Aggie arch prof goes bonkers
by Owen Courrèges · 10/11/2005 1:06 pmYesterday the Chronicle ran an op-ed piece from Thomas McKittrick, a Texas A&M architecture professor, on the subject of how to rebuild New Orleans. Architects in general have a nasty tendency to propose grandiose, impractical projects — but most tend to be at least somewhat grounded by concepts of “cost” and “non-absurdity.”
Dr. McKittrick, alas, is clearly not so grounded, as the following passage shows:
[L]et’s ask another question about the flooded ghettos of New Orleans, where great pride still exists among many residents: Would it be possible to build concrete platforms above sea level, each one block in size, on which new housing could be built?
Such housing could be permanent in nature, but retain much of the local character. New Orleans’ Cabildo comes to mind. Elevated walkways could link the blocks. Some of the lower levels could be used for parking, or be leased out for shops, cafes or social service organizations. Some could be used for schools. Each block might have an emergency generator on the raised platform. It would be understood that these uses might flood occasionally, while leaving the housing dry and the residents safe.
Yes, a serious professional is actually proposing this. I’m still trying to imagine what it would look like, and the only think I can come up with is evocative of New York in “Blade Runner” or the planet Coruscant in “Star Wars.” He’s basically proposing a city of raised buildings on gigantic concrete slabs — a city where everyone rarely sees the ground, and people generally get around via walkways suspended dozens of feet in the air.
This is not just a little fanciful; it’s downright ridiculous. Perhaps McKittrick should put down his science fiction and come back down to the real world, where you can’t simply present some grand vision and implement it irrespective of the cost. You could do that in communist Russia, but in the U.S., cost has to be the central issue. So please — let’s start being a bit more reasonable, shall we?
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
29 Responses to “Aggie arch prof goes bonkers”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Come on, Owen. I think this is a great idea and should be implemented post haste.
Sincerely,
George Jetson
Why not do what Galveston did after the hurricane of 1900 and build the city up?
Spark,
…Because New Orleans, unlike Galveston, is continually sinking. Building the city up would be a temporary fix. The best solution in the long-term would be to build up the levies. It isn’t pretty, but it would work.
If these residents have this “great pride” he speaks of, why did they let their neighborhood become a ghetto? Buildings don’t a ghetto make - it’s the people refusing to maintain their properties that pull neighborhoods down. I can attest to this from growing up in Houston and seeing a perfectly decent neighborhood turn into a ‘ghetto’ because of the lazy slackers that won’t maintain their properties.
Why not use the millions of tons of concrete this fella’s plan would take to build concrete barriers for levees?
What do you expect of an academic that has never had to work in the real world? when I design something, I can design it with all the latest technology and manufacturing methods, or I can design it so that we can afford to build it and not go bankrupt in the process, the two are usually quite different…. and concrete is not permeable which would add to the runoff problem. a better answer is dredge spoil from the river.
Owen, I would disagree that building the city up is a bad idea. Yes the city is continually sinking, but if you build it all up to 4-5 feet AMSL, you will have bought the city at least a couple centuries before it will have to be addressed again. levees/dikes are a two edged sword. they keep water out (when they don’t fail =D) but they also keep water in too. To deal with that you have to have pumping systems that are ALWAYS ready and are protected from being flooded out themselves should a levee break. If the city were all (or at least mostly) above AMSL, then the levee could be built with gates to allow water back out after the storm surge is past. That is called passive measures. Passive measures are ALWAYS inherently more reliable than active measures.
Maybe he’s taken one too many trips here.
There was a study done by a university back in the seventies I believe. I read it in some mag. Might have been Popular Science as I had a subscription back then.
From what I remember, the only way to make NO a safe place to live was to do three main things. All of which might have been doable back then but I am not so sure about now as prices have gone skyhigh.
Anyway, the overview is this.
Improve and rebuild the levees.
You would inject (it was some kind of concrete or concrete-mud mixture (like the oil field uses I would guess). These drill sites would be around the outside of the city and would be very close together and close to the levees and would be injecting into the water table.
I seem to remember that there were some type of order that this would be done but don’t recall now. Anyway after that was done, drilling and pumping inside the city would remove most of the existing underground water. They said some mud injection would have to be done inside the city as well.
Removal of all this water would cause parts of the city to sink even more. Massive amounts of dirt and rock would have to be trucked in to the city and distributed.
