Proposed Boston flood barrier

[BostonUrbEx]

The fatal flaw that will be the end of Boston and it's mighty flood gates. Dum dum dummmm.

[JohnCostello]

Originally Posted by palindrome

Again, this specific plan is being developed BY BOSTON.

Nothing is stopping said communities from developing their own plans and eventually applying for state/federal financing.

Boston can't find the money to pay fire fighters. Boston can't figure out a correct signal system for the intersection of Dorchester Avenue, Hancock Street, and Freeport Street. Boston can't find the guy who cut Karina Homer in two. Boston can't keep libraries open. You want them to develop a flood barrier?

Also, If Chelsea cannot come up with their share of the funds to pay for their share or do not agree with the construction of the barrier, yet they lie behind the barrier, do they open their hydrants to simulate storm surges when the 500 year flood comes?

[palindrome]

Originally Posted by JohnCostello

Boston can't find the money to pay fire fighters. Boston can't figure out a correct signal system for the intersection of Dorchester Avenue, Hancock Street, and Freeport Street. Boston can't find the guy who cut Karina Homer in two. Boston can't keep libraries open. You want them to develop a flood barrier?

Also, If Chelsea cannot come up with their share of the funds to pay for their share or do not agree with the construction of the barrier, yet they lie behind the barrier, do they open their hydrants to simulate storm surges when the 500 year flood comes?

You're right. Boston is a shithole and not worth saving. I really can only assume you didn't read the article.

[JohnCostello]

Originally Posted by czsz

Agree with the comments that this is Boston-specific. But even if it weren't:

1. More people and assets would be affected by the flooding of the central city.

2. The only way one of these barriers could be realistically designed would be to protect the center and increasingly disparate areas. So the question isn't whether the center should be protected at the expense of certain suburbs, but which suburbs can be protected along with the city center.

3. People who live in dispersed settlements wind up taxing us who live more efficiently in cities because they demand more infrastructure to support their way of life - longer roads, sewage lines, the externalities of autocentrism, etc. Per capita the barrier would be way more expensive if extended to include low density towns, like a highway built to these communities generally is. Moreover, the barrier is specifically protecting coastal dwellers who have enjoyed high property values...why should people inland have to pay for their protection when they've chosen to accept the risk of seaside living?

4. So what's so terrible about subsidizing (or mandating insurance coverage for) the movement of people to higher elevations in places where the barrier can't be built? The fact that these are low density towns makes it relatively easy by comparison.

(Caveat: I do wonder if a more inclusive barrier would be more cost effective than this)

Good points but I keep hearing this low density thing. How is Wollaston a lower density area than the Seaport, the Airport, the South Cove (a/k/a The South Bay)? Is the South Bay Shopping Area and the vacant areas between Dorchester Avenue and The Expressway in South Boston more improtant than Hingham?

How do you say to someone, "Listen we have to protect the City DPW yard, the tow lot along Frontage Road, the Red Line yards, the Herald, The Cambridgeside Gallereia, One Exeter, the place where all the junkies get methadone along Old Colony Avenue, all those areas under the Expressway where salt is stored, etc. from a storm surge, yet your nearly 400 year old small scale densley packed and vibrant village is f'ed"?

Also, how is living on Commercial Wharf not risky seaside living? Your 1975 renovated two unit on the waterfront will be protected, yet some schmuck in Hough's Neck isn't.

[JohnCostello]

Originally Posted by palindrome

You're right. Boston is a shithole and not worth saving. I really can only assume you didn't read the article.

I am not saying that. Don't dare lecture me on Boston. I grew up in Dorchester, lived in the South End and South Boston, went to Boston Public Schools. I am working in the City 3-4 days a week. I did read the article. I understand it.

Once again, why are we playing favorites with what gets protected and what doesn't? Percieved density and the protection of some REIT's investment in an office block cannot be the answer.

[palindrome]

Originally Posted by JohnCostello

I am not saying that. Don't dare lecture me on Boston. I grew up in Dorchester, lived in the South End and South Boston, went to Boston Public Schools. I am working in the City 3-4 days a week. I did read the article. I understand it.

Once again, why are we playing favorites with what gets protected and what doesn't? Percieved density and the protection of some REIT's investment in an office block cannot be the answer.

Not once was i ever trying to lecturing you my friend (in fact, you should consider a little of your own advice--it seems it was you who was lecturing me about teen violence and firefighter raises.)

No one is playing favorites. The city of boston is developing a plan to protect the city of boston. Really seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Again, nothing is stopping Marshfield, or any other coastal community from formulating their own plans. Even better if they seek cooperation from surrounding communities to work out a more effective plan.

[Shepard]

Well, by the time rising sea levels become a concern, Boston will be 90% open space anyway. And besides, levees might potentially cast shadows on protected algae, so this won't happen in any case.

[JohnCostello]

The logic of Boston trying to protect itself without considering other areas is crazy and a waste of money. With this logic it is like saying that once the Charles River touches West Roxbury, it must be suitable for drinking because it just appeard next to their political boundry.

A fault on the region is the lack of regional planning. Can't you see the City of Boston is designing a thing here that will benefit it, yet deflect and intensify storm surge into Quincy Bay and its communities?. Where is the logic in that? Hey, let's waste a ton of money on designing a barrier that will get tossed out in court because it protects one place yet screws another. I can't beleive that the person who came up with this drawing even thought about this. How much has the architect gotten paid for this crap so far?

