Is This Wrong? (TS/Hurricane Rita)

[Blackadar]

Is anyone else secretly hoping that NO gets hit by TS/Hurricane Rita? I am - sort of.

Hear me out...

I strongly feel that they should not rebuild New Orleans. There is a strong chance that Global Warming is real. Without debating the possible causes of Global Warming, there seems to be a general agreement that there is a warming trend. If so, this will trend could raise global sea levels as much as 12 feet (worst case scenario) in the next 100 years. NO is already under sea level. It's going to be absurdly expensive to rebuild and as soon as it is rebuilt, it will immediately be in jeporady again from the effects of a strong hurricane. Possible rising sea levels just exacerbate this problem.

Yet it seems that everyone is just blindly throwing taxpayer dollars away by rebuilding this money pit of a city. I'm not amazed by the lack of foresight, because it's a political hot button that no one wants to touch. But - at leat to me - we're probably being very stupid by rebuilding this city. It's like building a house on quicksand. I think that relocation of the entire city may be a better option. The port is necessary - but why not have the city located elsewhere (10 or 20 miles away) and offer a great public transportation system to the port itself?

There aren't many people left in the city. I'm hoping that nature strikes again with Rita and floods NO all over again. I'm sort of hoping that the levee's break again and the whole city is flooded.

No one should be around to get hurt since the city is evacuated - and I don't want to see anyone get hurt. But I'm hoping the perhaps another major flood will change the way of thinking to just rebuilding the port of NO and relocating the main city elsewhere. Maybe it'll take two major floods back-to-back to get everyone's attention that perhaps fighting nature isn't the best option here.

[Eaglesfan27]

Uhhhhmmmm... NO.

[Cringer]

There aren't many people left in the city. I'm hoping that nature strikes again with Rita and floods NO all over again. I'm sort of hoping that the levee's break again and the whole city is flooded.

No one should be around to get hurt since the city is evacuated - and I don't want to see anyone get hurt. But I'm hoping the perhaps another major flood will change the way of thinking to just rebuilding the port of NO and relocating the main city elsewhere. Maybe it'll take two major floods back-to-back to get everyone's attention that perhaps fighting nature isn't the best option here.

Watch the news today. Many people have started to come back into the city. And no, I don't wish another hurricane to screw it up even more because I do/don't like the plan of action for that area.

And it looks like it will most likely hit between were I llive in south Texas to just into LA.

[Eaglesfan27]

Exactly. People have already started repopulating. Also, another hit could further damage vital buildings that are still operable. The loss of life and property could be quite significant if Rita hit New Orleans.

[st.cronin]

ew

worst thread EVER

[Masked]

No. I hope to see the city rebuilt.

[bronconick]

Watch the news today. Many people have started to come back into the city. And no, I don't wish another hurricane to screw it up even more because I do/don't like the plan of action for that area.

And it looks like it will most likely hit between were I llive in south Texas to just into LA.
And frankly, people being allowed into the city for anything other then picking up anything they can salvage right now and then asked to leave again is a bad idea. I mean, the water isn't good for anything except shitting into right now.

[Cringer]

And frankly, people being allowed into the city for anything other then picking up anything they can salvage right now and then asked to leave again is a bad idea. I mean, the water isn't good for anything except shitting into right now.

I pretty much agree. But like it or not it is happening and so there are more then just some contractors and national guard walking around.

[SackAttack]

I think rebuilding New Orleans on the old site is a monumentally bad idea for myriad reasons.

I will laugh incredibly hard at Ray Nagin (while sympathizing with those who chose to move back into the city) for rushing the repopulation of the city during freaking HURRICANE SEASON if another storm hits New Orleans while its defenses are laid to waste.

But no, I don't WANT it to happen.

[bronconick]

I pretty much agree. But like it or not it is happening and so there are more then just some contractors and national guard walking around.
And this is a situation where someone at the State or Federal level needs to override Nagin and tell him that when experts have said it is safe to allow people to repopulate the city, they'll call him, and until then, he can keep his mouth shut.

[Young Drachma]

There are a myriad of pragmatic and logical reasons why New Orleans would continue to be rebuilt.

By the same logic, all the money we've "wasted" over the years in Florida or in California because of earthquakes or places where there raging forest fires..is stupid because it's just going to happen again.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think rebuilding New Orleans on the old site is a monumentally bad idea for myriad reasons.

