The Automated Metropolis
The always insightful Joel Garreau argues that, however much he or you or I might prefer otherwise, the City of New Orleans will not be rebuilt. The economy may demand a port there, he writes, but the port no longer demands a city:
Also distinct from the city are the region's ports, lining 172 miles of both banks of the Mississippi, as well as points on the Gulf. For example, the largest in the Western Hemisphere is the 54-mile stretch of the Port of South Louisiana. It is centered on La Place, 20 miles upriver from New Orleans. It moved 199 million tons of cargo in 2003, including the vast bulk of the river's grain. That is more than twice as much as the Port of New Orleans, according to the American Association of Port Authorities. The Port of Baton Rouge, almost as big as the Port of New Orleans, was not damaged. Also, downstream, there is the LOOP -- the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port out in the Gulf that handles supertankers requiring water depths of 85 feet. These ports are just a few of the biggest.
Illustrating how different the Port of New Orleans is from the city, its landline phones were back in business a week ago, says Gary LaGrange, the port's president and CEO. "The river is working beautifully," he reports, and "the terminal's not that bad."
Throughout the world, you see an increasing distinction between "port" and "city." As long as a port needed stevedores and recreational areas for sailors, cities like New Orleans -- or Baltimore or Rotterdam -- thrived. Today, however, the measure of a port is how quickly it can load or unload a ship and return it to sea. That process is measured in hours. It is the product of extremely sophisticated automation, which requires some very skilled people but does not create remotely enough jobs to support a city of half a million or so.
The dazzling Offshore Oil Port, for example, employs only about 100 people. Even the specialized Port of New Orleans, which handles things like coffee, steel and cruise boats, only needs 2,500 people on an average day, LaGrange says.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Rebuilt New Orleans might only be 1/3 to 1/2 of its former size. Baton Rouge is already seeing a huge real estate boom, and will probably end up Lousisana's largest city in short order.
Bah. Sentimentality carries the day over sensibility, unfortunately. This mistake will be repeated.
I'm sure congress is already having fun doling out development contracts to their buddies. It'll be rebuilt, just a stupid as ever.
The port isn't THAT independent right now. While they may have telephones, the employees are sleeping in a ship, and all their electric power comes from the same.
The problem here is that New Orleans, Louisiana is a city without citizens, but a lot of elected politicians and a lot of pork coming in. The local politicians have the incentive to pull in as much money from the federal government as possible. Louisiana was already good at this, and they'll get better.
The developers are also going to work at getting pork thrown their way. I've heard talk about making New Orleans a golf paradise by building golf courses in some of the flooded out areas (after the federal government spends billions cleaning off the land, of course).
The city planners are going to love New Orleans because they start off with a blank canvass -- so they can actually influence how things are planned -- plus they'll have lots of money.
The really sad thing about all this money being funneled to Louisiana is that the state is already full of crooks and sending billions and billions to them will encourage further corruption while enabling them to pocket even more of the money.
But the people can't be forced back to New Orleans. Everybody I know from New Orleans and have heard from since the hurricane plans to permanently leave. The place was already dying, and this gives everyone a good excuse to leave.
No matter what happens, I would expect the tourist spots to remain since they haven't experienced as much devestation, and that's really the only industry where New Orleans remains strong. It would actually be safer for these areas if New Orleans does not rebuild. It would place a buffer between the river and the lake. The Worst Case Scenario (direct hit floods the city's intact levees higher than the lake) would have destroyed even the higher ground parts of New Orleans. Building the levees higher is just going to make the Worst Case Scenario more dreadful.
CML: I don't think he's suggesting that the port is self-sufficient -- just that it won't require a New Orleans-sized metropolis to support it.
Cap'n Awesome: Well, that's another possible outcome. There's a fair chance we'll end up with a bunch of federally subsidized condos and luxury hotels.