[Ron Newman]

These issues you are all bringing up - why were they not a problem for New Bedford and Providence?

[JohnCostello]

New Bedford, Providence, and Marion are southerly facing, storm surge harbors with strong potential for wave velocity doing the most damage from (southerly) hurricanes. The harbors narrow to a point where the tide's energy inflicts greater damage. Boston is different in that it faces east southeast east and faces potential wave motion (not a Starblazers reference) from the Northeast. That is why east northeast facing sites; King's Beach in Lynn, Plum Island, Revere and Scituate take poundings in a storm, not Boston Harbor, which has the deep harbor and islands to break a storm's potential for water damage.

The southerly facing harbor in Marion and the tip of Fairhaven south of West Island mandates any new construction on stilts. Sippican is not a protected harbor. The southerly part of Fairhaven is rural / suburban or protected land.

The barriers and berms in Providence and especially New Bedford are much bigger than they appear. In Providence, the barrier protects the inner harbor but leaves open industrial land on the outside to potential flooding. Very little residential land is exposed. Most of the land on the easterly side of the harbor outside the barrier is a tank farm. Residential uses (Riverside in East Providence) don't develop until higher ground.

New Bedford is lucky in that most of the city is protected at a narrow point with land on the Fairhaven side slightly elevated to protect it. The southerly end of the berm stops at an elevated residential area.

In Boston and Cambridge, why can't we build up berms along the Charles to protect areas that could be flooded? Or is the Esplanade too sacred?

My point is that the thinking behind this project is incomplete. If built it would force more water and energy into a very shallow Quincy Bay, flooding huge areas of Quincy, where people live, yet protect essentially low lying areas of Boston, most of which (look on a map) is secondary industrial or big box retail, not residential.

[sidewalks]

yeesh...shades of Ned Flaherty

[BostonYoureMyHome]

Originally Posted by JohnCostello

Once again, why are we playing favorites with what gets protected and what doesn't? Percieved density and the protection of some REIT's investment in an office block cannot be the answer.

Well shit, if we are going to throw up that argument, I really enjoy cruising out to Wellfleet to go to the Beachcomber, I want that area included as well. Or is that part of the Cape already being designated a sacrificial barrier? Oh, and I plan on going up to Maine in the near future to hopefully do some camping in Bar Harbor... maybe we could focus on efforts to protect that area from a storm surge as well? Maybe you should rally the Federal Government and every town and city along the entire coast to band together and build a barrier from Nova Scotia to the Keys...but that still leaves parts of Canada and the Caribbean out... sigh... poor Bermuda

...or better yet, let's just abandon the coast altogether and move everything inland. Create regulation against all coastal development and habitation for fear of storm surges.

[Lurker]

All of you are forgetting that, like the Maginot Line, all the ocean is going to do is going around the ends of any proposed seawall and flood the city anyway. All any fortification would do is disperse the main thrust of a rogue wave into the surrounding area first, wiping out the North and South Shores, followed up by a steady flooding of Boston itself. The terrain simply isn't high enough above sea level surrounding the city to make any kind of seawall effective. Any fortification to be effective would require a ring around the entire city.

When's the last time any modern city outside of the Pacific Tsunami zone built walls which completely enclosed the boundaries of the city? I think it's likely never.

Mind you again, this is combat a nonexistent problem (sea levels aren't changing), the cost of the construction and maintenance of the system of fortifications would exceed that of the Big Dig, bankrupt the state, and as stated wouldn't work in the first place.

[sidewalks]

^ That's not true...Elevations rise much faster than you think. Go to google earth and scroll over the area. Elevations rise to over ten feet above sea level very quickly. Most projections predict a two foot (give or take) elevation in sea levels if the worst effects of global warming come to pass. Most of the North and South Shore would be fine. BYMH is right...you can't protect every wayward house. If such a barrier were built it would have to factor in the dollar value of what it is protecting.

[crash575]

Most of the state is saved in my plan! Not sure where we'll get the building material for this. Oh and the bay will more than likely turn into a cesspool.

[BostonUrbEx]

What about the Cape Cod Canal and Annasquam River?

[vanshnookenraggen]

What if we just nuked the ocean?

[JohnCostello]

Originally Posted by sidewalks

yeesh...shades of Ned Flaherty

Nice. Is it because I am not going along with the Groupthink or are you still upset that I called you out on your lack of knowledge about Dorchester a few months back?

Heaven forbid someone disagrees.

[bbfen]

Originally Posted by JohnCostello

Nice. Is it because I am not going along with the Groupthink or are you still upset that I called you out on your lack of knowledge about Dorchester a few months back?

Heaven forbid someone disagrees.

Sorry to jump in, but I interpreted that as a tongue-in-cheek compliment on your fascination, at a place called archboston.org, with the theoretical protection of cities not named Boston.

Originally Posted by crash575

Most of the state is saved in my plan! Not sure where we'll get the building material for this. Oh and the bay will more than likely turn into a cesspool.

This is a good plan! And after it's a cesspool, we can fill it in with rubbish and dirt from the Berkshires and develop it and then the Back Bay looneypants on Comm Ave won't have to worry about the fucking shadows destroying their precious fucking shade. Win for everyone! Oh shit, I sense a flaw in my plan but what could it be......

[Charlie_mta]

Originally Posted by crash575

Not sure where we'll get the building material for this.

Squashed junk cars heaped in a linear pile.