I will laugh incredibly hard at Ray Nagin (while sympathizing with those who chose to move back into the city) for rushing the repopulation of the city during freaking HURRICANE SEASON if another storm hits New Orleans while its defenses are laid to waste.

But no, I don't WANT it to happen.
It's not even a choice for some. If Nagin hadn't suspended the repopulation, one of my jobs would have required me to report to work on Monday in the city. As long as the repopulation is officially suspended, I'm on leave from that job.

[Blackadar]

Thus far, no one has yet been able to say why rebuilding NO at its old site is a good idea.

Actually, Ray Nagin put a halt to reentering the city this afternoon. So no, there aren't a lot of people there. At least not compared to the first time around. If it does threaten the city, hopefully anyone around will heed the warnings this time and leave.

It's probably going to strike somewhere. I'd rather it hit an already decimated area rather than one where refugees fled to and screw up another area. Perhaps I'm not hoping that NO is hit again. Perhaps what I'm hoping is that if it is hit again, we actually heed the lesson that nature is trying to teach us and stop throwing taxpayers dollars and lives down the drain.

[st.cronin]

New Orleans is a major port, of significant pragmatic national interest, in terms of our economy. Of course it will be rebuilt. Equally obvious is that it should NOT be rebuilt exactly the way it was, but I think hardly anybody is suggesting that.

[SackAttack]

It's not even a choice for some. If Nagin hadn't suspended the repopulation, one of my jobs would have required me to report to work on Monday in the city. As long as the repopulation is officially suspended, I'm on leave from that job.

What I'm saying is that the various government agencies do have the ability to suspend repopulation. I'm further saying that I think repopulating while the city's storm defenses are ravaged, in the middle of hurricane season, is a recipe for disaster.

I don't think New Orleans should be rebuilt at its current location, but if it must be, then why not allow the Army Corps of Engineers to do their job, rebuild the defenses, and repopulate the city in a few months when the immediate threat of a recurrence isn't so great?

Never mind that there are profound health issues involved with returning to the city right now. Is an outbreak of plague and disease really in the best long-term interests of New Orleans and Louisiana as a whole?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Perhaps what I'm hoping is that if it is hit again, we actually heed the lesson that nature is trying to teach us and stop throwing taxpayers dollars and lives down the drain.

Hell Blackie, wouldn't it be great if it didn't take another storm for people to figure that out? That there's even a tiny bit of common sense left in the world?

Of course, at this point I don't really believe that a second (or more) storm will get that lesson taught, so I'm not exactly the most optimistic person you're going to find on this subject I'm afraid.

[SackAttack]

New Orleans is a major port, of significant pragmatic national interest, in terms of our economy. Of course it will be rebuilt. Equally obvious is that it should NOT be rebuilt exactly the way it was, but I think hardly anybody is suggesting that.

Is it absolutely imperative that the port remain where it is, rather than being relocated to a spot further upstream?

[dawgfan]

To answer your question blackie, yes, it is wrong.

New Orleans will exist in some form or fashion, regardless. The question really isn't will New Orleans be rebuilt, but how much and how much in federal dollars will be spent on rebuilding - those are the pertinent points and the things to be debated.

Wishing that another natural disaster strikes the area is the wrong way to approach this argument. It'd be the same thing as saying "I hope that after the next major earthquake in San Francisco/Los Angeles/Seattle that another one strikes soon after so they think twice about rebuilding in such an area of vulnerability to natural disaster."

[st.cronin]

Is it absolutely imperative that the port remain where it is, rather than being relocated to a spot further upstream?

Even further upstream, it would still be a target for hurricanes as well as flooding. So what is your point?

[Blackadar]

There are a myriad of pragmatic and logical reasons why New Orleans would continue to be rebuilt.

By the same logic, all the money we've "wasted" over the years in Florida or in California because of earthquakes or places where there raging forest fires..is stupid because it's just going to happen again.

Probably the best counterpoint thus far.

I'm looking at magnitude, impact and frequency of a disaster.

Short of a volcano, a flood is generally the worst type natural disaster. Let's take your two examples - FL and CA - against NO. And I'll add a couple more in.

Can FL and NO experience the same kind of hurricanes? You betcha. At the same frequency? You betcha. However, there is nowhere in FL where flooding would have the same impact due to the relative height of the cities. Tampa or Miami could flood, but nowhere near the same magnitude as NO.

