[HN Gopher] Venetians are pondering raising their entire city
___________________________________________________________________
Venetians are pondering raising their entire city
Author : sohkamyung
Score : 111 points
Date : 2023-05-28 06:12 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| jxf wrote:
| > For all its technological whizzyness, the system has downsides.
| Cost is one. Mr Redi reckons each raising of the barrier costs
| about EUR150,000 (other estimates are higher).
|
| Great article but I'm really curious about this number. If the
| alternative to raising the barrier is "the entire city floods"
| then that... seems like a pretty good trade? Also, nobody talks
| about the cost of raising and lowering a drawbridge. The whole
| point of it is to be raised or lowered, just like the barrier.
| FriedPickles wrote:
| Perhaps they could lower the total cost if they recaptured
| compressed air as seawater reenters the gates during the
| sinking process.
|
| There are unavoidable losses to heat, but if they did this it
| wouldn't be too different from "deep sea pumped storage"
| concepts.
| LaurensBER wrote:
| The issue is not the cost at the moment. The real issue is,
| what are we going to do in 50 years?
|
| Invest even more money to buy another 10-50 years or will we
| have to admit defeat? If there's even a chance of admitting
| defeat that will be felt in property prices and investments a
| lot sooner than those 50 years.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Venice is a small city compared to Jakarta, and they're
| moving Jakarta. However I'm not sure if they will succeed in
| their plans with Jakarta, sure the big companies will move,
| but moving a city is not a trivial thing to do.
| rippercushions wrote:
| They're building a showcase city a thousand kilometers away
| in a different island as the new capital, but they're not
| relocating the 20+ million who live in Jakarta.
| tough wrote:
| If they relocate the govt and companies paying salaries
| to those 20M, won't they also move there?
| 627467 wrote:
| That's it: 20 million helpless people are going to move
| like sheep because shepherds are moving to another place.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| They are relocating the government. The private companies
| weren't invited. This is like how Burma moved its capital
| from Rangoon to Nay Pyi Taw, Rangoon is still the
| commercial capital if Burma.
| jcranmer wrote:
| The other examples I would reach for are Cote d'Ivoire
| moving its capital from Abidjan to Yamoussoukro in 1983,
| or Nigeria moving from Lagos to Abuja in 1991. In both
| cases, the old capital is still far and away the largest
| city in the country, like 10x the new capital city.
| paavope wrote:
| I'm sure some will move, but that number is going to be
| closer to 0 than 20M
| inawarminister wrote:
| Jakartan here, will never move even if the whole city get
| flooded (more than it has been). I'll probably get a
| houseboat and settle down.
|
| More realistically, Northern Jakarta is sinking, but the
| Southern part (and the suburbs/exurbs in the surrounding
| area) are still going to be okay and Jabodetabek will still
| be home to millions.
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| In another 50 years the condition of Venice will be a
| footnote in the ledger of systemic problems that bring
| everything to a halt.
|
| The system, the organism or ecosystem of European
| civilization world wide is rotting and collapsing right
| before our very eyes. We are witness to the Technology Age
| Collapse, whether people can or want to see it or not. That
| will have consequences for everything and everyone, including
| Venice.
|
| AI cannot create any of the things that formed the European
| civilization that produced and maintained everything we all
| have, like computers, electricity, communications,
| transportation, flight, etc. AI can copy, emulate, and
| automate; it cannot create harmonious and finely humanly
| tuned things. It would never have created the works of art
| and architecture, let alone the technologies to produce
| everything in order to solve specific human problems.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Uhm, all of the technologies you mention were developed by
| a web of humans far larger and more diverse than "European
| civilization." This reads very poorly.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| > let alone the technologies to produce everything in order
| to solve specific human problems
|
| not just technologies, but policies, education, mindsets.
| The goal is to make people switch from a high environmental
| impact to a low one. You don't need much technologies to
| get a bicycle rather than a heavy hence polluting vehicle.
| The situation we are now is just the result of many many
| smaller ones
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > AI can copy, emulate, and automate; it cannot create
| harmonious and finely humanly tuned things. It would never
| have created the works of art and architecture
|
| I have yet to see evidence that this kind of assertion will
| age any better than the famous 64kB quote. True, AI can't
| create masterpieces today, but claiming it will never match
| humans feels more like emotional wishful thinking.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| claiming it will match humans feels more like emotional
| wishful thinking
| gattilorenz wrote:
| You meant Bill Gates' 640KB, or is this related to the
| Commodore 64?
