I'm already hearing that debate, albeit just on email lists and the such, not like in the media or anything. But there are definitely some people saying it shouldn't be rebuilt in the same place. Unfortunately, I doubt that the obvious logic of that position will be able to withstand the power of sentimentality.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they never should have built it there in the first place. They didn't know the dangers back then, and anyway it wasn't under sea level when first established, IIUC. And it's not like you can wake up one morning and say "hey, this whole city is below sea level, let's move it fifty miles inland." But I do think that for *re*building purposes it would make tons of sense to move it, and no sense at ALL to rebuild in the same place. alas.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 02:25 am (UTC)I wouldn't go so far as to say they never should have built it there in the first place. They didn't know the dangers back then, and anyway it wasn't under sea level when first established, IIUC. And it's not like you can wake up one morning and say "hey, this whole city is below sea level, let's move it fifty miles inland." But I do think that for *re*building purposes it would make tons of sense to move it, and no sense at ALL to rebuild in the same place. alas.