Well, at least if they turn the lowest-lying parts of the city into golf courses, there will not be a 100,000 people without cars to evacuate next time. A few old guys in funny pants, maybe.....
Garreau frames his argument as "New Orleans won't be rebuilt," and that's probably just as well, as there is a psychological barrier to overcome in favor of a restoration. I'm sure everyone remembers the people saying the World Trade Center should be rebuilt as is - but with one more floor, man! - as a symbol of our indominable something or other.
But his real argument isn't that there will be no New Orleans, or even no rebuilding, but that the city will be rebuilt differently.
Contra Ammonium, planners don't like "blank slates." Good cities follow basic patterns already laid down. In the case of New Orleans, the basic pattern is of a series of interconnected cities, ports, towns, and suburbs throughout the southern Louisiana region. Garreau's allusion to Galveston is enlightening, but there is a key difference - there will be no Houston, no nearby city that rises to take New Orleans' place as The Big City. There will instead be a series of medium-sized cities in a regional network. New Orleans is going to have to be rebuilt to fill the role it can play in that region. The other cities and towns in the region are also going to have to be modified to take this change into account. And, of course, there will have to be a more robust regional infrastructure developed, including a metropolitan transit system.
Which is not too different from what a lot of other cities have had to do. Economic dislocations can empty out a city, too - it just takes longer. And yet, we've seem some of them come back. Those manufacturing and trade centers that have seen rebounds are the ones that have reinvented themselves as cultural, educational, research, and entertainment centers. And New Orleans is positioned to do that even better than such successes as Boston, New York, Burlington VT, Oakland, or Lowell MA.
Lowell might just need better city planners.:)
Presumably, the Port of New Orleans did not require a city as large as New Orleans to support it for a significant period prior to the hurricane, yet the population was still there. So either there was some other less obvious economic reason for the city other than to support the port or the city was existing on inertia that may have been disrupted by the disaster and Mr. Garreau's prediction will come true.
Ammonium and joe make a lot more sense than Joel Garreau.
Don't you understand? If we don't rebuild New Orleans, the hurricanes win!
Each one of those skilled people needs N unskilled people to form the economy that supports the needs of the skilled people to actually _live_ close enough to where they work to make it non-prohibitively expensive to hire them.
If every skilled port worker needs to drive to Baton Rouge to get a haircut, eat dinner, or watch a movie, you're going to be paying those skilled workers about twice what you would otherwise.
One interesting thing about the policy towards the levees - it's a completely different question than it was two weeks ago. I'm furious that the money wasn't forthcoming from the state and feds to maintain and raise the levees, but now, post-Katrina, I don't know that they should ever be rebuilt.
Well the question is, were the homes destroyed mostly those of renters or did the people living in them actually own them? Is this going to turn into the biggest ED CF in history as the planners and the developers try to build back something better?
Though the great Garreau may be insightful, the plain fact is that New Orleans will be rebuilt for a variety of reason that have little or nothing to do with port facilities and its proximity to it.
1. SHAME - Bush and congress have a debt to repay - real or imagined - and it's already proving to be a terrific opportunity to reward Bush cronies. That's not a value judgment...simply a statement of fact.
2. DEVELOPMENT - A lot of developers looking to 'clean up' and overhaul an historical area right next to what has long been becoming a Disneyfied characature of what used to be classic New orleans.
3. HUBRIS - Because they can. With the city clowly being pumped out and the levee system already enjoying a 'better mousetrap' renaissance - possibly resulting in yet another completely different solution altogether.
4. MONEY - There's gold in them thar hills. And private enterprise will come up with a winning solution...as long as the guv'mint provides some financial incentives to do so. And it will. Trust me.
5. REDEMPTION - If Iraq is a quagmire, rebuilding New Orleans is Bush's biggest opportunity yet to prove he can actually do something that has a visible payoff. Already having proven he can outspend and out-technocrat Clinton, New Orleans will be his gift to black people, poor people, 'merican people...heck, the whole dang world...people.