| shjake wrote:
| a 'masterpiece' is a very subjective term. Most are
| viewed as such not because of some objectively measurable
| quality but because of their uniqueness/originality (at
| the time) and context. In that regard it's hard to
| imagine AI could achieve that until it became very good
| at imitating humans.
| vidarh wrote:
| It's basically a religious argument that realistically
| can only hold if there is _something_ in the brain which
| violates known physics and allows for a category of
| computation that isn 't just different, but different
| enough to be impossible to emulate within known physics.
|
| Otherwise the brain can't compute anything a computer
| can't (eventually) emulate.
|
| Maybe it's possible - as an atheist I find that near
| impossible to imagine, but I won't entirely dismiss the
| possibility, but I doubt it.
| arp242 wrote:
| Does anyone else miss the days where we could browse HN
| comments without some tangent about AI on every fucking
| story?
| goodpoint wrote:
| > property prices and investments
|
| Most of the value of Venice is cultural and it's not measured
| with money.
| ivanhoe wrote:
| Well, for people living there it's how they pay their
| bills, so for them it's very practical economical problem.
| And not just them, the whole Veneto region in fact lives
| from tourism, and Venice is their main attraction, so they
| all heavily depend on it. Even here in Istria (Croatia)
| many people live from organizing boat tours to Venice, so
| the economical impact of these changes goes even beyond
| just Italy.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Tourism is a completely different thing from the market
| value of the home you live in.
| pydry wrote:
| I visited once and stayed well away from the center. It
| didnt look like anyone much actually _did_ live there -
| which makes sense, if you owned an apartment it seems you
| were better off renting it to tourists and moving to
| mestre.
| toyg wrote:
| _> the whole Veneto region in fact lives from tourism_
|
| This has.not been true for more than 30 years. Veneto is
| the heartland of the original Benetton, a heavily
| industrialised region, the engine of the Italian North-
| East economic mini-boom of the 80s/90s (based on low-cost
| manufacturing). In fact, there is a massive duality
| between the tourism industry in Venice and the economy of
| the mainland, which is markedly reflected in politics
| (Venice tends to elect leftist mayors, while Veneto as a
| whole is very rightwing).
|
| Losing the tourism industry would definitely be a blow to
| the economy, but Veneto would survive economically just
| fine.
| suprjami wrote:
| Most likely a drawbridge doesn't average out to half a million
| euros each raise, like the figure quoted later in the article.
| orthoxerox wrote:
| > Mr Redi reckons each raising of the barrier costs about
| EUR150,000 (other estimates are higher).
|
| Why not raise the barrier permanently, then? Build a lock for
| the ships going to Marghera, reroute the sewage and runoff to
| the sea outside the barrier.
| rufasterisco wrote:
| The debate around preserving Venice's lagoon as a body of
| water linked to the open sea has been ongoing for centuries.
| A public authority to oversee these issues, the Magistrato
| alle Acque [1], was established in 1501, and large-scale
| public works were mandated around the same time (i.e.,
| rerouting rivers to prevent the lagoon from silting up).
|
| The reasons for this have evolved over time. It began to
| protect waterways that enabled local commerce, and expanded
| alongside Venice's dominance across the Mediterranean Sea.
| This led to the identity of a city that celebrated its
| "Wedding of the Sea" every year [2].
|
| As a modern-day example of this, UNESCO has enlisted `Venice
| and its Lagoon` in its World Heritage list [3], stating:
|
| ``` Criterion (v): In the Mediterranean area, the lagoon of
| Venice represents an outstanding example of a semi-lacustral
| habitat which has become vulnerable as a result of
| irreversible natural and climate changes. In this coherent
| ecosystem where the muddy shelves (alternately above and
| below water level) are as important as the islands, pile-
| dwellings, fishing villages and rice-fields need to be
| protected no less than the palazzi and churches. ```
|
| In the present day, when Venice is mainly seen as a tourist
| attraction, it's easy to underestimate this. However, locals
| still draw a firm line between those who live in the city and
| the "campagnoli" (people from the countryside). Any plan to
| sever this historical link between Venice and the sea would
| be a tough sell, regardless of its economic or technical
| feasibility.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrato_alle_acque [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_the_Sea_ceremony
| [3] https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/394/
| gryzzly wrote:
| the article talks about this - it's a major ecological
| concern as it'd turn the lagoon into standing water, and
| Venice is already notorious in polluting the lagoon.
