Hey, there! Log in / Register
Instead of trying to fight back the rising tides, some begin to think of moving back from the water
By adamg on Mon, 08/28/2023 - 1:53pm
CommonWealth whets our interest in "managed retreat" - the idea that as sea levels continue to rise, the long-term answer might be to move homes and other buildings away from the water, rather than trying to build seawalls or other measures, for example, for Hampton Circle, an area in Hull with water on two sides.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
duh
duh.. how long have I been saying this? Nice to see others are in agreement.
Mother Nature always wins.. always. No sense in trying to fight her from the inventible.
We need to start doing this now, not in 20 years when a simple rain storm floods the seaport once a week.
And on a larger scale
Thinking about alternatives to coastal development means that we can start to seriously consider transit oriented corridors inland, maybe even get some decent electrified train service to Worcester
Okay, but...
...move them where? Whose land do you propose to put them on?
Remove the buildings
Pay the people. They can decide where to go from there.
Vermont has been doing this since Irene flooded them out in 2011 and that meant fewer people to rescue, to traumatize, to rebuild in this round of flooding. Residents in one area of NY organized a retreat after Sandy destroyed their homes.
The article also doesn't seem to mention a huge reason that towns don't want this - loss of prime taxable land, particularly in resort areas. Never mind that they will lose it anyway since flood insurance and the feds aren't playing the "rebuild/repair 9 times" game that they used to.
Missing the point
What land are you going to put them on, Swirls?
Reading comprehension
Not your strong suit, I see.
Maybe the links that I included will help you understand how this works? Naw ... you're having a moment. Let's just say that they will all move in with you in your own private Idaho.
Wow
I'm having a moment? Look at the knot in your own knickers, Swirls. Neither of your links answered my question. Since you're doubling down on being an asshole, I won't bother to ask again.
You have a lot of enemies on this site. I'm not one of them, despite your absolutely unnecessary rudeness to me on more than one occasion. I gave you an opportunity to clarify your point and you chose not to do so. There are several possible reasons for this, but none of them reflect well on you.
There is plenty of land
Do you think that the suburbs of Boston were land grant owned by the feds 75-150 years ago? They were farmland, swamp land, etc. that was built out at a high rate at moderate to high density.
It wouldn't be hard to grow new cities - all you need is water (MWRA has tons of that) a sewer plant, and a plan. The commonwealth is looking into how to use these things to expand rural population centers. Getting rid of multi-acre, minimum square foot snob zoning would go a long way toward accommodating the transition with even less dramatic growth.
Check out Bend Oregon if you want to understand the possibilities. It was a sleepy town when I was a kid. I find it disorienting now, but it illustrates how cities expand even in modern times.
As for rudeness, not reading links that explain how these things work and then slamming me about "not answering the question" is pretty fucking rude. Next time, click first, react later.
And I don't give a fuck about those who hate me - they need the reality check even if it comes from a *gasp* female who doesn't know her place and never did, and resists impositions by culture and religion.
“You have a lot of enemies on
“You have a lot of enemies on this site“
LOL!
You think this classic gaslighting technique will have any effect on the Swirly One? Do you not read her posts?!!!
May as well try to tell her she needs to enter into an abusive domestic relationship with you because she has no friends and you are not one of her enemies.
Carry on, cupcake.
I hear Chicopee is lovely...
When Framingham becomes the new Revere Beach
Instead of whipping
Clearly, what Xerxes I should have done was sue the Hellespont for damages
okay but
developers who built and people who willingly bought in places like the seaport within the last 10 shouldn't get to benefit from public funds when they made poor, profit-driven choices in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
The violence waves will chase
The violence waves will chase people out sooner than the sea.
lol
Sure they will, cupcake.
Haha!
My first morning chuckle.
I loved Richard Murray from Woods Hole Oceanographic...
Institutes answer: After years of resistance to the idea of moving back from their shorelines, recent studies find, those municipalities are starting to reconsider.
“More and more people are embracing it and it is just becoming more of a standard option and actually being implemented, though somewhat sporadically,” said Richard Murray, deputy director and vice president for science and engineering at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. “But when those of us who were first talking about it mentioned it, it was not well received at all.”
Murray started writing about managed retreat about a decade ago, when climate change skepticism was far more common than it is today, even in liberal coastal Massachusetts. At the time, he said, it was easy to shrug off fears of sea level rise as “oh, that’s just Al Gore.” But tides have shifted.
“Back then, there was disagreement and a lack of understanding of the science or a lack of understanding of the scale of the problem,” Murray said. “Now everybody gets it. I mean, you’ve got Hawaii frickin’ burnin’ up, you’ve got tornados in Weymouth. I mean, people can see it. So that’s really really huge.”
"Hawaii frickin' burnin' up" I love that part!
And when all …
…. the buildings with their toxic building materials are being devoured by the sea, jutting up over the waterline while they rust and rot and leak chemicals, what sort of a coastline will we have then?
Boston is not some country village that can be drowned like the farms and woods and towns in the Quabbin. We will not be controlling the water level rise. Boston is not some underdeveloped island in the third world that can be lapped away gently by the tides. It’s not Atlantis either. Boston must be dealt with above or below the waterline. Below will be much much harder.
Hilarious
Boston exceptionalism? Hilarious.
Hahaha!
My second.
That's not how managed retreat works
Demolition and restoration are part of the plan - usually as marsh lands (for marine coastlines) or park lands designed to reduce risk of future floods.
Hence "managed" retreat.
I still like the idea of filling in the seaport two stories deep. Victorian cities didn't hesitate to do that sort of thing when they had too many floods and wanted flush toilets.