You must log in or register to comment.

PuritanSettler1620 t1_j5mpmjx wrote

Mayor Wu really needs to start building Sea walls. To fit with the "big dig" naming convention I reckon we should call it the "tall wall" and get 100 billion in federal funding.


Maxpowr9 t1_j5mpufk wrote

Yep. I remember walking through Seaport and just looking at the walls and going: "that's gonna start flooding a lot within a decade.


iSquash t1_j5oa944 wrote

but who is going to pay for the wall? Vermont? New Hampshire?


that_was_funny_lol t1_j5ofolp wrote

I’d rather have 10 giant dick poop statues thank you very much.


Jer_Cough t1_j5opejm wrote

We now have the answer to Matthew McConag(however it's spelled)'s question on Kimmel's Mean Tweets: "Dick turd... what's a dick turd?"


Ordie100 t1_j5mz0dq wrote

We see these pictures every time there's a storm, and I've heard of approximately 18,000 waterfront planning studies, but does the city have any real, funded capital plan to fix long wharf? Like it clearly needs it's elevation raising a few feet, ideally it needed it about 50 years ago, so why haven't we done anything? If we can't fix things that already regularly flood what hope do we have for the future?


swap_catz t1_j5nfgj0 wrote

Not sure what happened to it but we need to lock the bay. There was a proposal to lock the harbor islands using dredged sand from the bay and expand the main shopping channel to also allow modern cargo ships. The problem is the Dredging Act currently prevents this and requires congress or executive order to repeal it.


McFlyParadox t1_j5oj0df wrote

The main issue with this is that it would severely impede water changes in the bay. It would effectively be a sewer in fairly short order, if you tried to build sea walls between the harbor islands. You could maybe build a lock system between Castle Island and the Airport, and that would be small enough that you could submerge the whole system except during storms (like the Thames River, and the Venice Lagoon) and it would protect the waterfront in downtown, but you couldn't do that to the entire bay.


swap_catz t1_j5othpq wrote

Not exactly. The Nederlands is mostly locked and without it, Amsterdam would be underwater. Humans have done this before and it's not a huge issue. No one is swimming in Boston Bay anyways. Note this proposal was supposed to be for Long Island to Deer Island, then Deer to Moon if I'm not mistaken. It could've been all the way to Hull too. The body of water would be so large it would likely be fine.

Also, the alternative is we just let South Boston, Charlestown, and chunks of downtown sink over the next 30 years. As much as I totally think most of South Boston is a scam and just yuppie fast luxury homes for dumb transplants that dont know any better, I doubt we'll just let it become an intertidal zone. We're between a rock and a hard place here. Keep in mind this has been done before the Dredging Act. Back Bay was a Bay. We've rerouted and moved large bodies of water with no issues just making them artificial lakes.


swap_catz t1_j5piny3 wrote

Just found it. So they wanted to do the whole bay, with gated sea walls. Look I know you believe it would be gross but this has been done before. The Dutch seriously do this all the time. We're kind of at the point where if we don't we'll be almost assured the yuppie folks in South Boston waterfront will be taking water taxis to work.


eaglessoar t1_j5oe4bz wrote

> main shopping channel

my wife got very excited for a bit there


BasilExposition75 t1_j5ot33m wrote

We need to bring back Dredging under local control. Towns should be able to regulate it.


swap_catz t1_j5ovfxt wrote

It's a Congress issue. The Dredging Act of 1906 means modern Dredging Ships can't even operate in the US. Its a weird catch 22 because you needed deeper channels to make the modern ships, but you need modern ships to make deeper channels. European ships have been dredging deep for 50 years and would easily just come over and do projects, but because of a weird law, the ships must be built and operated in the US. Right now, there are only 2 real dredging ships that are mostly designed for rivers, and they're already booked and overworked trying to deepen the Mississippi, which is currently so low ships are getting stuck every season. I definitely predict Biden and this congress has to repeal it within the next few years because its an obvious bottleneck in shipping capacity thats just dumb. On the East Coast, Manhattan also need locks yesterday. Word on the street is the Navy frequently works in knee deep water down south there. It would also open up more jobs modernizing Boston and Philadephia's shipping lanes and allowing modern ships to dock there. More shipping equals more work and less dependence on inefficient trucks shipping from Bayonne, NJ or Savanna, GA.