| arp242 wrote:
| But reroute the sewage would solve that, no? That won't be
| cheap or easy, but neither is this barrier.
| asah wrote:
| ...or continuously circulate the water?
| twelve40 wrote:
| i think sewage is only a part of the problem, even
| without sewage standing water may turn into a giant swamp
| or a salt pond
| [deleted]
| twelve40 wrote:
| > reroute the sewage
|
| can this be done across a bunch of islands and canals with
| tightly clustered ancient buildings? i don't think they even
| have a central sewer
| dagw wrote:
| _Also, nobody talks about the cost of raising and lowering a
| drawbridge._
|
| Worked at a civil engineering company that worked on a major
| drawbridge project. Minimising the number of times it needed to
| be opened/closed was a major concern and huge point of
| contention.
| asah wrote:
| due to power or blocking traffic? I believe OP was strictly
| referring to power consumption...
| kaydub wrote:
| I assumed it was due to the height of the ships that
| typically passed. Probably costs more to build the bridge
| higher so you don't have to raise it as often, so they
| fight about lowering costs and minimize the number of times
| they raise the bridge.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Power consumption to open a drawbridge should not be
| extraordinary. The bridge leaves/moveable sections are
| counterbalanced.
| dagw wrote:
| Traffic mainly, but also maintenance. Mechanisms needed to
| be inspected/serviced every N openings. Although the big
| fight was basically that 'Team Road' wanted the bridge to
| open twice a day at fixed times and if a boat missed its
| slot it just had to wait, while 'Team River' wanted the
| bridge to open within 10 minutes of any boat showing up.
| rcme wrote:
| Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to move for most
| people?
| arp242 wrote:
| Yes, but it's really about protecting the old historic city,
| rather than the people.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| I remember when they put this project out to bid the two
| finalists were a local consortium and a Dutch consortium that had
| extensive experience in that nation's waterworks.
|
| Hope they made the right choice.
| ggm wrote:
| https://archive.is/vC9sJ
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| I'm a Venetian since 2020, and I can say that I know a bit about
| these engineering and environmental issues.
|
| First, the EUR5.5B cost of the MOSE is mostly due to corruption.
| Several people have been investigated, and some condemned, but
| it's pretty clear to everyone that as much as 2/3rd of the cost
| can be attributed in one way to another to corruption.
|
| Second, no one in Venice is talking about raising the city by
| pumping something in its underground. No one.
|
| This whole article is fabricated by finding a couple of obscure
| academics willing to imagine a weird, unlikely scenario.
|
| There is no political will nor agreement on what to do to fight
| sea level rising. At least for the moment.
|
| Despite all of this, I love being here, and I hope I'll be able
| to enjoy the city for the next few decades. Maybe some fancy and
| intelligent solution will show up eventually, down the road. I'm
| not too hopeful.
| zuprau wrote:
| > no one in Venice is talking about raising the city
|
| I see a lot of results:
| https://www.google.it/search?q=sollevare+venezia
|
| People have been talking about this for decades, but it doesn't
| seem to be very popular now, especially since MOSE appears to
| be working at the moment.
|
| There's even reportage by Le Iene
| https://www.iene.mediaset.it/2019/news/mose-alziamo-venezia-...
| [deleted]
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Out of curiosity, why move to Venice? I guess 2020 would be a
| great time due to the dearth of tourists, but otherwise the
| city seems to be owned by tourists rather than the locals. Is
| there real hidden life going on there? How does one hook up
| with the local/long term residents?
| rufasterisco wrote:
| In Venice, the small local population amidst a substantial
| influx of tourists fosters a tighter community.
|
| Actually, lots of extremely local communities gather around
| social hubs, typically squares featuring bars where people
| routinely visit for breakfast, brunch, and aperitifs. It
| doesn't take long to gain recognition and differentiate
| yourself from a tourist; alcohol often facilitates
| conversation, too :).
