Why do people still live in New Orleans?

[hotdogPi]

Maybe the simplest answer is this:  Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.

Before a few days ago, the highly populated areas (e.g. not Grand Isle) had only been hit with one major storm in living memory: Katrina. The state of Louisiana lost population from 2000 to 2010. Now that there have been two 16 years apart, there are probably going to be even more leaving the area, since we know that Katrina wasn't a one-time event.

[JayhawkCO]

I feel like a better question to ask is "Why do people still live in coastal cities with a current elevation of 230' ASL or less?".

Chris

[kphoger]

Because port cities tend to be somewhere around sea level.

[hotdogPi]

I feel like a better question to ask is "Why do people still live in coastal cities with a current elevation of 230' ASL or less?".

Chris

My area varies between 25 and 80 feet above sea level. We don't get flooding from the ocean often. This area (Google Maps link) flooded in both 2005 and 2006, but that would have happened in the lower-lying regions regardless of elevation. (Proximity to the ocean mattered as in New England vs. Midwest, but not 1 mile vs. 20 miles; elevation only did in relative terms, not absolute.)

In addition, if you're actually on the coast, temperatures are milder than inland.

[webny99]

The state of Louisiana lost population from 2000 to 2010.

Not according to Census data...

2000 pop: 4,468,976   
2010 pop: 4,533,372      
Growth rate: +1.4%

[JayhawkCO]

Because port cities tend to be somewhere around sea level.

My area varies between 25 and 80 feet above sea level. We don't get flooding from the ocean often. This area (Google Maps link) flooded in both 2005 and 2006, but that would have happened in the lower-lying regions regardless of elevation. (Proximity to the ocean mattered as in New England vs. Midwest, but not 1 mile vs. 20 miles; elevation only did in relative terms, not absolute.)

In addition, if you're actually on the coast, temperatures are milder than inland.

Completely understood on both points, but basically 230' is the amount the sea levels will rise if all surface ice melts, which is not likely in any of our lifetimes (or likely our kids' or kids' kids' lifetimes), but the thought still stands.  Any place that's coastal and near sea level is going to be at a high risk for destructive weather events, more so than those who live inland and/or higher in elevation.  Moore, Oklahoma, despite getting whacked by multiple F5 tornadoes in its history still strikes me as a much safer space to build a home than Miami.

Chris

[CoreySamson]

Maybe the simplest answer is this:  Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.

Furthermore, why are people still choosing to move to Houston in large numbers? Houston has just as many reasons to leave as New Orleans has regarding the weather.

[Brandon]

Maybe the simplest answer is this:  Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.

Furthermore, why are people still choosing to move to Houston in large numbers? Houston has just as many reasons to leave as New Orleans has regarding the weather.

And Houston lacks the food and Mardi Gras.

[Roadgeekteen]

Also Tulane is there and I know many Tulane students.

[roadman65]

Why do people want live in Miami? Why do people want to live Chicago?

You have various reasons that people choose a specific city to live in.

Some because of jobs take them there. Others cause of health and weather.

Then here in the I-4 corridor you have people who really want tropical over winter weather now that development has blossomed and plenty of retail and restaurants to use as a stepping stone while hunting for a better job. Before you had to have a plan as there were no jobs to come to unless it was white collar, blue collar with trades, and doctors or lawyers.  Now our state has boomed and has a chance for all to start a life here without waiting for retirement to move here like in the 70's.

[Jim]

Also Tulane is there and I know many Tulane students.

Tulane students won't be back on campus until mid-October.  https://tulane.edu/university-update-083021

[ethanhopkin14]

I say even if everyone decided to not live in New Orleans anymore for fear of the next flood, the U.S. would still need a garrison there.  It is too important a port to be left un-manned.

[ethanhopkin14]

Why do people still live in Los Angeles knowing the next earthquake could be the one to kill everyone? 

I say it's worth the perfect weather.  I know the big one is coming, let me enjoy my year-round 75 degree days. 

[Henry]

Why does everyone live in New York City, with the highest prices charged in the entire nation?

(Yeah, it's not a weather-related reason, but it's had its share of weather problems, namely blizzards in the winter and severe storms in the summer, like Superstorm Sandy back in 2012, although the threat of a hurricane is pretty rare.)

Basically, where you choose to live is kind of a "pick your poison" deal.

