Report: Flood zone will cover fourth of NYC by 2050s http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/10/flood-zone-nyc/2409805/ NEW YORK (AP) — By the 2050s, more than 800,000 New York City residents could be living in a flood zone that would cover a quarter of the city's land and New Yorkers could sweat out as many 90-degree days as is now normal for Birmingham, Alabama, as effects of global... [more]
Report: Flood zone will cover fourth of NYC by 2050s
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/10/flood-zone-nyc/2409805/
NEW YORK (AP) — By the 2050s, more than 800,000 New York City residents could be living in a flood zone that would cover a quarter of the city's land and New Yorkers could sweat out as many 90-degree days as is now normal for Birmingham, Alabama, as effects of global warming take hold, a scientists' group convened by the city says.
With local waters higher than they are today, 8% of the city's coastline could see flooding just from high tides, the group estimates. And while the average day could significantly hotter, a once-in-a-century storm would likely spur a surge higher than Superstorm Sandy, which sent a record 14-foot storm tide gushing into lower Manhattan.
The updated predictions were released Monday, ahead of recommendations Mayor Michael Bloomberg is to present Tuesday on what to do about threats that Sandy brought into stark relief.
"We have to look ahead and anticipate any and all future threats, not only from hurricanes and other coastal storms but also from droughts, heavy downpours and heat waves — many of which are likely to be longer and more intense in the years to come," an excerpt from the mayor's planned speech says.
Two top Bloomberg aides who oversaw the study, Seth Pinsky and Deputy Mayor Caswell Holloway, wouldn't hint at what the suggestions would be, what they might cost or how they might be financed. Many key decisions likely will come after Bloomberg's third and final term ends this year.
Bloomberg said last winter the study would examine the pros and cons of building berms, dunes, levees and other coast-protection structures. But he has historically been cool to the idea of massive sea walls — and emphatic about not suggesting that people move out of coastal areas.
City Hall, the state government and others have released warnings over the years about climate risks in the nation's most populous city. The city has required some new developments in flood zones to be elevated and has restored wetlands as natural barriers, among other steps.
"Sandy, obviously, increased the urgency of dealing with this and the need to plan and start to take concrete steps," Holloway said.
The new projections echo 2009 estimates from the scientists' group, called the New York City Panel on Climate Change, but move up the time frame for some upper-end possibilities from the 2080s to mid-century.
"The overall numbers are similar, but we have more compelling evidence now that (a more severe scenario from 2009) is looking like a more realistic possibility now," due to improved computer models and more evidence that some ice sheets are melting, said Radley Horton, a climate scientist with Columbia University's Earth Institute and a researcher with the city climate panel.
Scientists have reached a consensus on global warming, but still debate how severe the effects will be.
Meanwhile, the Federal Emergency Management Agency released revisions Monday to proposed new flood zone maps for the city. About 218,000 people and 35,000 buildings are in the current once-in-100-year flood zone, drawn in the 1980s. The new maps roughly double those numbers, though the revision shifts about 5,800 structures from a subset called the V zone — the area expected to suffer the worst damage — to a less stringent zone.
A roughly two-year review is expected before new maps become official. They can affect building regulations and insurance.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
[less]
Response by columbiacounty
over 12 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
SE,why?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by crescent22
over 12 years ago
Posts: 953
Member since: Apr 2008
Hey, gator, tell us how this is good for 1 Brooklyn Bridge Park- maybe it will make your insurance premiums even out vs the competition.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by marco_m
over 12 years ago
Posts: 2481
Member since: Dec 2008
That's why bloomie just unveiled a 60 bn plan to change the water flow / coast line well before 2050. although mother nature can still win if she wants to
Even if you live on a higher floor, your building's foundation, mechanicals, and infrastructure would be affected by flooding.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
Live in a building with a boat room.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by RandyinNY
over 12 years ago
Posts: 38
Member since: Aug 2012
Knowing this, why are they building the waste transfer station in a potential flood zone in Yorkville? Why do these politician bother reading these reports at all. It doesn't seem to influence their decision making. I guess they just need some new talking points from time to time.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by pier45
over 12 years ago
Posts: 379
Member since: May 2009
That just means the transfer station gets washed once every decade or two.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by renterjoey
over 12 years ago
Posts: 351
Member since: Oct 2011
By 2053 this whole planet with be inhabitable due to the greenhouse effect. Average temperature in 50 years will probably be something like 120 degrees.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NWT
over 12 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008
RandyinNY, it's called a Marine Transfer Station and needs to be on the waterfront. The guts of it are raised above flood levels. The design was changed a bit post-Sandy.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by RandyinNY
over 12 years ago
Posts: 38
Member since: Aug 2012
Time will tell I guess. The East River is crazy dirty anyway. Luckily I don't live up there. I feel bad for those who invested their life savings in homes up there. They were bulldozed by those that don't live in the neighborhood. The rest of the city can breath of sigh of relief that they dodged this bullet. They will be ruined. Who cares.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by GraffitiGrammarian
over 12 years ago
Posts: 687
Member since: Jul 2008
Once a decade? Ha. Try having a major storm on the scale once every two to three years.
People who are on the waterfront are not gonna make it, I'm sorry. The city shouldn't be spending taxpayer money to try to keep these investments intact.
Goldman Sachs has its main building right on the tippy-tip of Manhattan and it was standing in several feet of water after Sandy. That's why Bloomberg won't "retreat from the waterfront" -- because of GS and other big-money interests.
