

How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea - warbastard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29761274

======
meddlepal
Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options
like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor.

If anyone thought the Big Dig was a clusterfuck then they have seen nothing if
this vision became a reality... the idea of turning the Back Bay into a series
of canals... an area built on landfill and poorly documented about where
infrastructure is located along with tons of historic residential architecture
is going to cost many times more money. Not to mention the Back Bay
neighborhood association, which is probably the most powerful neighborhood
associations in the United States due to a combination of power and wealth
would throw a nutty (and rightfully so).

~~~
Retric
The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in
the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive.

IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model.
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago).
A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures
failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's 90%
pure land value with a token for the structure. (Aka move the same building to
the middle of an Iowa cornfield and suddenly there not so valuable.)

~~~
cjcole
Either it was poorly executed or disingenuously planned.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig)

'The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was
plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges
of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests,[2][3]
and one death.[4] The project was originally scheduled to be completed in
1998[5] at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion
adjusted for inflation as of 2006).[6] However, the project was completed only
in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982
dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%)[6] as of 2006.[7] The Boston
Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including
interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038.[8] As a result of the
death, leaks, and other design flaws, the consortium that oversaw the project
agreed to pay $407 million in restitution, and several smaller companies
agreed to pay a combined sum of approximately $51 million.[9]'

~~~
Retric
I don't think they did a good job, but your cost estimates are rather divorced
from reality. Inflation is a poor way to measure projects like this.
Construction costs in the short term are only loosely coupled with overall
inflation. Consider the just price of copper:
[http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=10y](http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=10y)
Though most construction raw materials had similar price swings.

Anyway, the project finished in 2007 amid a huge housing boom in the US which
significantly increased costs. A well managed project could have probably been
~30% cheaper, but the much of the "190%" over run was well outside the
projects scope.

For comparison the hover dam is generally thought of as a well executed
project despite ~98 directly related fatalities during construction. IMO, we
have become vary critical of large construction projects in large part because
rebuilding infrastructure is simply far more complex than clean slate
construction in the middle of the wilderness, and even worse it negatively
impacts peoples lives during construction. Especially in places like HN
considering how few software projects are on time and under budget.

------
kevincennis
It'd be nice to know in exactly what capacity this was discussed.

The article just says that "architects, developers, real estate experts and
business owners were brought together in May to discuss ways of preserving the
city's buildings in this watery cityscape of the future".

Who set this up? Were canals a serious suggestion with a reasonable amount of
support, or just thrown out as a possibility during a brainstorming-type
exercise?

------
fennecfoxen
I was under the impression that in places like Amsterdam, canals were useful
historically because people didn't have motor vehicles so they were a highly
effective way to move goods around town (and to/from remote farms, towns and
cities via rivers like the Amstel and IJ, other canals, and the sea).

Today, while extant networks may remain quite decorative and interesting,
urban canals seem unlikely to be used for any purpose other than high-end
recreation / tourism, and the article does not address any way they'd be
directly useful for flood control. It's not even made clear they'd really
assist in keeping seawater out of peoples' homes and businesses.

~~~
vonmoltke
I was under the impression that the canal networks in the Netherlands were
similar to the South Florida Water Management District's canal system. The
primary purpose of the network is to prevent southern Florida from reverting
to swampland, which is the natural tendency due to the geology, geography, and
weather patterns. Since much of the coastal Netherlands is in a similar
situation, I always assumed the canals were primarily for moving water to the
North Sea without flooding out the low-lying areas.

~~~
fennecfoxen
That may be the case for de kanalen, but I don't think it explains de grachten
-- that is, the Netherlands has canals criss-crossing the countryside which
might accomplish flood control purposes, but when there are canals in between
every other city street, that's another matter.

Either way, the article failed to explain :)

(Fun fact: the word "gracht", Dutch / Nederlands for street-canal, uses the
voiced velar fricative, a sound which English eschews. Good luck pronouncing
it right. :b)

------
spikels
Somewhat worrying that the people in charge of protecting Boston from flooding
would waste their time on such an obviously impractical and pointless idea.

Even if Boston already had canals they would still need to build surrounding
flood protection systems just like Venice and Amsterdam. So why build the
canals?

Interior canals can actually make flooding more likely as New Orleans learned
when breaks along canals were responsible for flooring the city after Katrina.
The solution - as a everywhere else - was beefed up perimeter defenses not
more canals. Canals just make the problem harder and the risks greater. Why
build a system to deliver vast quantities of water to the center of a city?

The real problem with building reliable flood protection is that it is
impossible to fully test and may not be tested by nature for a very long time.
This requires sustained effort by level headed engineers and planners not
politically motivated dreamers.

~~~
teisman
I share your skepticism, but there's one thing you might be overlooking.

Canals can act as a buffer in case of heavy rainfall. This requires the canals
not to be connected to open water. In anticipation of heavy rainfall you would
pump water out of the canals, into open water (sea). The canals can then act
as a temporary buffer for excess rainwater. True, this wouldn't help against
dike-breaks.

Related to this: in Holland there are many farmlands in the proximity of
rivers that are designated as buffers like these. When necessary, they let
these farmlands run full of water in a controlled way to prevent downriver
cities from flooding.

~~~
vonmoltke
> This requires the canals not to be connected to open water. In anticipation
> of heavy rainfall you would pump water out of the canals, into open water
> (sea).

Not necessarily. The South Florida Water Management District canals ultimately
drain directly into either the ocean or the Everglades. The canal network has
a series of flood locks and pumps, though, which can be used to manipulate
water levels and force water to flow faster or slower than it would naturally.

Municipal drainage along the coast in southern Florida is also connected
directly to the ocean. In that case as well the drainage system is augmented
by high-capacity pumps to force the water out of the system and into the
ocean. The municipal green spaces act as the buffers if the pumps cannot keep
up with the rainfall.

------
worklogin
I don't understand how this will keep the houses from flooding. Creating some
canals won't lower the sea levels and keep buildings from flooding.

------
robg
The feat of engineering to create the Back Bay is impressive by itself. Just a
matter of time before more changes are needed.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Bay,_Boston#History](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Bay,_Boston#History)

------
hemancuso
This article cherry-picks one idea among many. A better article:

[http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/09/29/venice-
charle...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/09/29/venice-charles-
boston-solution-rising-seas-includes-novel-canal-system-back-bay-
canals/F7u38NjMW9htumJ9GK2VnI/story.html)

------
maerF0x0
Here's my pie in the sky plan. We'll send all the excess water from melted
icecaps to mars for terraforming purposes.