[US 41]

Does the original city of New Orleans flood too or just the expanded areas? Like my town has flooding issues, but the meaning of Terre Haute in French is "High Ground" and the downtown area (original town) does not flood at all.

[bing101]

Why do people still live in Los Angeles knowing the next earthquake could be the one to kill everyone? 

I say it's worth the perfect weather.  I know the big one is coming, let me enjoy my year-round 75 degree days.

Or Sacramento and San Francisco they fit the LA criteria too for quakes and wildfires note I used to live in both Sacramento and San Francisco.  Or Hawaii for volcanoes, Typhoons and quakes.

[Bruce]

Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.

San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.

But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.

But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.

Scientists are pretty damn certain it will happen and they expect it will be devastating when it does, so that argument doesn't work for me.

Scientist are pretty certain that it happened in 1700. There was a tsunami in Japan with no ground shaking in Asia or the Eastern Pacific. They have written records of it. The indigenous people of Cascadia have an oral history of what seems to be the same event. There is plenty of geologic evidence that point to the same conclusion (and records of past occurrences also).
What is uncertain is whether the events are periodic or random and when the next major event will take place and how big it will be. 6-magnitude events cause inconvenience. 7s cause disruption, 8s cause devastation, 9s change the map. The energy for a 9.5 will be there. The question is whether it will be released in 4-magnitude events every day for years and years or all in one go. Seismologists haven't even really attempted theories that try to predict which will happen very far in advance. They can predict huge events with about 20-second lead time -- Maybe enough time to get out of the shower, but not enough time to get out of Dodge.

Early warning systems are not predictions.

Also, Seattleites are more worried about a shallow and less powerful earthquake on a local fault comparable to the 2001 Nisqually quake. One of those on the Seattle Fault could cause quite a bit of damage and disruption without being a major disaster that triggers a national response.

[Brandon]

Does the original city of New Orleans flood too or just the expanded areas? Like my town has flooding issues, but the meaning of Terre Haute in French is "High Ground" and the downtown area (original town) does not flood at all.

The areas that flood are mostly the expanded areas on the Eastbank.  The Quarter and Garden District rarely flood.  The Westbank (Algiers), despite being closer to the Gulf, also does not tend to flood either.  Those are the older areas of town, built on the small bits of actual high ground in the area.

[achilles765]

Almost all of my family is from New Orleans and many of them still live there, as do a number of my friends from back home.  I moved back briefly in 2014 for a year just for the hell of it, and I can tell you... I honestly dont know why people still live there, and not just because of the weather. 
Yes,it's home for a lot of people and there is a connection to one's home (though I have never had a problem leaving lol), and its easy to just settle in and get comfortable somewhere...you already know the layout, and the culture, and have roots there.  Moving to another city or state can be stressful or scary for some people.  And New Orleans has a specific pride and mindset that goes with it that keeps lot of people there.  My mother and her parents and siblings moved from NOLA to Kentwood in the late 60s, and yet my grandmother never stopped wanting to go back for any reason.  So many of my cousins ended up back there, and my uncles and aunts go down at least once a month. 
I used to think it was the greatest place I had ever been... then when I moved back in 2014, I wondered "why do people live here?"
It's dirty...especailly the quarter and anywhere inside the city proper.  Run down old houses, old dilapidated streets, giant rats, swamp gas.  You cannot bury people underground because they'll float back up.  All the buildings downtown are either hotels or mostly empty...it's been slowly dying for years.  The quarter is beautiful and historic and filled with culture...and also horse manure and urine and trash and vomit. 
The crime is insane.  Its everywhere.  I lived in the quarter and every day there was a story about someone being mugged or stabbed or attacked...one of my managers at work was robbed in our parking garage.  The only jobs are oil, and tourism/hospitality.  City government is so corrupt.  The police are more so. 
I have never felt as unsafe and always on guard as I did from June 2014-July 2015 when I lived there again.  It was worse than when I was younger and used to live there half time and spent a lot of time there...things had changed.  There were more homeless...and they were aggressive.  Gentrification was attempting to take hold but all it did was provide a target for criminals.  I walked around with a knife in my pocket at all times...and was always on edge. 
I don't get how people do that every day for years.  And so many of the people I knew just shrugged that stuff off like "oh theres crime everywhere...houston is dangerous too..."  they would tell me im insane for preferring Houston to New Orleans...well in Houston ive never felt unsafe, its a much bigger city, theres a lot more diversity, museums, and other jobs.  And I dont feel like im going to get jumped walking around my neighborhood or downtown.
To me, its just like those dying cities in the Rustbelt...the glory days are long gone but so many people are so entrenched and settled that they'll never leave. 

