Recently I've become aware how common it was before WW2 for houses to be picked up and moved to other sites. I'm surprised I'm not hearing more about it in the case of New Orleans neighborhoods like Broadmoor.

The nice, recently rennovated house described in this article is certainly worth saving, even if the land it sits on is eventually deemed to be too low. Why not move it to another location?

I realize that this would not save the neighborhood, which would be the best outcome, but may not be possible. Still, it seems preferable to demolishing good houses at a time when so many houses have been destroyed.

New caption: A house in the formerly flooded Broadmoor neighborhood.

Is at least accurate.

We are just entering a 30-year hurricane era. It will probably be a lot worse than previous hurricane eras due to global warming. The best thing that could happen is for another category 4 hurricane to hit the gulf coast, before a lot of money is wasted on rebuilding in low-lying areas. The Bush administration was totally stupid in its combination of socialism and capitalism in its response to Katrina. It would have been a lot cheaper and simpler to give the affected residents money and told them to do what they wanted with it, but don't come back. Oregon has a coast that is almost devoid of towns, even though it does not have hurricanes. In the early 20th century the state designated the coast as a highway right of way, about a mile wide as I recall. Now that tsunamis are perceived as a threat it looks like a very wise move. The gulf coast should have the same approach. A thousand mile long park as wide as necessary to avoid building in low-lying areas would be appropriate. Very few of us remember the incredible hurricanes of the 1950's. They used to tear up the east coast. When I was at MIT in the mid-50's all the bridges between New York and Boston were destroyed by a hurricane. For a week it was very difficult to travel that route. Our ancestors have moved on for thousands of years when it became necessary. I have lived in LA, NY, Boston, OR, PA, and now ID in my adult life. Screw the silly sentimentality of these whiners. After the next big one they'll be whining again. Only a fool lives many feet below a rising sea level.

Definitely not a shotgun house in the photo. (It's a bungalow.) I'm left wishing the writer would have taken the time to consider a few of the questions that should be rolling through everyone's head these days. Just where are the billions of dollars going if not to provide city services? What is this or any other city without its oldest neighborhoods and residents? Are there ways of building up the land in lower lying areas? Of moving rather than destroying older housing stock? How much of the proposed "higher density housing" is going to resemble the project housing of urban renewal days--both in (un)feeling and utter failure?

The idea that the survival of these older neighborhoods is going to be the demise of New Orleans simply because they would use limited city resources is ludicrous. Outlying suburbs have been allowed to tap city services for decades without paying for them. Now the arguments against sprawl are being leveled at historic housing stock and the city's tax base? It's enough to make one's head spin.

Overall a good, not great article, but please keep publishing articles about New Orleans.

I won't comment on the substance of this article because, frankly, I haven't read it.

You instantly lose credibility with this former NOLA resident with the caption of your photo.

That is most certainly *not* a 'shotgun' house.

If that represents the standard which prevails throughout this article, you can count on hearing from me a bit later.

I didn't truly get the human story, on a personal level, about what was going on in the aftermath of New Orleans until reading this story. Exceptionally well-written, and hard-hitting. Thank you. Amy