Now there is a high dollar construction project.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Rorschach,
My point, though, is that the levies should be built tall and thick enough to where they will bascially never break. As for the pumps, that was really the situation before. New Orleans has to have pumps at the ready to keep out heavy rains, although in with extreme rains, there will always be some flooding (that’s a problem everywhere).
Building up the ground isn’t a terrible idea, and it would help in the short term, but if another major hurricane hits, the city really needs stronger levies.
Let it sink and change the name to New Atlantis
or
Rebuild everything on pontoons so it will float on the inevitable rising tide.
Joke of the day…
Did you hear about the Aggie Professor that proposed to rebuild New Orleans by elevating it on concrete blocks?
Oh wait…no joke there!
Since this idea has already been tried (see links below), I guess that would make New Orleans quite attractive to Rednecks?!
http://www.lilligren.com/Redneck/redneck_deerstand.htm
http://lilligren.com/Redneck/redneck_high_rise.htm
Has anyone calculated the amount of fill required to bring NO above sea level? Think Hoover Dam and then start multiplying. It is just not feasable. Concrete walls are feasable bu increadibly expensive.
Wait a minute now. If New Orleans proper is sinking what makes anyone thing the levies won’t? My suggestion is put a big drain in the middle of the place and a big handle in the mayors office and flush when needed. That is if people insist on staying there.
Yes it is an staggeringly large amount, but given that it is a small fraction of the spoil that must be dredged every year to keep the river navigable, this is not outside the range of doability.
BTW, not all of the city would have to be raised, most of downtown, algiers, and the french quarter are already above sea level, although not all of it is by much. the reason that the “average” is 8-10 feet below AMSL is because some of it is WAY below AMSL. And those sections are total losses anyway, so you don’t have to jack the buildings up. you’re going to have to bulldoze them anyway, might as well build the ground up before you rebuild.
The problem with levees in this area is that they are made of spoil and are on top of spoil which is permeable. this is the biggest problem with dams of any type but especially earthen dams. you have to dig pretty dang far to get down to something consolidated enough to build what is essentially a dam. if the dam is permeable, it will eventually be undermined by groundwater. I’d be willing to wager that is what happened to the 17th street levee. The levee was concrete, but it was sitting on spoil. the spoil was permeable and undermined the wall. The wall I’d bet is still mostly intact.
Rebiuld it in Kansas. They could use the excitement.
#15 hehehe
I have no doubt that much of New Orleans will be rebulit, regardless of cost (to the US tax payers) or practicality. The best idea I’ve seen so far is to build two-level houses, with parking on the lower level and living space above (as is common with beach houses). The bigger problem is keeping Lake Ponchatrain and Old Man River out of the city. The pumping system has a history of failures, and now we know that the levees also have many previously-unknown problems.
The best idea is #9SC’s to re-build it on pontoons! LOL! Let the water rise.
I dunno, why not fill the city in with water ANYWAY and float the Carnival cruise ships in a row for actual homes, businesses, etc. It would probably, even at Carnival’s most confiscatory rates, be cheaper to have a floating city than to rebuild the damned mess anyway.
Plus, I’d love to see a floating WalMart.
Here you go:
How Floating Cities Will Work
OTOH, we could make New Orleans like the cities in the Jetsons, where all the buildings are at the top of tall, thin spires and everyone has flying cars.
That would rule.
So if we had floating Walmarts, would that put the mom and pop shops that operate out of little rubber rafts out of business?
Mike Martin
Waddaya mean a rubber raft. Any cajun worth his salt would work out of a john boat.
Make NO like Venice, Italy. Flood the streets, put all the buildings on pontoons, and pay people to live there so that the tourist trade could thrive.
Good call with Venice, Nechasin. Find a good coffee bar, sit back and watch tourists fall off the platforms!
To All,
The solution is obvious. The best engineering solution is to abandon what cannot be supported. Moving out of the flood prone portion of the city is the best and safest option.
Simple
Simple Simon…are you suggesting a sustainable solution to the problem? Now that is revolutionary!
What do you expect from an academic who has never worked in the real world. Do you wonder why there are not any problem solvers in the Public School system? This is a perfect example of why school cost keep going up and student test scores after alteration or manipulation of the test are still going down. I just wish I could blame it on Aggies but unfortunately there are too many with the same affliction - spend more and raise taxes.
The professor should walk across campus and consult with the Petroleum Engneering department. A simpler solution would be to rebuild those below sea level houses like a jack up rig. It’s not like they don’t know how to build them in Louisiana. Next time there’s a threat of flooding, disconnect the plumbing and the gas, flip the switch and let the house climb up to the appropriate level.