|
| If you want to see this in action, there are a fair number of
| sagre (these are summer festivals typical of small towns and
| villages throughout Italy, but not so much in the cities)
| that unfold right in the heart of Venice each year! (Try
| searching for Festa de san piero de casteo or Sagra di san
| giacomo dall'orio and look at some pictures)
|
| Moreover, as Venice doesn't have cars (and boats just work in
| a different way), you're likely to follow the same few paths
| to and from work. This familiarity aids in establishing
| recognition on the street.
|
| Being young can be beneficial when integrating with locals,
| thanks to the significant student population residing in the
| city (relative to the number of permanent residents).
| However, it's hardly an impediment; it's common to see people
| of all ages enjoying drinks during aperitivo. YMMV depending
| on your level of introversion or extroversion.
|
| Nightlife after midnight is concentrated in a few places, and
| again it won't take long to recognize the same faces, nor to
| be recognized too.
|
| Overall, as a single data-point, during my seven years there,
| I found Venice's social dynamics to touch a sweet spot in its
| unique blending of small-town camaraderie and large-scale
| artistic events.
| coldtea wrote:
| Well, one could very well go there to be working with the
| tourists and short term residents...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I had the same question. I visited Venice years ago, and
| though I definitely think the place deserves to be on
| people's bucket list (it's beautiful, an engineering marvel,
| and I kept thinking to myself "How can this place still
| exist?"), but it still felt like "adult Disneyland" - more a
| museum almost than a place to live.
|
| Genuinely curious about what life is like living there, and
| what the draw would be to move there.
| troad wrote:
| There's many different kinds of experience to be had in
| Venice. If someone comes as part of a tour group, and their
| Italian is limited to 'grat-see', then yeah, they're 100%
| going to have a particular kind of experience (for which
| "adult Disneyland" is a great label). The stretch between
| the Rialto and Piazza San Marco, inclusive, is 100% for
| tourists. Some other stretches are heavily touristy too
| these days - the seaside walk between Piazza San Marco and
| Arsenale, the isles of Burano & Murano, etc. This is really
| no different from a place like Prague, where the historic
| heart is also 100% for tourists.
|
| There's other places in Venice though - quieter parts, less
| touristy streets. You see fewer selfie sticks and more
| people with grocery bags, you see lawyers' offices and
| dentists, you see cafes selling coffees for more reasonable
| prices, etc. I would imagine that there would be beautiful
| charm to living off the beaten path in Venice, strolling
| along the canals every time you want to go for walk. If
| you're someone who greatly values beauty, paying Venice's
| cost of living premium in exchange for that privilege might
| feel like a good deal.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| 100%. All it takes is the ability to use one's legs ...
| albertopv wrote:
| Italian here, I live 40km far from Venice, I confirm no one is
| really talking about raising the city.
| seydor wrote:
| if all fails, drain the city
| jaclaz wrote:
| Well the idea is not exactly new, this is a 2005 article:
|
| https://www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2005/11_Novembre/21...
|
| Teatini and Gambolati are not "obscure academics", they are
| well known, see also this:
|
| https://reservoir-prima.org/partners/view/2
|
| but their theoretical models seem to have not been tested much
| in practice (AFAIK), BTW they even published a book in 2014
| "Venice shall rise again":
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780124201446/venice-shal...
| coldtea wrote:
| > _First, the EUR5.5B cost of the MOSE is mostly due to
| corruption. Several people have been investigated, and some
| condemned, but it 's pretty clear to everyone that as much as
| 2/3rd of the cost can be attributed in one way to another to
| corruption._
|
| Perhaps, but if we're being practical we should account for a
| similar increase in costs to any future solution. It's not like
| corruption will go away by the time the procurements for the
| next project go on...
| bryananderson wrote:
| _> Perhaps, but if we 're being practical we should account
| for a similar increase in costs to any future solution. It's
| not like corruption will go away by the time the procurements
| for the next project go on..._
|
| This meek fetal-position defeatism is why infrastructure
| costs spiral up and up and up forever.
|
| Raise costs on project A
|
| Baseline the expected costs for project B based on project A
|
| Raise costs further on project B
|
| Repeat endlessly
|
| It doesn't have to be this way. Italy itself halved its rail
| construction costs by cracking down on corruption in the 90s.
| We always have a choice.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Honestly, this is much cheaper than the US equivalent.