A MAJOR earthquake in CA is a great comparison. Similar magnitude and frequency as a major hurricane in NO. But earthquake damage is more easily prevented than flood damage, and therefore doesn't have the same impact.

Here's another scenario.

Probably one of the worst-case scenarios is Seattle. Mount Rainer blows and creates a flash-flood of mud that envelops Seattle. Magnitude is actually worse than NO. Impact is worse than NO. However, the frequency is extremely small and therefore doesn't match the variables of NO. You could also throw in a major earthquake causing a flood in the NW USA, Yellowstone's SuperVolcano scenario and some others in this category of "incredibly bad, but incredibly small chance" disasters.

I'm not saying abandon NO. I'm just saying it may be more prudent to move it. I firmly believe that. And if it takes another hurricane to convince people to do it, I'd rather it be now while the city is destoyed and abandoned rather than later when it will cost more lives and much more money.

[SackAttack]

Even further upstream, it would still be a target for hurricanes as well as flooding. So what is your point?

You're telling me there isn't a suitable spot upstream that isn't below freaking sea level?

[rexallllsc]

Is anyone else secretly hoping that NO gets hit by TS/Hurricane Rita? I am - sort of.

Hear me out...

I strongly feel that they should not rebuild New Orleans. There is a strong chance that Global Warming is real. Without debating the possible causes of Global Warming, there seems to be a general agreement that there is a warming trend. If so, this will trend could raise global sea levels as much as 12 feet (worst case scenario) in the next 100 years. NO is already under sea level. It's going to be absurdly expensive to rebuild and as soon as it is rebuilt, it will immediately be in jeporady again from the effects of a strong hurricane. Possible rising sea levels just exacerbate this problem.

Yet it seems that everyone is just blindly throwing taxpayer dollars away by rebuilding this money pit of a city. I'm not amazed by the lack of foresight, because it's a political hot button that no one wants to touch. But - at leat to me - we're probably being very stupid by rebuilding this city. It's like building a house on quicksand. I think that relocation of the entire city may be a better option. The port is necessary - but why not have the city located elsewhere (10 or 20 miles away) and offer a great public transportation system to the port itself?

There aren't many people left in the city. I'm hoping that nature strikes again with Rita and floods NO all over again. I'm sort of hoping that the levee's break again and the whole city is flooded.

No one should be around to get hurt since the city is evacuated - and I don't want to see anyone get hurt. But I'm hoping the perhaps another major flood will change the way of thinking to just rebuilding the port of NO and relocating the main city elsewhere. Maybe it'll take two major floods back-to-back to get everyone's attention that perhaps fighting nature isn't the best option here.

I don't hope it hits there, but I do think it's ridiculous how much tapayer money will be spent to rebuild NoLa.

[st.cronin]

You're telling me there isn't a suitable spot upstream that isn't below freaking sea level?

Being below sea level is not a problem without a solution. New Orleans was an old city, with old defenses - it will hopefully be rebuilt more pragmatically in accordance with the local elements. If that's all you are saying, then I agree. You seem to be implying that we should not be building coastal cities. We NEED coastal cities.

[Cringer]

No one likes my city on stilts idea. :(

[Huckleberry]

I absolutely agree that rebuilding is tremendously foolish. But I'm referencing residential building only.

They should absolutely not under any circumstances issue residential building permits in the most flooded areas. Ever. Allow port/industrial construction but no homes.

This is simply logical.

[dawgfan]

Probably one of the worst-case scenarios is Seattle. Mount Rainer blows and creates a flash-flood of mud that envelops Seattle. Magnitude is actually worse than NO. Impact is worse than NO. However, the frequency is extremely small and therefore doesn't match the variables of NO.

Just for clarification, this is exceedingly unlikely - previous major mudflows in geologic history from Rainier have not reached as far as Seattle. They would indeed be devastation for areas like Puyallup, Auburn and Kent, but the chances of a major mudflow impacting Seattle itself are extremely low.

There would be impact simply due to the effect on the surrounding region, but Rainier blowing it's top is not the major disaster scenario for Seattle - a major earthquake is the issue, and we're vulnerable to 2 types: A huge (i.e. 9.0) subduction quake from the Cascadia subduction zone deep under the coastline, which seems to happen around every 500 years or so (last one was in 1700) and a major shallow quake along the Seattle fault line that runs directly under the city (a 7.0 here could be as bad as a 9.0 Cascadia quake in terms of impact to Seattle).