Thanks Teddy Roosevelt for ruining this for us.


2tuna2furious t1_j5pfulz wrote

This and the Jones Act or some of the most harmful regulations the USA has


lucida t1_j5r3yke wrote

Isn't dredging terrible for the environment?


swap_catz t1_j5r82l7 wrote

As one of those Libertarian types, I not only believe humans involvement in climate change is real, but I also believe we're past the point of no return and probably need to make some unwanted adjustments to save lower socio-economic classes from a social upheaval weather event that will only affect poor people. Many of the already low lying land is practically a ghetto (East Boston, Southie, Dorchester, Quincy). Remember what happened when the levies broke in Louisiana? I'm not even going to discuss how gas energy is extremely efficient and rug-pulling poor people who's next gallon of gas is getting them to the grocery store or picking up their kids from school. Imagine telling India their poor people can't have their first gas scooter and stunting their growth.

Look we're going to have to do a few dirty things to make things better for everyone.

If we really cared about the environment we would rapidly move to nuclear energy to stop carbon emissions, since that has the most effect. I kind of hate the issue with arguing over small change when the big issues are right there, and I'm willing to compromise to make that 80% cleanup while sacrificing 20%. Some crabs may have to be sacrificed here.


lucida t1_j5r8bx9 wrote

TIL there are ghettos in Boston


swap_catz t1_j5ra8be wrote

It's a loose statement. I know our ghettos are miles ahead of ghettos in every place in the world and even in this country. I also know if there's a hurricane event like Ira or Sandy that hits Boston, you're going to have a lot of Black and Brown people displaced or underwater with no ability or finances to move without waiting for FEMA for years, and a humanitarian crisis in the short term.


R_Morley t1_j5uuny4 wrote

Why cannot we simply eat the poor? It is such a modest proposal and would save me from all this, gas nonsense.


FrankySobotka t1_j5xzxyc wrote

What are these "unwanted adjustments" you speak of

Also kind of curious how your last paragraph meshes with your libertarian worldview


swap_catz t1_j5ytrki wrote

The unwanted adjustments are these seawall and levie structures, and the fact that were going to have to do geoengineering at this point, or otherwise the cities will sink within our lifetimes.

Technolibertarian also. Classical libertarianism is wildly useless at this point. We cant simply go live in the mountains anymore in a globalized high tech society. You just wouldn't have things like MRNA vaccines, bone mesh, and sushi. I'm somewhere between corpo-libertarian and digital democracy.

A good example of this is this exact situation where I think if the government doesn't step in here and remove this stupid law, the cities will sink and the government will continue to lose what little credibility they have. I'm giving them a chance here at least.


scottieducati t1_j5n5sn7 wrote

The only real plan is to relocate the capital inland. There is no saving Boston in the long term. 30-50 years maybe before flooding is a serious problem.


Yanksuck73 t1_j5n6ckc wrote

Sea levels are predicted to rise 10 inches by 2100. I don’t think that is “there is no saving Boston”


Brinner t1_j5n7ymp wrote

Nope, more like 4 feet by 2070

Most of Boston is saveable


Ordie100 t1_j5nblsp wrote

4 feet is a very worst case prediction but yeah looking at the cities maps it's still very far from "the entire city is doomed" even in a worst case 1% flood 2070 scenario.,42.3244,-70.9606,42.3940 from


Pedromac t1_j5nc8h4 wrote

Tô be fair, if even %15 of the city goes underwater, what does that mean for the T and surrounding infrastructure?

The city would be doomed.


Squish_the_android t1_j5o35h5 wrote

>what does that mean for the T

Just more slow zones.

They'll buy those submarine cars from Disney.


[deleted] t1_j5nhsoc wrote

Unpopular truths are still truths, but people don’t want to think about them.


wickedblight t1_j5o4mns wrote

Long wharf is underwater from a mild storm before the ocean rises 4ft... Not a good sign


[deleted] t1_j5nhqq1 wrote

10 feet is the worst case prediction, assuming continued CO2 pollution at 2020 levels. In that case, Boston is a goner.