| Floodgates on New York Harbor have been costed at over
| $100B.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _This meek fetal-position defeatism is why infrastructure
| costs spiral up and up and up forever._
|
| Really? I thought the reason was corruption! Perhaps if we
| all think positively it goes away!
| FredPret wrote:
| Combine positive thinking with action, and yes, it will
| scotty79 wrote:
| No it won't. Corruption is one of the main reasons those
| project go anywhere. People in positions of power want to
| do them because they can get money on the side while they
| are done.
|
| If we figured out how we can make combating climate
| change rife with corruption 30 years ago, we'd be in much
| better place right now.
| FredPret wrote:
| OK, complain and do nothing and remain defeated.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I don't complain. And as soon as someone figures out
| other thing than corruption profits that will motivate
| people in power to get things done I'll be fully onboard.
|
| Elections kinda do that up to a point, called elections.
| Corruption is longer term mechanism.
| ggm wrote:
| Seems reasonable. If pumping groundwater out caused some of the
| subsidence then pumping water in should reverse some of it.
|
| Berlin is continually drained. Maintenance of cities by
| hydrostatic pressure is kind of a thing anyway.
| junon wrote:
| Berlin is still sinking though. Slowly but.. surely.
| Etrnl_President wrote:
| What are they sinking about?
| ggm wrote:
| Oh No.. the Berlin mountain is shrinking! Europe's highest
| peak is at risk!
| c00lio wrote:
| Forget Berlin. The Ruhr area, biggest continuous settlement
| in Germany, with roughly 20 million inhabitants (of which
| maybe 5 million would be affected), is below its local water
| table because "the dwarves delved too greedily and too deep".
| So now they are spending 100Mio per year on pumping away the
| ground water, probably forever:
|
| https://www.worldtimes-online.com/imfocus/105-pumpen-im-
| ruhr...
|
| https://www.amusingplanet.com/2021/03/the-pumps-that-keep-
| ge...
| netsharc wrote:
| Or in video form:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8
| Fatboyrunning wrote:
| After visiting Venice a week ago I say do whatever it takes! Save
| the city! It's a floating wonderland, even though its a bit
| stinky.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| It's a global problem, and tourism is part of it,
| overconsumerism, high-polluting lifestyles
|
| Let's stop acting short-term
| m0llusk wrote:
| It's a modern problem. Below the current city are the remains
| of several other cities that previously sank into the muck.
| The problem only became difficult to manage when we stopped
| rebuilding over sunken structures and started continually
| investing in extremely complex and heavy structures that we
| are hesitant to write off.
| shjake wrote:
| Problem is that without those old buildings there are no
| real practical reasons to live in Venice or build anything
| on top.
| gryzzly wrote:
| Let's stop corporations and governments from acting short-
| term.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| it's 50% governments, 50% individual actions
|
| the rest follows
| albybisy wrote:
| the smell is part of the "experience" of Venice ;) like
| McDonald's
| decafninja wrote:
| I visited Venice for the first time last August, and did not
| really smell anything stinky.
|
| My wife is extremely sensitive to smells. Neither did she.
|
| Is there a particular time when it's stinkier?
| theolivenbaum wrote:
| Also always confused by this - been there 5 times over the
| years in different seasons and never had any issues with it
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I've been there once, also didn't notice any stink. Maybe
| it's a seasonal thing?
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Yep, raising a hand ... we were there in March/April ...
| no smell.
|
| I'd grown up thinking of Venice as the stinky city of
| Europe, lol
|
| It's a magical city.
| gryzzly wrote:
| Seriously, one of the true wonders of the world. It is amazing
| it was not fully ruined in XX century with cars and
| advertisements and "modern" architecture. I feel like all of
| the western civilisation should be spending money on saving
| Venice, considering its historic influence as well.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| A friend of mine, Venetian by birth, says that he thinks
| Venice is the "city of the future", even more than a city of
| the past.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| I agree 100%. If every city had vehicle traffic fully
| grade-separated from pedestrians the way the Venice does,
| they would be much more livable and safe.
| tjr225 wrote:
| [dead]
| Ekaros wrote:
| We got enough debt and unfilled payments to go around
| already. Let those who want to save it spend their own
| personal money by donating it to certain accounts. And do not
| shoulder everyone with stupid waste of money.
|
| And why pick only it to save? Don't any dying city build in
| 1900s deserve to be saved too?
