3 ms·

I imagine this was said in jest. But it's worth mentioning that Venice has sunk almost 10 inches in the last century. Even if water levels hadn't changed -- a

I imagine this was said in jest. But it's worth mentioning that Venice has sunk almost 10 inches in the last century. Even if water levels hadn't changed -- and of course they have -- Venice would still be facing serious problems.

jandrese 7y ago
It would be more accurate to say "Don't build your city on a river delta or flood plain", but that's where the good soil is. It's also hard to go back in time hundreds of years to yell at your ancestors.
- safsafsa 7y ago
  Nor would a city not built in the delta be Venice. Venice is Venice because it was built where it wasn't supposed to be!
ravenstine 7y ago
I don't think it's in jest, and I actually agree with that statement to an extent. If humans weren't polluting the atmosphere, the climate would still be changing. The only difference is time scale and possibly the temperature delta. This is why building cities right up against the shoreline isn't a very good idea in the long term. And, no, you can have ports without building metropolises right next to the water. Someone's going to say that I'm a "climate denier" which is totally false because I believe in anthropogenic global warming.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Ports are critical infrastructure, and cities evolve around ports. The world's great natural harbors/ports almost always have large cities built around them (NY, SF, Sydney, PRD, etc).
- _carl_jung 7y ago
  Cities evolve organically. There is no "Mr City" who mistakenly places cities too close to the shoreline. Businesses naturally accrete around ports until the mass of buildings and workforce forms a city.
- fooblitzky 7y ago
  The difference in time scale is crucial though. For the past 2000 years, sea level hadn't changed much at all[1]. If the city has to move to adapt to changing coastlines, it can probably manage the move over millennia. With climate change, we're looking at drastic coastline changes over the next 100 years. 100 years is extremely short for cities - it probably takes about that to go from being a town to being a city, if you have excellent growth rates. To move a city in 100 years is probably flat-out impossible, just for cost reasons alone. Most cities are hard-pressed to pay for maintenance of roads and essential services, and service their already crushing debt levels. City governments are not going to manage it, which means the citizens of the cities are going to shoulder the costs. We're going to see large-scale financial hardship in coastal cities going forward, and multiple cities going bankrupt and into decline. [1] https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-ris...
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Scale is also the only difference between a beautiful snowflake and a terrifying avalanche. It's the difference between drinking a refreshing glass of water and being waterboarded. Scale matters a lot.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    I really like these analogies. You are so right.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  See also: Sacramento, which dealt with frequent winter/spring flooding back when it was first founded because the founders built the city right up against the river. The city adapted by effectively converting all the first floors into basements and raising the city's "ground" (most of it all got filled in with dirt or otherwise lost with time, but some of it's still preserved in the so-called "Old Sacramento Underground"). Venice will likely have to take similarly-drastic measures, and they're a lot harder to take given that modern-day Venice is much bigger than 1850's-1860's Sacramento.

jandrese 7y ago

It would be more accurate to say "Don't build your city on a river delta or flood plain", but that's where the good soil is. It's also hard to go back in time hundreds of years to yell at your ancestors.

safsafsa 7y ago
Nor would a city not built in the delta be Venice. Venice is Venice because it was built where it wasn't supposed to be!

ravenstine 7y ago

I don't think it's in jest, and I actually agree with that statement to an extent. If humans weren't polluting the atmosphere, the climate would still be changing. The only difference is time scale and possibly the temperature delta. This is why building cities right up against the shoreline isn't a very good idea in the long term. And, no, you can have ports without building metropolises right next to the water. Someone's going to say that I'm a "climate denier" which is totally false because I believe in anthropogenic global warming.

throwaway5752 7y ago
Ports are critical infrastructure, and cities evolve around ports. The world's great natural harbors/ports almost always have large cities built around them (NY, SF, Sydney, PRD, etc).
_carl_jung 7y ago
Cities evolve organically. There is no "Mr City" who mistakenly places cities too close to the shoreline. Businesses naturally accrete around ports until the mass of buildings and workforce forms a city.
fooblitzky 7y ago
The difference in time scale is crucial though. For the past 2000 years, sea level hadn't changed much at all[1]. If the city has to move to adapt to changing coastlines, it can probably manage the move over millennia. With climate change, we're looking at drastic coastline changes over the next 100 years. 100 years is extremely short for cities - it probably takes about that to go from being a town to being a city, if you have excellent growth rates. To move a city in 100 years is probably flat-out impossible, just for cost reasons alone. Most cities are hard-pressed to pay for maintenance of roads and essential services, and service their already crushing debt levels. City governments are not going to manage it, which means the citizens of the cities are going to shoulder the costs. We're going to see large-scale financial hardship in coastal cities going forward, and multiple cities going bankrupt and into decline. [1] https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-ris...
smacktoward 7y ago
Scale is also the only difference between a beautiful snowflake and a terrifying avalanche. It's the difference between drinking a refreshing glass of water and being waterboarded. Scale matters a lot.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  I really like these analogies. You are so right.
yellowapple 7y ago
See also: Sacramento, which dealt with frequent winter/spring flooding back when it was first founded because the founders built the city right up against the river. The city adapted by effectively converting all the first floors into basements and raising the city's "ground" (most of it all got filled in with dirt or otherwise lost with time, but some of it's still preserved in the so-called "Old Sacramento Underground"). Venice will likely have to take similarly-drastic measures, and they're a lot harder to take given that modern-day Venice is much bigger than 1850's-1860's Sacramento.