Among the major issues is the shape of Puget Sound and Elliott Bay - there are significant risks of tsunami damage from those quakes sloshing the water in Puget Sound and Elliott Bay around and back at the city, on top of whatever ground-shaking damage is incurred.

[Masked]

Most cities have a disaster scenario that happens only every 500 years or so. New Orleans had theirs happen. It might happen again next week, it may not happen again for 500 years. Rebuilding New Orleans is no riskier than keeping San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Charleston, St. Louis, Memphis, Houston, etc.

[Solecismic]

I'd be much more worried about Galveston than New Orleans, w.r.t. Rita. Very early to tell, but water temperatures are still rather high in the Gulf, and it's going to strengthen.

If it does end up near New Orleans, it would probably only be a mild windstorm by that point, and would just annoy the people cleaning up.

[Buccaneer]

I think Nagin is going to regret getting his wish in having the Feds take over his city. They have mountains of rules and regulations that if enforced, will never make the city inhabitable again. Last week they were talking about the amount of lead in the floodwater while they admit is not anywhere near fatal level (maybe in one lab rat somewhere), that will be enough to prevent anyone near any standing water or anything that have been touched by that water. These are the same rules that are used to shutdown developments, growth and to penalize businesses everywhere else in the country and if the Feds don't start easing up, it's going to be a long, drawn out tug of war over authority, regulations and political capital.

[sterlingice]

Hell Blackie, wouldn't it be great if it didn't take another storm for people to figure that out? That there's even a tiny bit of common sense left in the world?

Of course, at this point I don't really believe that a second (or more) storm will get that lesson taught, so I'm not exactly the most optimistic person you're going to find on this subject I'm afraid. Shouldn't this speak to the validity of the thread (or invalidity, perhaps)- Blackie and JiMGA agree? :D

SI

[sterlingice]

It's probably going to strike somewhere. I'd rather it hit an already decimated area rather than one where refugees fled to and screw up another area. Perhaps I'm not hoping that NO is hit again. Perhaps what I'm hoping is that if it is hit again, we actually heed the lesson that nature is trying to teach us and stop throwing taxpayers dollars and lives down the drain. Most cities have a disaster scenario that happens only every 500 years or so. New Orleans had theirs happen. It might happen again next week, it may not happen again for 500 years. Rebuilding New Orleans is no riskier than keeping San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Charleston, St. Louis, Memphis, Houston, etc. See- and this is what people just don't seem to get (re: hurricane strike elsewhere, Blackie; the following for everyone else). New Orleans is much riskier than rebuilding some of these other places. Take Houston, for instance. 100 years ago they realized that the "best" idea for a port was to dredge a ditch 60 miles inland because of Galveston's devistation. Houston't couldn't be destroyed even by a category 5 because it'd lose strength before it made it to the city. Oh, and that whole "danger of being flooded"- aside from flash floods just isn't there as most ports drain downwards into the ocean and don't have a Lake Ponchartrain sitting above them. If the sky wants to drop 30 inches on a place, it's going to flood temporarily, but not like what happened to New Orleans.

SI

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Is anyone else secretly hoping that NO gets hit by TS/Hurricane Rita? I am - sort of.

Hear me out...

I strongly feel that they should not rebuild New Orleans. There is a strong chance that Global Warming is real. Without debating the possible causes of Global Warming, there seems to be a general agreement that there is a warming trend. If so, this will trend could raise global sea levels as much as 12 feet (worst case scenario) in the next 100 years. NO is already under sea level. It's going to be absurdly expensive to rebuild and as soon as it is rebuilt, it will immediately be in jeporady again from the effects of a strong hurricane. Possible rising sea levels just exacerbate this problem.

Yet it seems that everyone is just blindly throwing taxpayer dollars away by rebuilding this money pit of a city. I'm not amazed by the lack of foresight, because it's a political hot button that no one wants to touch. But - at leat to me - we're probably being very stupid by rebuilding this city. It's like building a house on quicksand. I think that relocation of the entire city may be a better option. The port is necessary - but why not have the city located elsewhere (10 or 20 miles away) and offer a great public transportation system to the port itself?

There aren't many people left in the city. I'm hoping that nature strikes again with Rita and floods NO all over again. I'm sort of hoping that the levee's break again and the whole city is flooded.

