Is it time to consider whether it is actually possible to continually trying to rebuild in some areas which are repeatedly destroyed by events beyond our control ?

All around there are areas which are repeatedly damaged before reconstruction from previous events is completed.

Some have had to restart rebuilding repeatedly..

How many times do you do that , before you realise you have been forced to abandon the area completely ,
and rebuild on higher ground ,
and or further inland.

Some places will inevitably have to bite the bullet sooner or later ,
or
simply become effectively bankrupt,
with unsustainable unmaintainable infrastructure ,
contaminated with sewage etc
and no potable water.

and , unable to commute ,
unless you have an amphibious atv

 

Sadly, man as a species will have to undergo a radical change in thought processes. Until the specie gives up the premise that they can overcome anything and are smarter than nature, it will continue to go on.

 

Oh for sure , but in a few areas it is likely the time is here ,
where it is no longer possible to keep up rebuilding month after month , for parts of the year , year after year.
and never actually catching up.

Some places already have years of recover ahead ,
and still getting more and more destructive events continually as they try.

 

This reminds me of Pompei in Italy. We all know what happened there. So guess where they decided to build Naples!

 

Talking about Detroit aren't you?

 

Will anyone be able to afford home owners insurance in these areas.

 

Why don't you just come out and ask why stupid Americans keep rebuilding, disaster after disaster.
It's because we're not so quick to give up our shit like other countries do.
Just look at all the guns we have.

 

To varying degrees, nature affects everybody. In Florida, the Gulf Coast and the Eastern seaboard, you get hurricanes. In Texas, Oklahoma and the surrounding areas, you get tornadoes. Along the Mississippi, (and many other rivers) you get flooding. In Northern states, you get blizzards. In some places you get earthquakes.

Here in California we have Gavin Newsom (and earthquakes) - that's why people are moving to the hurricanes in Florida.

 

A 500 year event is hard to plan for.
But we've got the 100 year events pretty much figured out.

 

Mother Nature has a way of setting borders...we’ll keep denying that and she’ll continue to bitch slap us on occasion.
Sanibel Island got fucked, uninhabitable at present. Been there several times, they should let it be a barrier preserve, limit any rebuilding.

 

I'm not thinking anywhere in particular around the world ,
but can see places here where I know something about , that are looking increasingly unsustainable.

There are also areas that have been developed with a clever long term plan ,
where as the development progressed , right from the get go , the building areas were built up by a half to one metre ,
and compacted
by piling the overburden from earthworks and infrastructure on the next stage of the development.
Then that was excavated down to the desired level , where it was already compacted ready to build on.

So what was low damp to swampy farmland ,
Is now firm dry well drained residential .

The thing is , these have to be relatively long term plans , but they need to be thought about and planned ,
because to get it going , you have to start with at least some infrastructure , and (usually)
higher firm ground (whether you have to create it , or just make it available)

If you have a major rebuild over a large area , which is going to take time anyway ,
such as looks like in west Florida at the moment ,
maybe it's a good time to start .
Seems maybe some areas are going to need new just about everything .
Can they do it a bit further inland , and or on at least slightly higher ground.

Maybe use the rubble to build up low area for construction sites.

I have no real idea about the place , so not for me to say ,
but it may be easily doable , if someone puts the knowledgeable thought into it.


It's a topical subject for discussion in many places around the world ,
that's all I know

 

There are of course factors affecting coastal and low lying areas , that most of us are unaware of , or at least know very little about.

The most obvious , is the movement of the tectonic plates across the earth surface ,
particularly near destruction zones ,
where one plate is grinding down under another ,
in subduction zones.

Probable the most famous ,
is the Adriatic plate , carrying Venice towards eventual destruction under Italy and the Alps
Currently Venice is apparently getting lower by about 1 inch every ten years ,
and has gone down about 30 inches since built.

So while protection barriers built and being , might be worthwhile in terms of our lifespan ,
they will be useless before to long in actual relative time .
and , who knows , but she may even soon start going down faster as she moves closer.

Probably another inch lower since learned about , and will be at least ten inches lower in one hundred years.

When I was there about 50 years ago , I saw the first sighs of the problem , with water coming up through the floor of St marks as the tide rose.
Now , the whole square floods quite often.

The point is , wherever its happening , what is sea level rise , and what is land subsidence or plate tilting.

As some plates tilt , parts may rise , while other parts drop , as hsppened here in several well known incidents.
Wairarapa quake , tilt lifted west shore of Wellington harbour about 6 feet ,,
Napier Quake big areas uplifted , and a big area of new land , including the current airport land ,,
other smaller , ,
then Christchurch , then
Kiakura , big land tilts , and uplifts.

 

So for example for some well known apparently doomed islands in the western Pacific , how much are they actually going down ,
and how much really is sea level rise ?

I can't get an answer , but they certainly appear to be on a plate heading into a destructive subduction zone.

 

A very good illustration of plate movement
Is the Hawaiian islands.
As the plate has moved in a westerly direction the islands moved off the underlying hot spot ,
As they did , they became dormant , and then a new vent opened , and built a new island , and so on ,
and eventually the same will happen again ,
and Kīlauea will become dormant ,
and then the hotspot will find a new weak spot in the plate , and burst through to start building the next island.

 

The Mississippi gulf coast was devastated by Katrina, while most of the news was concentrating on New Orleans and the flooding of the city, the total destruction of entire communities was largely ignored. This is understandable as 96% +/-, deaths from hurricanes are caused by water, not wind.
The reconstruction of the Mississippi coast is ongoing today, almost 20 years later. After previous vast destruction by hurricane Camille 36 years earlier, government officials changed the rules on rebuilding. They no longer allowed rebuilding to the original standards. Residential properties were now required to build on elevated pilings or regraded with hard fill, to levels 12 to 20 feet above previous grades. Utilities were required to rebuild using tougher methods designed to withstand high winds and water.
This has slowed the reconstruction process and in many cases made some areas unacceptable for new construction, but, in my opinion, they are doing it right.

 

It's the storm of the century of the week!

 

I'm unsure about that, but I understand that there are sizable areas in Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas that are, for all practical purposes, uninhabited. The population density is under one person per square mile in these areas which means, that by the definition used by the US Census Bureau in 1890 (!), the frontier has re-opened.

 

What is going to happen to the southwest if Lake Mead keeps dropping

 

How about New York City?

But that's because of a man-made disaster.

 

Not much.
The pact states will get together and reallocate water based on reality (hopefully they'll allocate based on percentages this time) and life will go on.

There's plenty of water for the current population.