All it will take is the end of the Thwaites glacier, which is collapsing at a rate about 15x faster than expected.


guisar t1_j5nncxt wrote

It's like the Midwest, instead of recognizing our existential threats, we ignore them until our irrelevance leaves us feeling like we're not missing anything anyway.

People are just waiting until (and after, look at FL) insurance isn't available to cover them. Then there will be a HUGE and subsidized movement to higher ground. We are, overall, neither that smart nor comfortable with change, no matter how inevitable.


[deleted] t1_j5nnfdx wrote

Yep. It’s easier to downvote in 2023 and say “don’t say ‘I told you so’” in 2033 than to recognize reality.


moj85 t1_j5om441 wrote

im excited for when my property 20 miles inland becomes waterfront property!!


[deleted] t1_j5oy4ox wrote

100 year old Cape, 800 square feet, great shape, near Natick Beach. Only $940K!


jrice39 t1_j5ocbx5 wrote

Isn't there a guy up in gardner who lifts concrete and foundations? He could probably do it.


N8710 t1_j5osxjk wrote

Yeah, someone should give him a call for an estimate.


wickedblight t1_j5o4hag wrote

Ffs we're underwater now and weather patterns are just gonna get worse and worse while the ocean creeps higher and higher, humanity is losing all of our coastal cities to climate change.


Yanksuck73 t1_j5pi3q3 wrote

I'm not disagreeing that we need to address climate change and prepare. I'm just saying this guy who thinks Boston will be gone in 30-50 years is off his rocker.


wickedblight t1_j5rii5c wrote

How many Katrina level "surge incidents" will it take before living on the coast is no longer viable?

Or are you defining "Boston gone" to mean if one hill survived then the city preservers?


R_Morley t1_j5uv012 wrote

If we still have bunker hill, we still have Boston. We will fight the brits and their climate change, by land or by sea!


Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j5n9zf8 wrote

By capital, do you mean Beacon Hill? We’ll all be long dead before Beacon Hill is underwater. The Seaport will be an early casualty of managed retreat, and nothing of value will be lost. Most of Boston can be saved on a reasonable timeframe.

I mean, unless by long term, you mean when all the glaciers melt and Concord, NH is also underwater. But even in the most doomer scenario imaginable, that’s not going to happen for centuries.


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j5ohf8u wrote

Ahhh yes.

All of our subways, highways, and low lying neighborhoods will be flooded, underground utilities like gas, sewer, and water mains will be submerged at high tide and unable to be accessed/repaired, but as long as the literal steps to the State House are dry, “everything is fine.”


thewhaler t1_j5oiryt wrote

It's not even just when there is a storm, this happens with king tides


Mickey_Malthus t1_j5oygk0 wrote

Thanks for spurring me to finally look up the origin of King Tide. -- It was coined in 2009 in order to describe the boring dystopia of being slowly swallowed by the rising ocean as a "nuisance."

" a king tide is an exceptionally high and naturally occurring tide that causes nuisance flooding (also known as, 'sunny day tidal flooding')",tides%20in%20almost%2020%20years.


thewhaler t1_j5p0x2a wrote

wow! I didn't know it was such a recent term


Soul-Food-2000 t1_j5oczec wrote

Not a long term fix, should expand city toward higher elevation. If water level rises by even 10 ft Boston is screwed. During the last global warming period water rose by 400ft…


FourAM t1_j5mk8h6 wrote

Doesn’t this happen semi-regularly at Long Wharf?


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j5mku0s wrote

It’s starting to.

It didn’t used to.


CARLOS_DANGER638 t1_j5mlx8x wrote

Been doing it since I remember in the 80s, and before that according to epa


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j5mo7q3 wrote


bsmac45 t1_j5ostts wrote

So it did used to?


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j5otfr9 wrote

It didn’t used to happen semi regularly.

It’s starting to.

Per my other comment, there were more high tide flooding days from 2010-2020 than there were in the prior forty five years.


bsmac45 t1_j5otkmv wrote

I'll agree with you on that but it's inaccurate to say it didn't used to happen.


DegenGolfer t1_j5nxlq9 wrote

I’ve been in the seaport for a few storms and it’s been submerged


jjmasterred t1_j5n8hsv wrote

My favorite was always the aquarium station flooding


brufleth t1_j5o247x wrote

Yes. A little larger than average high tide (which are cyclical) with a little surge and you get this. It gets a little worse over time, but it is routine.