They want taxpayers to cover their losses -- AS USUAL. Those who scream the loudest for the private sector suck the most blood out of the public sector.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
>People who are on the waterfront are not gonna make it, I'm sorry. The city shouldn't be spending taxpayer money to try to keep these investments intact.
>Goldman Sachs has its main building right on the tippy-tip of Manhattan and it was standing in several feet of water after Sandy. That's why Bloomberg won't "retreat from the waterfront" -- because of GS and other big-money interests.
>They want taxpayers to cover their losses -- AS USUAL. Those who scream the loudest for the private sector suck the most blood out of the public sector.
Goldman Sachs, ok, and what about the NYCHA housing, a significant portion of which is in these areas, from Red Hook to the Brooklyn Bridge?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
> Knowing this, why are they building the waste transfer station in a potential flood zone in Yorkville? Why do these politician bother reading these reports at all. It doesn't seem to influence their decision making. I guess they just need some new talking points from time to time.
the garbage facility there is fine imho, but the building of the subway on 2nd avenue is a total waste of taxpayer's resources. that area is way too low.
> Time will tell I guess. The East River is crazy dirty anyway. Luckily I don't live up there. I feel bad for those who invested their life savings in homes up there.
who in their right mind would invest all their savings on their home? let's face it, people have to get smarter not only about global warming but also about minimizing spending on their 1st residency. if you need to put all your savings to get a decent place, just keep on renting. saving for retirement is the priority, not the money pit that's the 1st residency.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by notadmin
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3835
Member since: Jul 2008
> >People who are on the waterfront are not gonna make it, I'm sorry. The city shouldn't be spending taxpayer money to try to keep these investments intact.
i think the combo of spending to prevent the inevitable and the pension liability tsunami make living in NYC a temporary arrangement, just during the working years. once you get a portfolio that's big enough, why not relocate to an area that enjoys a better prospect? (both demographically / fiscal and global warming wise)
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
SE,why?
Hey, gator, tell us how this is good for 1 Brooklyn Bridge Park- maybe it will make your insurance premiums even out vs the competition.
That's why bloomie just unveiled a 60 bn plan to change the water flow / coast line well before 2050. although mother nature can still win if she wants to
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/new-york-city-flooding-by-2050_n_3417348.html
Make sure you live above the 4th floor.
Even if you live on a higher floor, your building's foundation, mechanicals, and infrastructure would be affected by flooding.
Live in a building with a boat room.
Knowing this, why are they building the waste transfer station in a potential flood zone in Yorkville? Why do these politician bother reading these reports at all. It doesn't seem to influence their decision making. I guess they just need some new talking points from time to time.
That just means the transfer station gets washed once every decade or two.
By 2053 this whole planet with be inhabitable due to the greenhouse effect. Average temperature in 50 years will probably be something like 120 degrees.
RandyinNY, it's called a Marine Transfer Station and needs to be on the waterfront. The guts of it are raised above flood levels. The design was changed a bit post-Sandy.
Time will tell I guess. The East River is crazy dirty anyway. Luckily I don't live up there. I feel bad for those who invested their life savings in homes up there. They were bulldozed by those that don't live in the neighborhood. The rest of the city can breath of sigh of relief that they dodged this bullet. They will be ruined. Who cares.
Once a decade? Ha. Try having a major storm on the scale once every two to three years.
People who are on the waterfront are not gonna make it, I'm sorry. The city shouldn't be spending taxpayer money to try to keep these investments intact.
Goldman Sachs has its main building right on the tippy-tip of Manhattan and it was standing in several feet of water after Sandy. That's why Bloomberg won't "retreat from the waterfront" -- because of GS and other big-money interests.
They want taxpayers to cover their losses -- AS USUAL. Those who scream the loudest for the private sector suck the most blood out of the public sector.
>People who are on the waterfront are not gonna make it, I'm sorry. The city shouldn't be spending taxpayer money to try to keep these investments intact.
>Goldman Sachs has its main building right on the tippy-tip of Manhattan and it was standing in several feet of water after Sandy. That's why Bloomberg won't "retreat from the waterfront" -- because of GS and other big-money interests.
>They want taxpayers to cover their losses -- AS USUAL. Those who scream the loudest for the private sector suck the most blood out of the public sector.
Goldman Sachs, ok, and what about the NYCHA housing, a significant portion of which is in these areas, from Red Hook to the Brooklyn Bridge?
> Knowing this, why are they building the waste transfer station in a potential flood zone in Yorkville? Why do these politician bother reading these reports at all. It doesn't seem to influence their decision making. I guess they just need some new talking points from time to time.
the garbage facility there is fine imho, but the building of the subway on 2nd avenue is a total waste of taxpayer's resources. that area is way too low.
> Time will tell I guess. The East River is crazy dirty anyway. Luckily I don't live up there. I feel bad for those who invested their life savings in homes up there.
who in their right mind would invest all their savings on their home? let's face it, people have to get smarter not only about global warming but also about minimizing spending on their 1st residency. if you need to put all your savings to get a decent place, just keep on renting. saving for retirement is the priority, not the money pit that's the 1st residency.
> >People who are on the waterfront are not gonna make it, I'm sorry. The city shouldn't be spending taxpayer money to try to keep these investments intact.
i think the combo of spending to prevent the inevitable and the pension liability tsunami make living in NYC a temporary arrangement, just during the working years. once you get a portfolio that's big enough, why not relocate to an area that enjoys a better prospect? (both demographically / fiscal and global warming wise)