VeggieBoards banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">It's been almost a year since Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans flood. A year after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire, San Franciscans had moved out of emergency camps in parks and playgrounds and were rebuilding their homes. Progress in New Orleans has been slower. It's been estimated that as much as two-thirds of the population has not returned. The cleanup is still incomplete, and attempts at developing a comprehensive master plan have pretty much fallen apart.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2148311/fr/nl/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/2148311/fr/nl/</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
That makes sense to me. The fire did more damage in San Francisco than the earthquake. The advantage to having a fire as opposed to a hurricane is that the fire demolishes and "clears" the debris for you. They have to demolish many of the homes in New Orleans and haul away the debris before they can rebuild. They also have to get rid of all of the vegetation that was killed in the hurricane, the earthquake didn't damage too many plants.<br><br><br><br>
San Francisco also had the advantage of being in an area where the overall population density was rather low and there were lots of raw materials nearby that could be used to rebuild the city. There were also areas of the city and outside of the city that were repairable instead of having to be torn down and completely rebuilt. A huge area outside of New Orleans was damaged to the point that they couldn't really support the folks who needed to leave New Orleans and in some cases had to evacuate as well.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top