No...sorry to disagree. But Bush (and the whole Republican party) needs a facelift and New Orleans is to good to be true. I'd be very surprised if it weren't rebuilt...whether by government or private funding or one of many possible combinations of both.
x
I don't know if NO will be rebuilt or whether it makes economic sense. I'm just hoping that some of it will be rebuilt because it's one of the most culturally "cool" places in America. Like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and of course Wheeling, WV.
I'd rather have a new New Orleans than a new WTC.
BTW, I've heard that the French Quarter (among other places) is quite a bit lower than the Mississippi River. Supposedly it's protected by a series of levees, in the same way that the lower lying places that got flooded by the sea-level Lake Pontchartrain were protected. Is that true?
x
Why?
M1EK-
Very good point. Dock workers do indeed need stores to shop at and whatnot. But no matter what people might say about the need to rebuild, I doubt New Orleans will recover to its original size. It's not like the city was previously the bare minimum size needed to sustain tourism and the port. Every city, regardless of its character, has other enterprises aside from its main industries and the support personnel who provide basic services to those working in the main industries. Most of those non-core businesses will probably relocate.
And while I'm no expert on Gulf Coast ports, and while I realize that a certain amount of the Port of New Orleans is essential, I have a hunch that business at the port will not rebound to its original level. If I were a business manager, I'd take a long, careful look at my operations and ask how much of my operation I can afford to diversify to other ports, so that the eggs aren't all in one basket. No doubt for some industries it will be difficult to divert much of their shipping. But not for every industry.
Basically, my hunch is that regardless of what we think, and regardless of what the public officials may decide, New Orleans will emerge smaller and even more concentrated on 2 core functions: Tourism and a smaller port.
Zee.
New Orleans had a larger population than its economy could support. It became the welfare dumping ground for the poor of southeastern Louisiana. It was the place all the subsidize housing got built in. As a result, the city ended up with nearly a third of its population living below the poverty line with no local economic engine to pull them out.
Rebuilding NO to the old specs would just trap more people there. Scattering them out to diverse communities across the south and west might give them and the city the chance to truly succeed.
I'm sure everyone remembers the people saying the World Trade Center should be rebuilt as is - but with one more floor, man! - as a symbol of our indominable something or other
Yes, but that made sense -- the WTC towers were destroyed, on purpose, by humans. Acts of defiance make sense when they're directed at an actual human enemy. They don't make sense when directed against the wind, which -- the opinions of Pat Robertson and various environmentalists notwithstanding -- isn't actually out to get us.
Even the specialized Port of New Orleans, which handles things like coffee, steel and cruise boats, only needs 2,500 people on an average day, LaGrange says.
As a former longshoreman, I suspect many of those 2,500 could stay home without changing the amount of work done at the port.
I don't have numbers, but many of the poor in New Orleans lived off various government programs. Presumably those who wish to keep make a living that way can relocate anywhere the USPS delivers.
Thanks, TheDumbFish, for being the only one here to mention New Orleans' cultural value. I lean libertarian, but even I appreciate things like jazz and history.
I've met a few evacuees even this far west (Nevada) and they've expressed a strong desire to go back. People love the place, whatever its future character turns out to be.
Rob W and other doubters: Please do read Garreau's article as it is quite goode and convincing and he doesn't even mention the issues of timing & social equity which will discourage rebuilding.
Robw I suspect there are enough jazz enthusiasts (myself included), mardi-gras goers, cajun-food gorgers, Anne Rice fanatics, to support the tourist industry, without the need for massive, ongoing federal subsidies.
Now for the inappropriately placed "D-Day Museum", that's another story.
So long as we (as a nation, not me personally...*looks around, whistles*) have a need for Girls Gone Wild DVDs, we will have a need for Bourbon Street in the Big Easy. I am predicting N'awlins will be rebuilt, entirely on softcore skin flick money.
