardi Gras.
We got there early and had a day to kill before we had to deliver the
car to Houston, and we drove around the area south of the city (the
delta?). This part was flat, with a lot of tall trees, the roads are
paved with broken shells (clams? crabs? oysters?) and the lots in
the residential area were pretty big, and 4 out of 5 houses were built
on 8 or 10 foot stilts (maybe higher, it's been a long time), to
prepare for the flooding.

But one out of about 5 houses was built right on the ground, and they
were modern houses, no older afaict than the ones right next to them
on stilts. Even then this seemed very strange. Now I would stop and
talk to someone, even look for someone, but iirc we didn't see anyone
outside.

i'm looking for the streets/roads I drove on 50 years ago, and it's
not easy to find. But here's one interesting spot, not enough trees,
lots too small, to be the places I'm remembering.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ne...22d3b4!6m1!1e1
One house on stilts, none of the others are.

I tried 7 other places and none resembled what I had in mind.

On 4/9/2016 8:10 AM, wrote:
I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.

Well, I don't know the answer, but I lived in Texas in a place that was
largely below sea level. My parents built a house in the highest point
and that was a whopping 17 feet above sea level. It's not that high any
more though. They built lots of dikes, channels and ultimately a
fantastic system to keep the place from flooding during hurricanes.

On 4/9/2016 9:10 AM, wrote:
I was just watching a program on tv about New Orleans, which showed a
lot about the buildings, culture, and other stuff. They briefly showed
how it's built below sea level (which I knew), but I was never there and
did not know how much was built there and how some of those buildings
are very historic and intricate, such as the cathedral. This left me
with one big question.

How did they ever begin to build this city when it was under water? And
WHY would anyone even consider doing such a thing? I can only presume
that it began when (due to some dry spell), the water level was lower
than usual. (just a guess). It dont make much sense to build levees with
the intention to build a city.

Maybe someone on here lives there or knows more about it.


Building a house below sea level is phucking stupid.

Rebuilding after a major flood is phucking insane.

But New Orleans democrats know if they cry loud enough, the taxpayers will "bail" them out.

What really makes me laugh are the numbnutz that voluntarily donated their
money to help rebuild the crime-infested New Orleans swamp.

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 20:52:13 -0400, Jack wrote:


Building a house below sea level is phucking stupid.

Rebuilding after a major flood is phucking insane.

But New Orleans democrats know if they cry loud enough, the taxpayers will "bail" them out.

What really makes me laugh are the numbnutz that voluntarily donated their
money to help rebuild the crime-infested New Orleans swamp.

It always amazes me how some people can turn ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
into partian political bashing.

Thats the #1 reason I hate politics, and why I wont vote for anyone
claiming to be from either of the two "major" parties. The day will come
soon, when we have a type of civil war between those 2 parties, and none
of them are worth a rats ass. All they do is cause hatred. And yet we
are all supposedly Americans! DIVIDED AMERICA, not United!

If everyone voted for 3rd party independants, we might even get rid of
the scum in washington. But most people just keep voting for the same
garbage and keep hating as a result, while complaining every day of
their lives about ****ing politics.....

This comment ends any further political politics from me.However I do
agree that rebuilding in an area below sea level is stupid. I guess we
cant place blame on the original building there, if the land has sunk!
Who could have known.....

That's why I asked the original question about this, because I did not
know the reasoning....

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 20:52:13 -0400, Jack wrote:

[snivels snipped]

But New Orleans democrats know if they cry loud enough, the taxpayers will "bail" them out.

What really makes me laugh are the numbnutz that voluntarily donated their
money to help rebuild the crime-infested New Orleans swamp.

The people in NOLA scattered. People moved away. Even criminals.

Glad the Mayor was convicted, crooked *******.

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 17:17:19 -0500, SeaNymph
wrote:

Well, I don't know the answer, but I lived in Texas in a place that was
largely below sea level. My parents built a house in the highest point
and that was a whopping 17 feet above sea level. It's not that high any
more though. They built lots of dikes, channels and ultimately a
fantastic system to keep the place from flooding during hurricanes.

To get much more than 17 feet above sea level in SW florida you need
to go to Orlando or the land fill.

That is why we build houses on a man made hill or pilings.
They raised the whole development my wife built (a couple hundred
acres) about 4 feet before they even started and then the houses were
on a 5 block stem wall and back filled up to FF
In the early 2000s if you were at a light, you were between 5 dump
trucks and 3 concrete mixers ... and there might be a couple cars
there with you.
We moved a significant part of Hendry County west of US 41 and built
houses on it. That is why I think raising New Orleans a few feet would
be trivial. They have a big river right there and companies that are
in the barge business.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 14:14:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:54:34 -0400, Micky
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:12:36 -0400, wrote:


I agree they should have filled it in. However I dont know how they
would raise those large historic buildings like the cathedral. Homes can
be moved and/or raised, but I dont know about those huge stone/brick
buildings. I guess anything is possible if there is enough money and
powerful enough machinery though....


Most of those historic buildings are built in the areas that did not

Right. I remember that the center of NO, the oldest part, is high
enough not to flood, even during Katrina.

The "lower ninth ward" is called that iirc because that part is lower
in altitude than the rest.

flood. If a home is more than 50% damaged FEMA rules say it should be
torn down and rebuilt the required distance above the datum plane




To change the subject a little, about 50 years ago, 1966, I got a
driveaway and went with two other guys to New Orleans for Mardi Gras.
We got there early and had a day to kill before we had to deliver the
car to Houston, and we drove around the area south of the city (the
delta?). This part was flat, with a lot of tall trees, the roads are
paved with broken shells (clams? crabs? oysters?) and the lots in
the residential area were pretty big, and 4 out of 5 houses were built
on 8 or 10 foot stilts (maybe higher, it's been a long time), to
prepare for the flooding.

But one out of about 5 houses was built right on the ground, and they
were modern houses, no older afaict than the ones right next to them
on stilts. Even then this seemed very strange. Now I would stop and
talk to someone, even look for someone, but iirc we didn't see anyone
outside.

For some reason NOLA seems to be exempt from FEMA rules but they still
get paid when it floods. I know in Florida they do a FEMA survey
before you can even drive the stakes for a house and they inspect
again at "tie beam" before they can put the roof or second floor on
the house. The thought is that until you cap it, you can raise the
finished floor and make the walls higher if it is non-conforming. In
my area that is 14' ASL to the finished floor. We are 5 miles from the
gulf

Oren posted for all of us...



On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 20:52:13 -0400, Jack wrote:

[snivels snipped]

But New Orleans democrats know if they cry loud enough, the taxpayers will "bail" them out.

What really makes me laugh are the numbnutz that voluntarily donated their
money to help rebuild the crime-infested New Orleans swamp.

The people in NOLA scattered. People moved away. Even criminals.

Glad the Mayor was convicted, crooked *******.

Yeah, those crooks down there had our (fed) money to fix some problems that
a storm would create. Instead the money was spent on a fountain in the
middle of town and political graft. IMO it's a smaller version of Chicago.

--
Tekkie