[achilles765]

Maybe the simplest answer is this:  Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.

Furthermore, why are people still choosing to move to Houston in large numbers? Houston has just as many reasons to leave as New Orleans has regarding the weather.

Being from New Orleans and having moved to Houston, I can tell you--- the weather here is similar but we generally get fewer hurricanes...fewer really bad ones.
Aside from that, Houston has a lot more to do..museums, a much more diverse economy with a good variety of jobs and industries whereas New Orleans has oil and tourism.  Its much more culturally diverse and very affordable, and the outlook for the future is positive; New Orleans has been dying for a long time.  The good old days are long gone...
Oh and Houston isn't nearly as ridiculously dangerous as New Orleans... Crime in New Orleans is just unbelievable

[brad2971]

Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.

San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.

But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.

But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.

Or at least within living memory.  The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake sure did a number on the city and much of the state of California.  Suffice to say modern infrastructure improvements have abated the likelihood of a similar outcome with a quake of the same size.

And for those who think we as a nation are living under a unique period of governmental incompetence, it was well documented during that 1906 earthquake and fire that SF mayor Eugene Schmitz and US Army General Frederick Funston were continually at each others throats.

[brad2971]

I say even if everyone decided to not live in New Orleans anymore for fear of the next flood, the U.S. would still need a garrison there.  It is too important a port to be left un-manned.

And yet New Orleans gets along just fine with having a Joint Reserve base in lieu of having active duty posts in the city. The nearest US Army active duty post from NOLA is 220 miles away at Fort Polk, LA. And THAT base is mainly known as a active/reserve training post with only one active brigade stationed there. That base also lost power during Hurricane Laura last year. It took up to two weeks to fully restore the fort's power.

[Roadgeekteen]

Also Tulane is there and I know many Tulane students.

Tulane students won't be back on campus until mid-October.  https://tulane.edu/university-update-083021

Wow that's half the semester gone.

[michravera]

Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.

San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.

But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.

But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.

Scientists are pretty damn certain it will happen and they expect it will be devastating when it does, so that argument doesn't work for me.

Scientist are pretty certain that it happened in 1700. There was a tsunami in Japan with no ground shaking in Asia or the Eastern Pacific. They have written records of it. The indigenous people of Cascadia have an oral history of what seems to be the same event. There is plenty of geologic evidence that point to the same conclusion (and records of past occurrences also).
What is uncertain is whether the events are periodic or random and when the next major event will take place and how big it will be. 6-magnitude events cause inconvenience. 7s cause disruption, 8s cause devastation, 9s change the map. The energy for a 9.5 will be there. The question is whether it will be released in 4-magnitude events every day for years and years or all in one go. Seismologists haven't even really attempted theories that try to predict which will happen very far in advance. They can predict huge events with about 20-second lead time -- Maybe enough time to get out of the shower, but not enough time to get out of Dodge.

Early warning systems are not predictions.

Also, Seattleites are more worried about a shallow and less powerful earthquake on a local fault comparable to the 2001 Nisqually quake. One of those on the Seattle Fault could cause quite a bit of damage and disruption without being a major disaster that triggers a national response.

If I gave you reliable 20-second predictions of dice rolls, you would call it a miracle. So, don't tell me it's not a prediction. It certainly isn't as helpful to know that an 7+magnitude earthquake is coming in 20 seconds as it would be, say, if someone could give 20 minutes' or 20 hours' warning, but in 20 seconds, a world-class sprinter can be 200 m away. A big, fat guy maybe only 30 or 40, but that's better than nothing. It's also helpful that tsunami only travel at roughly the speed of sound. That doesn't much help those who are close to the source (who should probably make a beeline for the nearest tall thing that they can find), but people in Japan (10 hours), Hawaii (5 hours), and northern California (an hour or two) can get to higher ground before the wave hits. Depending upon where it hits, people from the southern Oregon coast could probably be in Medford before the tsunami hits.

[Rothman]

It was sad when I visited when Save Our Cemeteries recommended not touring other cemeteries alone due to muggers (i.e., go in a group, they said).