Thanks, TheDumbFish, for being the only one here to mention New Orleans' cultural value. I lean libertarian, but even I appreciate things like jazz and history.
Good for you. As for jazz, pay for it yourself.
As for history, the hurricane is part of history, too, and if it knocked large parts of non-viable NO off the map, well, its all history, you know?
Each one of those skilled people needs N unskilled people to form the economy that supports the needs of the skilled people to actually _live_ close enough to where they work to make it non-prohibitively expensive to hire them.
Well, yes, that's how cities grow. But with all those other people scattered across the country, and the economies that developed around them hopelessly disrupted, the prospects for the city of New Orleans, as opposed to a moderate-sized settlement around the port and a theme park around the French Quarter, aren't so good.
Again, that's only one possible scenario. But I wouldn't give it short shrift. (And whether or not you agree with Garreau's conclusions, I think his discussion of the ports is pretty fascinating.)
I recommend abandoning New Orleans to the bugs and snakes and establishing "New New Orleans" as an Epcot attraction at Disney World. It will be just as hot and humid but very clean and well-run and everyone will be happy and tourists will pay to visit. AND it's above sea level. Everyone wins!
DumbFish, in regards to your question about the Quarter being quite a bit lower than the Mississippi River...Is that true?
Answer: Yes. I went to school at LSU from 81-86 (5 years to get a BS in Civil Engineering, less than a 2 hour drive to Sin City South, go figure...). One of the weirdest feelings is standing at the base of the levee on the city side of NOLA, or on the west bank for that matter, and having to crain your neck way back just to look at the top of the superstructures on the vessels plying the big muddy at flood stage. Then, you feel the hair on your neck standing up as you realize you are standing 15-20 feet BELOW the surface of the river.
And I can clearly remember the conversations we had with our water resources profs about 'the big one' hitting NOLA. What happened surprised virtually no one in Louisiana. But, remember that politics is more spectator sport than government in Cajuniana, so it's not like anything would have been done, even if all the money in the world had been available.
For those of you talking about the ports on the big muddy, go look up what's been written about the two control structures (i.e. dams) that are at Old River. They keep the Atchafalaya River from capturing the flow of the Mississippi and fundamentally altering the flow of the river to the gulf. If either of those dams failed, the Mississippi would almost instantly change course. Downtown Morgan City LA would be 20+ feet underwater, permanently, and with the exception of the LOOP, ocean going vessels would no longer be able to ply the big muddy.
Just think of the economic damage that one terrorist with a decent sized boat full of HE could cause. That's a heckuva lot more frightening to consider than a flooded French Quarter.
Those manufacturing and trade centers that have seen rebounds are the ones that have reinvented themselves as cultural, educational, research, and entertainment centers
which is all well and good, mr joe. but the examples you cite as successful -- four east coast population centers and greater san francisco -- aren't located in the cultural and economic destitution of louisiana.
fwiw, because of the local conditions, the chances are much greater that new orleans ends up as a detroit or a buffalo on the gulf than as boston. put simply, the waterway trade route that made new orleans (and, for that matter, detroit, buffalo, milwaukee, cleveland and, yes, chicago) important in the imperial scheme of the colonies during the 19th c has been largely subsumed by interstate trucking and air freight in the latter half of the 20th. all of these cities, located in the sparsely populated campagna of american expansion, are facing some form of stagnation or extinction. none of them would be built today if manifest destiny came into being only now, with current transit technology. and in this fate of slow deterioration and (in some cases) abandonment, they'll join ten thousand cities of history, from ur and nineveh to florence and venice.
BTW, I've heard that the French Quarter (among other places) is quite a bit lower than the Mississippi River. Supposedly it's protected by a series of levees, in the same way that the lower lying places that got flooded by the sea-level Lake Pontchartrain were protected. Is that true
At New Orleans the Mississippi is about 20 ft above sea level. The French Quarter is about 8. Lk Ponchartrain is about 2' above.