No one should be around to get hurt since the city is evacuated - and I don't want to see anyone get hurt. But I'm hoping the perhaps another major flood will change the way of thinking to just rebuilding the port of NO and relocating the main city elsewhere. Maybe it'll take two major floods back-to-back to get everyone's attention that perhaps fighting nature isn't the best option here.

It's our Do first and never think things through attitude! Thats The American Way Baby!

[Blackadar]

Most cities have a disaster scenario that happens only every 500 years or so. New Orleans had theirs happen. It might happen again next week, it may not happen again for 500 years. Rebuilding New Orleans is no riskier than keeping San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Charleston, St. Louis, Memphis, Houston, etc.

I disagree. Hurricanes striking that part of the USA are much more likely than many other disaster scenarios. Pensacola has been hit no less than 3 times in the last 12 months. This is not a 500 year scenario - probably more like 25 years.

[Blackadar]

See- and this is what people just don't seem to get. New Orleans is much riskier than rebuilding some of these other places. Take Houston, for instance. 100 years ago they realized that the "best" idea for a port was to dredge a ditch 60 miles inland because of Galveston's devistation. Houston't couldn't be destroyed even by a category 5 because it'd lose strength before it made it to the city. Oh, and that whole "danger of being flooded"- aside from flash floods just isn't there as most ports drain downwards into the ocean and don't have a Lake Ponchartrain sitting above them. If the sky wants to drop 30 inches on a place, it's going to flood temporarily, but not like what happened to New Orleans.

SI

Exactly. I cannot think of another major USA city that has the risk of a natural disaster being:

1. Fairly common
2. Extremely hard to mitigate or virtually unpreventable
3. That has a significant impact over a wide area
4. That causes such incredible destruction

Most other scenarios either aren't as common (tsunamis), can be mitigated (earthquakes) or can't cause such destruction (fires, tornados, even other floods).

[Neon_Chaos]

The guys rebuilding NO should learn from the Dutch.

[sterlingice]

The guys rebuilding NO should learn from the Dutch.
They should all wear wooden shoes and pick tulips? http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

SI

[JPhillips]

Bucc: Lead contamination at least is very serious even at small levels. Studies show that even miniscule amounts of lead in young children cause learning problems later that can't be corrected. In fact if there is one area of environmental law that needs strengthened its lead contamination. Its probably one of the most cost effective ways to raise the overall IQ of the very poor.

Now I won't speak to the rest of the EPA, but lead is the wrong fight.

[CamEdwards]

They should all wear wooden shoes and pick tulips? http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

SI

I think he was referring to legalized pot and prostitution. We ARE talking about Sodom and Gamorrah, remember?

[albionmoonlight]

Large portions of the New Orleans metro area did not flood. Large portions of the New Orleans metro area are outside of the "bowl." Billions of dollars of extant property was not destroyed and is in a pretty functional state. The city can be rebuilt in such a way as to move population into the areas less in danger and to minimize the worst of the bowl effect.

You seem to think that it would make more sense to abandon the area entirely (leaving billions in undamaged property to rot and displacing an entire city) than to try to rebuild the City smartly. As a taxpayer, I'm glad that you are not in charge.

Tons of people are back in the metro area. The suburbs have been open for a week. Both of my parents and my brother in law are back at work. People are getting back to their lives. If a storm hits now, lots and lots of people will be in its way. The only difference between now and last time is that fuel is at a premium. And some of the roads out of town are still washed out. Lots more people will be trapped in New Orleans if it hits there. As one who values human life, I am glad that you are not in charge.

Because I respect you and don't want to start a flame war, I will chalk up your suggestion to the fact that you probably don't really understand the underlying facts (i.e. that, despite what the national media would have you beleive, many parts of the City (especially the suburbs) were not hit that badly and are in no more danger than any other coastal city. And that lots of people are down there.)

Should New Orleans be rebuilt the way that it was? Of course not. Is it wrong to wish that a hurricane hit the City right now? Of Course.

[stevew]

No one likes my city on stilts idea. :(
Hey, its not the worst idea. Better yet, just mark flood points. IF anyone wants to rebuild in an extremely floodable area, they have to build 3 feet higher than the Katrina waters were.

