New Orleans

Kelman article does contribute to the question of whether to rebuild the city. He states how the city has a quite some time, put itself in this unfortnate situation. It has relied on uncertain artifice to protect it from unpredictable environs. New Orleans lies well below sea level and is a shallow bowl basically, surrounded by many levees. His immiediate analysis is that New Orleans would be a very, very difficult rebuliding process and most likely shouldn't happen

Kelman, New Orleans, Football Stadiums-Tim Fisher

Kelman basically believes that New Orleans is one of the dumber creations that mankind has ever made. The city is completely surrounded by monstrous levees that hold out the enormous amount of water that would otherwise engulf it. Kelman believes that this city, and apparently football stadiums, should be forgotten about.

Jeremiah Knox: Kelman's New Orleans

Kelman's idea on rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina is rather pessimistic. Although it is not directly stated by Kelman, it is apparent that he thinks very negatively on the subject. He points out that the levees of New Orleans do not provide adequate defense against flooding. In fact, Kelman states that the levees only turn the city into a bowl. Kelman leads to the idea that if New Orleans were to be rebuilt, then there have to be better defense mechanisms to protect the city.

Kelman:New Orleans

Kelman looks at the issue rebuilding New Orleans through a factual stand point. It talks about how the land is physically incapable from protecting itself from natural disasters like flooding and hurricanes. He goes on to point out the because New Orleans is so far below sea level, many times water has too be pumped out of the city. Another point that Kelman makes about the construction of New Orleans and it's dependency on engineered landscapes to protect this city. All these points and more help contribute to the fact that he does not believe that New Orleans should be rebuild after hurricane Katrina, because it is not in agreance with the environment.

Kelman: New Orleans

Kelman's analysis is that New Orleans should not be re-built. He states many reasons why the city should not be re-built. One reason being the city could flood again like during Hurricane Katrina. Another reason is if we build higher walls it will take longer to get the water out of the city. Since the city is below sea level, it is not a good location to start a city when it was founded and it still is not a good location.

Kelman Article: New Orleans

In the article that Kelman wrote he discusses why he doesn't think that New Orleans should be rebuilt. The thing that makes the article so convincing is that he is sure to back up his reason's with why he doesn't think it should be rebuilt. He discusses how it is just not a safe place to live, even if they built it back up again, it would still not be safe. They thought it was safe from the beginning and it still happened so who is to say that it will not happen again? He is just saying that in reality it is not worth the risk of going through all that devastation again.

New Orlean's

Kelman indirectly explains that New Orleans should not be re-built. He mentions the poor location of the city. He says that it is located right in the path-way of many tropical storms. Also at the end of this article he mentions that now because they have decided to re-build New Orlean's it will be harder to get water out that gets in.

New Orleans' Blessing or Curse?

On the second page of this online article, Kelman states many very harshly worded opinions towards the idea of Katrina becoming rebuild. Saying things like "new orleans i a fool's errand, or a disaser waiting to happen," does not show much support to allow a newly renovated city. He spoke much about all the problems and negative aspects of katrina on the city and also the fact that either way citizens look at it, the city is doomed. The pumps that were created to help against floods failed in the wrath of katrnia, and overall the city is in a destructive tropical storm pathway. I dont necessarily agree with these statements but for one to live in such a dangerous area i give them much credit.