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Soso smelly.
| blarg1 wrote:
| I don't see how destroying it will help.
| FriedPickles wrote:
| I highly recommend the NOVA episode "Saving Venice" on this
| topic. MOSE is a marvel of engineering and makes me feel proud to
| be human.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/video/saving-venice-zq9di2/
| closetkantian wrote:
| I misread this as 'razing', hahaha.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Me too! I was like woah, I guess they gave up.
| ajdude wrote:
| I'm glad I'm not the only one
| MeteorMarc wrote:
| One could also close the entire Mediterranean:
| https://phys.org/news/2014-08-gibraltar-sea.html
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| It's not worth because the areas under sea level will have even
| higher temperature and dryer to dersertic climate
| https://everythingisamazing.substack.com/p/the-worst-dam-ide...
| vidarh wrote:
| Writing an article about that without mentioning the
| Antlantropa idea is pretty sloppy:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
| lnsru wrote:
| Honestly I think, such projects must be funded instead of
| stupid thing called development aid:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_aid Because money
| does not solve poverty problems. Especially wiring them
| directly to corrupt governments.
| moi2388 wrote:
| Well, you can't raise a city without raising taxes, so let's see
| what the Italians will end up doing. Hint: probably nothing but
| drinking espresso.
| [deleted]
| neilv wrote:
| > * When a high tide begins, machines that consume enough
| electricity to power "a small town", as a technician puts it,
| compress air that is blasted into each floodgate. As seawater is
| forced out, the floodgates rise into nearly vertical positions.
| The resulting barrier holds back the Adriatic until the tide
| retreats.*
|
| This sounded impressive to me, like a micro version of some
| disaster science fiction, in which massive engineering effort is
| thrown at defending against some planetary-scale existential
| threat.
|
| Do we have enough will to tackle climate change itself? Or the
| Cascasian subduction zone earthquake-tsunami that would wipe out
| much of US Pacific Northwest metro areas?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It's really hard seeing a tsunami take out Seattle, given that
| there are tall mountains between it and the Pacific Ocean, the
| tsunami would need to develop in the sound, which should be
| impossible. We can still be taken out by a earth quake or maybe
| a mudslide when Rainer erupts and it's glacier melts?
| neilv wrote:
| As a born Portlander, I'd be doubly annoyed for it to be
| obliterated while Seattle is left intact.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I'm actually a born portlander also (thanks to Tektronix).
| Since Portland isn't really on the coast it should be ok,
| right?
| neilv wrote:
| IIUC, both cities will be in catastrophic trouble.
|
| There was a very compelling and alarming article several
| years ago:
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-
| big...
|
| (Tektronix is great.)
| ianburrell wrote:
| The tsunami will have huge effect on the coast but
| minimal effect on Portland and Seattle. Even Astoria, on
| Columbia mouth, and Victoria, on Strait of Juan de Fuca
| won't be affected much.
|
| Also, the quake wont be that bad in Portland and Seattle.
| The fault is pretty far off shore and it will feel more
| like a 7 in Portland. A 7 that goes on for minutes so
| liquefaction will be a problem. Most buildings will
| survive, only unreinforced masonry and liquifcation areas
| will collapse.
|
| The big problem is that the infrastructure is old and
| will fail. Most bridges and all the utility crosssings.
| Which means no water and power for months. But
| infrastructure can be upgraded. It would be possible to
| make Portland and Seattle like Tokyo in 2011 quake which
| was very similar to Cascadia quake.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| The article doesn't make sense. It says a tsunami will
| hit the pacific coast, but neither Portland nor Seattle
| are very near the pacific coast. It is not very likely a
| tsunami will be able to clear the Olympic mountain range,
| and while Portland has no such protection, it is inland
| enough that it would have it be a huge tsunami not known
| in modern times.
|
| Now if everything simply breaks up and falls into the
| ocean, we are screwed. But a far away seismic event isn't
| going to affect us.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Tsunami won't take out Seattle. It is a long, winding way
| from ocean through Puget Sound. Models show that there will
| be flooding in low areas. Seattle has advantage that built on
| hills.