[stevew]

The guys rebuilding NO should learn from the Dutch.
The dutch also dont have the Hurricanes( i think)

[albionmoonlight]

Exactly. I cannot think of another major USA city that has the risk of a natural disaster being:

1. Fairly common
2. Extremely hard to mitigate or virtually unpreventable
3. That has a significant impact over a wide area
4. That causes such incredible destruction

Most other scenarios either aren't as common (tsunamis), can be mitigated (earthquakes) or can't cause such destruction (fires, tornados, even other floods).
Dola--

Well, given that you are in charge of defining the words "Major," "Fairly," "Common," Extremely," "Virtually," "Significant," "Wide," and
Incredible." And given that we must accept that these vague factors are the exclusive list that one should examine when determining whether to displace the population of a city: then I will concede that there is no way that one could win an argument with you on these points and that you are correct that the city should be abandonded.

I would, of course, approach the question slighly differently. We need not start from a point (the City must not be rebuilt. The City must be rebuilt just as it was) and devise vague factors which inexorably lead to our end and give it the illusion of a logical conclusion. Instead, we should really decide what is important to us as a country as we decide how to rebuild/relocate in the aftermath of the disaster and see where that leads us. Bottom up thinking instead of top down.

Sadly, I share Bucc's view that no politician has the ability to make that actually happen.

[Buccaneer]

Bucc: Lead contamination at least is very serious even at small levels. Studies show that even miniscule amounts of lead in young children cause learning problems later that can't be corrected. In fact if there is one area of environmental law that needs strengthened its lead contamination. Its probably one of the most cost effective ways to raise the overall IQ of the very poor.

Now I won't speak to the rest of the EPA, but lead is the wrong fight.
Not quite true. According to CDC, it would take large levels (15 ppb) to possibly cause harm

Most studies show that exposure to lead-contaminated water alone would not be likely to elevate blood lead levels in most adults, even exposure to water with a lead content close to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) “action level” for lead of 15 parts per billion (ppb). Risk will vary, however, depending upon the individual, the circumstances, and the amount of water consumed. For example, infants who drink formula prepared with lead-contaminated water may be at a higher risk because of the large volume of water they consume relative to their body size.

...bathing and showering should be safe for you and your children, even if the water contains lead over EPA’s action level. Human skin does not absorb lead in water.

Obviously, as you said, children would be at higher risk but it would still be at or above 15 ppb which nowadays, would mostly be from corroded joints and other older fixtures.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I think everybody has this all wrong. New Orleans should be rebuilt, but in a different fashion than it was before... Embrace that the city is below sea level! Damn the levies! Recreate "The Big Easy" as the "Venice of the Bayou!"

Imagine a Mardis Gras with gondolas!

[DaddyTorgo]

I think everybody has this all wrong. New Orleans should be rebuilt, but in a different fashion than it was before... Embrace that the city is below sea level! Damn the levies! Recreate "The Big Easy" as the "Venice of the Bayou!"

Imagine a Mardis Gras with gondolas!
i think you might be joking John, but I really like this idea, and it's not the first time I've heard it. I mean...why not? It'd definately help make it an even bigger tourist attraction. dunno what it'd mean for future hurricanes though...

[Qwikshot]

Let's build the city on rock 'n' roll this time alright!!!!

[BigJohn&TheLions]

i think you might be joking John, but I really like this idea, and it's not the first time I've heard it. I mean...why not? It'd definately help make it an even bigger tourist attraction. dunno what it'd mean for future hurricanes though...
It was a half-joke. I made the joke once when it flooded and thought that it really wouldn't be that bad an idea... I'd rather go there if it was such. But would it be feasible? It could make the humidity and mosquito problem unbearable...

[sterlingice]

Let's build the city on rock 'n' roll this time alright!!!!
Ew... you've seen Cleveland and how poorly that turned out. You sure we want to try that again? I suppose it could have just been shoddy planning there :p

SI

[Qwikshot]

We built this city...
We built this city

on rock and roll

Built this city....

[BigJohn&TheLions]

We built this city...
We built this city

on rock and roll

Built this city....
You need to be shot. Cam? :D

[Wolfpack]

It was a half-joke. I made the joke once when it flooded and thought that it really wouldn't be that bad an idea... I'd rather go there if it was such. But would it be feasible? It could make the humidity and mosquito problem unbearable...

"Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other people said I was daft to build a city on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up!"

[PilotMan]

"Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other people said I was daft to build a city on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up!"
Ahh, the marvels of modern engineering. More true than funny now.

No, still funnier, but true.