In 1718 the crescent was above the river but wth the levees and settle ment of the ground, the river has gooten higher and the French Quarter has gotten lower.
All numbers approximate and from memory and subject to correction.
Allen Naugle posted his reply while I was typing mine. Thanks for the info on the Atchafalaya etc. Interesting.
Haven't seen this discussed anywhere yet, but part of Federal flood mitigation is purchasing houses and NOT rebuilding them, allowing people to relocate to less hazardous ground. This is done, IIRC, on a mostly voluntary basis, and the paperwork is ENORMOUS. Near where I live, the City of New Richmond (OH) used federal funds to purchase less than 100 houses following a devastating 1997 Ohio River flood. It took years to accomplish and filled up file cabinets. I can't quite get my mind around how anyone could do the same with, say, 25,000 houses using the same methods.
To the extent that federal funds are involved in purchasing and clearing the least salvageable areas, Washington will need a better way to do this, or any plan to shrink NOLA away from the most flood-prone areas will be a bureaucratic mess.
One of the interesting things about this discussion is the simple reality that a certain famous Dutch city (full of the most unique and enjoyable coffe houses), is not flooded, and will probably not be flooded in the forseeable future.
There never was, and never will be a "free market" NOLA. There will be a Bossopoly bassed on uniform government control, as there has always been. Which is why the government will prevent the real freemarket from building an effective, shareholder controlled NOLA. And the Libertarians, whether or not they admit it, will help the pro-guv forces do this. The only "free market" input to NOLA has always been under the surface, nearly black market...and of course the decision to locate the city there in the first place.
However, should the government stay out, and should the Libertarians not help the feds prevent local control (as they will by opposing the right of the people to be free, but supporting the ascendency of Government endorsed, limited liability corps, over the rights of individuals) I would invest there today.
But I don't, because I am aware that the Republicans, Democrats, and the "Free market for welfare corps only" Libertarians will ensure that the people who own locally have no voice.
gaius, "fwiw, because of the local conditions, the chances are much greater that new orleans ends up as a detroit or a buffalo on the gulf than as boston." I disagree. New Orleans' attractive seaside location and rich cultural history make it a lot more like Boston than Detroit. Boston had its history, educational systems, and cultural significance to fall back on when our economy shifted from industrial to post-industrial. Detroit, not so much.
"put simply, the waterway trade route that made new orleans (and, for that matter, detroit, buffalo, milwaukee, cleveland and, yes, chicago) important in the imperial scheme of the colonies during the 19th c has been largely subsumed by interstate trucking and air freight in the latter half of the 20th." True, but water access continues to be a strong magnet for development, though for different reasons. Particularly when coupled with history and culture, it helps to define a city as a fun place - a place to live the good life.
New Orleans will come back, because there is a there there.
define a city as a fun place
not to be pithy, mr joe, but i imagine the residents of babylon under the seleucids saying the same thing -- and new orleans is no babylon. the idea that the fragmentary french and african remnants that constitute nola's distinctive "culture" are important enough to merit a continuance from harsher truths seems a bit wishful, imo -- but that's just me.
cities die. they are transient things. and when the use of a city is past, it's hard to perpetuate its existence indefinitely on managerial tact alone.
I like that gaius excuses himself for pithiness before writing, "i imagine the residents of babylon under the seleucids saying the same thing."
We're living in a different world. People, and businesses, can located based on where they WANT to be. And, increasingly, they want to be in places that have something different to offer than the sprawling blandness of the United States of Generica. New Orleans has that something is spades. If Phoenix got swallowed by the earth, you're right, it probably wouldn't be rebuilt. But, unlike Phoenis, New Orleans has something to offer people that an empty spot 500 miles away doesn't.
