View Single Post
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 1:19 AM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,878
Originally Posted by SpawnOfVulcan View Post
As a geographer, with a focus in urban and regional planning, I wonder why people choose to remain in large, disaster-prone metro areas. I'm talking about extreme natural disasters that occur nearly every year. These extreme weather events, that are exacerbated by impervious surfaces in urban areas are obviously going to continue to occur!

What gives?

Certainly demographics play into certain populations' abilities to move out of hazardous areas, but (aside from denial of the existance of climate change) why do certain demographic groups choose to remain in such susceptible areas?

I, of course, live in a state that is highly proned to natural disasters. However, I love Alabama, I love Birmingham, and I love the Tennessee Valley. None of us can truly escape all natural disasters, but when you see the catastrophic flooding like we're seeing with Imelda, I wonder what coastal residents think when the rebuild time after time.

Is Houston just an exceptional city?

Is Miami Beach just too beautiful?

Is Charleston too precious to sacrifice?

Is New Orleans too important of a port to allow the Mississippi to run its natural course?
its like people who ride motorcycles. you know shit is going to go bad one day but you keep on riding until that time. ive met plenty of people who gave it up after that "one" crash. if i lived down south and my home was wrecked by hurricane, id probably cash and move up north a bit. at least away from the coast. in the case of portland and the pacific nw, we know earthquakes are a reality but that big one might be tommorrow or 500 years from now. geographers dont really know. ill be dead in 40 years so im willing to roll the dice. hurricanes happen year after year so those people are more daring.
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.