To rebuild or not?

[Pete]

As we all know New Orleans was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. With a new series of hurricanes coming into the Gulf Coast region, people are wondering what the damage will be.

Now, take all of that aside, and put yourselves in the shoes of the Katrina survivors. Everything you have is destroyed, except for your family and friends. You have no possessions, and only human ties. Eventually, you'll receive a check allowing you to rebuild your home. After such a catastrophic event, would you have rebuilt your home in that area, or would you have hightailed it for higher ground and rebuilt somewhere else? Keep in mind, you've been living in this city your whole life and it's essentially all you've really known; your family is all here, friends, relatives, etc.

Personally, I don't think I'd be able to relocate if I had everyone I've known and cared about in that area. Granted, I'd probably go to a safer part of town, less prone to disaster, but I would much rather stay close to family and friends, to make sure they were ok as well.

What would you do if you lost everything but your family, and had the option to rebuild your home. Same town, or somewhere else?

[Clint]

If I lost my home in a great natural disaster and I was given the choice to rebuild where my house once stood, or relocate somewhere else, I would probably choose to relocate. Even if that area is where you grew up, if a natural disaster happens and you lose everything you own, everything about your prospective of that area changes. You won't see it as a great place where you grew up and had a lot of happy memories, but instead, as the place where you were thrown out on the street with no possessions and no home, by no fault of your own, but by merely for being in the path of an inevitable natural disaster. As for family, that would be an easy decision for me, because they all live in America.

[Chez Daja]

Call me selfish, but I'd move away. I think I would've moved away after Katrina. Honestly, how many times can you have your life wrecked in one lifetime? If my family and friends were wise, they'd follow to a better place.

That said, I find it pretty admirable for the people that are still going to continue enduring the shit that's getting thrown at them.
I don't think as many British people would be as forgiving to continue living there if we were struck with something similar to Katrina and I say that only because I don't know a single person (even ones hit by flash flooding), who said they would stay in a danger area. Of course, some Britons are forced to endure terrible floods that destroy their homes simply because they cannot sell them, but I'm straying a little now.

Whenever we have natural disasters over here, they usually do substantial damage... But nowhere near as bad as Americans have. We do get water damage and flooding really badly over some areas of the country, though. I'm sure everybody remembers last year.

[Rocky]

Know that some people don't really get much of a choice in the rebuilding of their houses and such; when I went to Mississippi and volunteered in the relief effort down their of the summer of 2006, many citizens were in an uproar with both the state and federal governments. The reason being because in one particular region, an elderly community of houses got destroyed by the winds and flood. What the government contractors were doing is instead of building the same elderly homes, the government feels the need to build "bigger and better", so they make a bunch of expensive condominiums for people to live in. Now of course, this creates a big problem, because how are the same elderly retired people living on fixed incomes supposed to move in a house that is five or tenfold more expensive then what it was at one time? Many are thus forced to move out without any choice because of this.

Anyways, I'm going off-topic but I felt my point needed to be brought up with the tragedies that happened during the times. But in my opinion, I would probably move elsewhere and start life for my family anew the best I could, but then it seems to be more of a decision my entire family had to be in agreement on, including my distant relatives and such that live in the region. It would be a difficult move but my family's safety is first and foremost and if that gets breached because of the location of my house then I need to do the logical thing and move them out of there.

[Victoria]

Chances are, if my family/friends/relatives are as intelligent as I am, they'd high tail it out of there too. I'd move the heck away and live somewhere else. I'm in agreement with Daisy here, in that it may sound selfish, but why bother staying?

[Furore]

I think I'd be most inclined to look at the possibility of such a disaster striking again, and if so, when before I decided to stay or move. That's presuming I'd have a rational mind at the time, as I'd say something like that happening would leave you somewhat devastated and not in the position where your thinking is so clear.

If I did rebuild in the same area I might try and go with a design that would minimise the damage of another such disaster. It'd require a little bit of research, but on the positive side it'll keep things a little bit safer, in turn possibly helping my state of mind.

[Zell Dincht]

I think my choice to stay or not would depend entirely if I had children or not... I would not put a child through that voluntarily... and well essentially that is what the survivors in New Orleans are choosing to do.

If I didn't have children... and everyone I had left in the world was still going to be in New Orleans. It would be a hard decision, but I think that I would move more inland. Still close, but not in the hazard zone.

Originally, I think, that area was one giant swamp. Natural buffers can be good things and perhaps we as a species shouldn't be so keen on transforming whatever land we want to. I was just watching on the news yesterday when a manmade Levy had broken. Truly sad.

[Govinda]

Get out, but make sure to take my family and probably friends too. If they were fixed on staying, though, I'd stay with them. But I don't see why they would want to continue living there, based on how they are; but I understand it must be difficult for others.

Wasn't a lot of New Orleans still a mess when Gustav was threatening? They have it on the news over here sometimes, about how swaths of the city are still as they were in 2006, but the American government won't move on it. Maybe they're the ones who see no sense in rebuilding things they think will just get knocked down again.

[Halie]

I'd only leave if my family/friends did. If we all agreed on going, then that's fair. I see nothing selfish in that. But I wouldn't go without them.

If we stayed and rebuilt everything, I'd go with Nathan's idea and make a much safer design. Change the layout around, perhaps try and put things further away from the water and much as possible, maybe?