We're living in a different world.
different, i agree, mr joe, but also the same. this is far from the first time in history that communication networks have devalued necessity of location for luxury -- indeed, every empire in history that i'm aware of built extensive infrastructure in order to facilitate easy management across vast areas. that doesn't keep cities from passing out of existence. in fact, it facilitates the process.
i would argue, fwiw, that dead cities like genoa, florence and venice -- each one of the world's largest and most important cosmopolitan centers in the 14th c -- make new orleans seem utterly vanilla by contrast. did it save them?
your elevation of cultural uniqueness as a determinant for survival is perhaps noble, mr joe, in an age with shuns conformity and glorifies rebellion -- but doesn't have much of a track record over the long haul. the united states of generica is a postmodern echo of the same affliction that befell classical city-states in the imperial roman era -- each getting their forum, complete with temple, marketplace and stoa -- and many decadent civilizations before that. it's a managerial tactic.
joe,
"If Phoenix got swallowed by the earth, you're right, it probably wouldn't be rebuilt. But, unlike Phoenis, New Orleans has something to offer people that an empty spot 500 miles away doesn't."
Sad but true.
I think it's probably safe to say that NO will continue as a cultural and tourist destination, but will never again be nearly as populated as it once was.
""put simply, the waterway trade route that made new orleans (and, for that matter, detroit, buffalo, milwaukee, cleveland and, yes, chicago) important in the imperial scheme of the colonies during the 19th c has been largely subsumed by interstate trucking and air freight in the latter half of the 20th." True,"
No, not true. The well-known flaming liberals at stratfor.com point out that New Orleans is STILL a critical port city for America's economic interests. Even subsidized trucking can't compete with barges in moving grain.
...dead cities like genoa, florence and venice...
Genoa an Florence are certainly not dead. While neither has anything like the their prominence in the Middle Ages they are both still centers of commercial and cultural activity. And highly desirable places to live.
I'll give you Venice, which survives as mostly a theme park. It is still one of my favorites. And its port is still the major port in the region.
I suspect that New Orleans will survive in much the same way as Venice. A tourist center with a major port attached. And slowly depopulating.
And slowly sinking into the lagoon. 🙂
"i would argue, fwiw, that dead cities like genoa, florence and venice -- each one of the world's largest and most important cosmopolitan centers in the 14th c -- make new orleans seem utterly vanilla by contrast. did it save them?"
Um, yes, it did. They're all still large, populous cities, and haven't been abandoned.
"indeed, every empire in history that i'm aware of built extensive infrastructure in order to facilitate easy management across vast areas. that doesn't keep cities from passing out of existence. in fact, it facilitates the process." It doesn't keep SOME cities from passing out of existence. But it strengthens and builds up others.
Todd, "I think it's probably safe to say that NO will continue as a cultural and tourist destination, but will never again be nearly as populated as it once was."
I predicted earlier that New Orleans would be rebuilt, that its population would be smaller, and that it would be closely knitted with other cities and towns in the region. If New Orleans' population is 150,000 less, but the other communities in the region gain 150,000 people (including a new North New Orleans, pop. 70,000), and those communities are much more closely tied in with New Orleans, has New Orleans really lost anything?
joe,
Maybe genoa and florence are not the same cities as Genoa and Florence. You know the thriving Italian cities.
Maybe gaius will tell us where genoa and florence were.
I think gaius is conflating two different concepts under the heading "decline."
The fact that a city is no longer a world shaking ass kicker doesn't mean it is on its way to dust. There is a perfectly happy plane of genteel, stable, second tier (in the sense of power and significance, not prosperity or quality of life) urbanity that is not merely a way station on the way to Ozymandius.
I'm with you on that. I just couldn't resist getting a dig at GM's no-capitals fetish.
Actually N'Awlins ought to be so lucky as to be restored to a status anywhere near Genoa and Florence.
There is one parallel though. Florence sufered a devastating flood in the '60s when the River Po overflowed its banks.
Correction: The River Arno flows through Florence.
thanks