| konschubert wrote:
| Check out the Osterschelde damn in the Netherlands
| stavros wrote:
| I wonder how much we add to climate change when we use this
| anti-climate-change system.
| sohkamyung wrote:
| Here's what the system look like when put into action, as seen by
| Landsat and Sentinel-2 satellites in 2021. [1]
|
| [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149151/venice-
| holds...
| [deleted]
| scotty79 wrote:
| Is the lowest level of multi-level cyberpunk cities canonically
| water?
| personlurking wrote:
| Here's a month-old YT video [11m] on this issue. Top comment is
| from an engineer on the project.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hKXOfQ6JmE
|
| > I am an engineer, I live in Venice and I do work on this
| project. The gates might have a lot of drawbacks, but at least
| they are not visible. The lagoon of Venice is practically a
| natural reserve, especially in the vicinity of the sea inlets:
| the gate project in the Rotterdam style was rejected exactly for
| this reason (and the inlet in Lido is almost 2 km wide, compared
| to the 0,4 km of the dutch project). The gates themselves are
| huge, they can easily withstand a tide of +3 m and need very
| little modification to go above this threshold. The main concerns
| lie with the environmental impact of their activation: firstly
| because they consume a lot of energy, secondly because they
| impact on the vital interaction of the lagoon with the Adriatic:
| in the worst case scenario, it is expected that by the end of the
| century, flooding above the 110 cm threshold will occur for 180
| days per year, thus this problem needs to be carefully handled.
| For the concerns about the navigation and trade, an offshore port
| (with an underwater train connection) is being studied, an idea
| which could also remove all the container and cruise ships which
| are still allowed to enter the very shallow water of the lagoon.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Chicago was raised in the 19th century, and in some cases
| buildings were raised while people were inside going about their
| business:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago
| telesilla wrote:
| And even turned one 90 degrees while everyone worked inside
| without interruption.
|
| https://www.openculture.com/2021/04/when-the-indiana-bell-bu...
| Animats wrote:
| So was Galveston, Texas.[1] By 17 feet.
|
| [1] https://www.galvestonhistorycenter.org/research/grade-
| raisin...
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Oh ... _raising_ the city.
|
| When I first glanced at the headline, it read "razing" the city.
|
| Jokes aside, it's a serious issue, but Venice is just one of many
| coastal cities so affected. New Orleans residents can tell you
| about a relatively recent experience they had.
|
| Someone once mentioned to me, that if you wanted to see a
| government agency that was not politicizing climate change, look
| to the US Navy. They have trillions of dollars' worth of
| infrastructure that could get swamped.
| [deleted]
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Let it sink, make it an underwater tourist attraction. Modern day
| Atlantis theme park. Pressurize select spaces, build glass tube
| walkways, rent diving gear and plant fake treasure that can be
| exchanged for gifts.
| evrimoztamur wrote:
| You're probably just jesting but... people live there.
| [deleted]
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| Probably? There's some people taking the comment seriously
| and that kinda worries me
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Isn't every amusement park in the world built upon land on
| which people used to live? They don't build them out in the
| desert, do they? Well maybe Las Vegas.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Seems like you played too much Bioshock :)
| jagaerglad wrote:
| We are talking about a city that a quarter million people call
| home, not an amusement park that needs to adapt to changing
| conditions
| rippercushions wrote:
| Only around 50,000 of them live in the old bit we think of us
| as Venice, and the number is dropping steadily. The rest live
| on the mainland (Mestre).
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| The world's largest amusement park, Disney's Magic Kingdom,
| sees on average roughly _15 million_ people visit each year.
| A "quarter of a million", or 250_000, doesn't sound so many
| anymore. The park has a maximum capacity of 90_000 guests at
| once. A massive undertaking for sure, but not impossible.
|
| Obviously, the residents and owners of Venice would be
| compensated and receive shares, enough to live elsewhere and
| well, or this wouldn't work.
|
| And yes, I'm not _entirely_ serious with this idea.
| shjake wrote:
| The islands themselves (and not the mainland where an
| overwhelming majority live) are closer to an amusement park
| than a real city
| jvanveen wrote:
| Some more background: https://www.curbed.com/2020/12/venices-
| usd6-billion-mose-flo...
|
| https://www.lastampa.it/esteri/la-stampa-in-english/2017/10/...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-28 23:02 UTC)