[Koda]

There are still so many families misplaced since Katrina hit, some that want to return, others that are happy where they have made their new home. Personally, if I lived somewhere that got hit almost every single year by a hurricane, I would certainly try to relocate. But with that being said, it isn't always possible for people to just pick up and leave, even with the devistation that Katrina left. The poorest neighborhoods are still a wreck, little rebuilt, and no money to relocate.
I believe that it's true that our Government has not done enough to help those that still live there. Sure some have new homes, but there are more than not that have nothing but what was left after Katrina went through. Many don't drive, they may have no place else to go, or any family to turn to. So I understand them staying. I guess it all depends on the conditions, but I would certainly try to leave and start a new life elsewhere.

[Pete]

The problem with New Orleans is that there was so much to rebuild that it all couldn't really be done within a 2-3 year span without crippling any budgets or making taxes stupidly high. The unfortunate thing with Gustav was that it rotated in a different direction (I don't remember if it was clockwise or counter) but that played a role. With Katrina, the pattern caused it to bring water over from the Gulf of Mexico. Naturally, these levees were reinforced and rebuilt first. Problem was, nobody really expected Gustav to rotate the opposite way, which brought water over from Lake Pontchartrain to the north, where the levees hadn't been as securely reinforced due to the lack of foresight.

The truth of the matter was that it was never a great idea to build on top of a swamp in the first place, but regardless, you have to sympathize for those who lost everything. Simple math and physics tell you that a sinking platform (the ground NO is built on) will sink faster with added weight. Plus, it was a swamp, and essentially nature's own line of defense against hurricanes. The tall grass and all that swamp junk help to slow hurricanes down and prevent them from ripping straight into the mainland.

These are the ideas that I'd be thinking of. It's not easy to leave everything behind, even if there's not much physically left. Depending on just how bad the region is, I would either move to somewhere close by but out of harms way, or rebuild with a house designed to withstand whatever the disaster would be. I don't want this thread to become just about New Orleans though, with the exception of the next paragraphs, explaining the building process. I don't want to turn it into anything other than the bare basics, trying to keep it more philosophical than hard fact based.

If your home was destroyed in a natural disaster, would you rebuild in that same location or move on? If you like, you can differentiate between two types, freak occurrences (think the 2004 Indonesian tsunami) and historically common (hurricanes in the Gulf Coast). Take into consideration that this area hit would have been the only place you've ever known, and you family has known.

[Koda]

Geographically, there are many states that get the 'tail end' of the storm. Currently I live in Illinois and we have been getting rain since last night, and it hasn't stopped yet. Which in turn will probably cause some flooding here. Nothing like New Orleans, but none the less, there are bound to be people in the area with damage to their homes, farmlands, etc.
Years ago, I did live in Shreveport, La. And I can certainly tell you first hand, that when it rains down there, it comes down in the buckets full! The flooding is almost instantanious, and there are no 'high grounds'.
Pete is correct when he said that it is a swamp land. Unfortunately, with all of todays 'growing' communities, our natural defenses against such natural disasters are all but gone. But I am glad that when the mandatory order was given to leave the area, the majority of the citizens did listen this time. And really, if they are going to live there, what more can they do? I think it is Galvaston, TX. that has the wall built to help protect their community from hurricane's. (I may be wrong but I know it's in Texas) But even if a wall were built in New Orleans, I don't think they could build one high enough to withstand the winds or water.

[Pete]

The trick would be to build it high and deep. The thing that sucks about that though, is that you sacrifice the view for a giant wall that will ultimately save your lives and/or home. Another major problem with Katrina was that allegedly, the levees were not built properly. They were supposed to be built I believe at the very least 11-15 feet underground, but were not. The force of the water on them essentially toppled them over, almost exactly like that prank where you crouch behind a kid and your friend pushes him over, so that the kid topples over you. Now, if the levees were built to specification, there would have been a chance, not a definite, that they would have held. Then again, the ground simply could have shifted, so who knows.

[Chez Daja]

The problem with New Orleans is that there was so much to rebuild that it all couldn't really be done within a 2-3 year span without crippling any budgets or making taxes stupidly high.

Yeah, and that's the exact reason I would've left after Katrina. Just imagine getting your life back on track and having it completely slaughtered two or three, or four years later.

If your home was destroyed in a natural disaster, would you rebuild in that same location or move on? If you like, you can differentiate between two types, freak occurrences (think the 2004 Indonesian tsunami) and historically common (hurricanes in the Gulf Coast). Take into consideration that this area hit would have been the only place you've ever known, and you family has known.

I think for Indonesia, it is a little different. It's much harder to relocate away from the danger zone because the land there is much less than that of America. Not to mention that it is harder to migrate from one country to another, unless you want to do it illegally.....which, in most cases isn't worth it anyway.

[Pete]

Well I was giving examples of the types of occurrences; places where it's obvious and well known that things like hurricanes and natural disasters will happen, LIKE New Orleans, and places where a disaster is a freak happening and may never happen again, but has, LIKE Indonesia.

You could call it America, England, Djibouti, what have you. The principle of the question is would you relocate from: a) an area where natural disasters happen often, and b) where a natural disaster has happened before, but it was so ridiculously catastrophic that you might not want to live there?