Whyisthissobroken t1_j5mel7k wrote

Oh wow - that's bad. This is the future...eeesh.


A_curious_fish t1_j5mnidg wrote

It's also been the past too


mapinis t1_j5mwbjl wrote

In the past and present, the water receded back. In the future it won't.


Elfich47 t1_j5mnuth wrote

The warning was there over five years ago when FEMA updated their flood maps.


Professional_Win_332 t1_j5o7fxm wrote

That wasn’t a warning, that was a cash grab by FEMA.


Elfich47 t1_j5ob9vb wrote

How does FEMA get money from updating maps they are obligated to update every ten years?


Professional_Win_332 t1_j5ok5uy wrote

I am sure this program is all on the up and up.


Elfich47 t1_j5oko22 wrote

Along with that did you read all of the regulations and public financials that are provided in that link? Or read any of the documentation about sea level rise?


Professional_Win_332 t1_j5olanw wrote

There are a lot of ways around regulations, you should be so naive. When programs like this are set up, they are taken advantage of and people exploit money off of them. For every study saying there is going to be 4 feet of sea level rise over the next 30 years, there are others that say it will be negligible. Seeing that sea level rise has been negligible for the last 100 years, I believe what I see. But you believe what you want. Just funny that you believe politicians are honest and they earn their money fair and square. Haha


Elfich47 t1_j5oq2e3 wrote

Did you read the regulation or did you just hand wave it away with your. “Way around regulations” statement?


Elfich47 t1_j5opyw5 wrote

The amount of sea level rise (last hundred years according to NASA) has been 6-8 inches. That is not negligible. It is slow though; if you are not taking very careful measurements it is easy to overlook.

And there are not many (if any) credible reports talking about four feet of sea level rise.


Taft_2016 t1_j5r0iq0 wrote

don't think he's gonna care who you cite. aquaman over here already knows the ocean in his gut


Professional_Win_332 t1_j5ofvwl wrote

Simple, they adjust the flood maps so more people have to get flood insurance, and those who have it have to pay more. They don’t adjust them because they think there will be more flooding, they are adjusted to make more money.


Achenest t1_j5ohqq6 wrote

Do you think FEMA is an insurance angency?


Professional_Win_332 t1_j5ojqay wrote

Too bad you don’t understand how people exploit and make money while working in the government.


Elfich47 t1_j5oiz1q wrote

FEMA doesn’t make money like that. They are a government agency and their funding is set by congress. And no, they don’t get kickback from insurance companies either. If that was tried people would go to prison.

And it is just amazing how the areas that FEMA warns “this is a flood risk” are the areas that end up getting flooded. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.


Professional_Win_332 t1_j5ojker wrote

It’s cute that you think that people in government and politicians don’t get kick backs. All you have to do is see how much money all these people make while they are in office. They get it in a lot of ways, for doing favors for big business. One hand hand greases the other. And there are so many places on the FEMA flood maps that have never flooded in history. They are taken peoples unreasonable fears of climate change and exploiting them for tons of money. If you honestly don’t believe that, then you need to pay attention more.


Elfich47 t1_j5ok4hp wrote

Ok, you’re in the “government bad” camp that just assumes government is someone else’s puppet.


Professional_Win_332 t1_j5okcra wrote

That is a simple thing for you to say. I have to buy flood insurance. Through private company, it costs $3300 a year. Through FEMA, it’s over $8000. Any explanation you would like to share why there is such a difference?


Elfich47 t1_j5olgse wrote

Because I would bet FEMA is the insurer of last resort and they have to take a much wider band of applicants - and they have to balance their books according to federal regulations. So FEMA ends up with a lot of people who can;t get flood insurance anywhere else because the regular insurers have pulled out of the market.

I expect if you read through their financials you would see exactly how much they took in in premiums and how much they paid out. All,of that is publicly record and available for review if you want to review it.

Florida has this problem right now where the state insurer of last resort is caught having to many applicants and having to cover much more than it had ever anticipated. And this is because the normal insurance companies are either pulling off the coast of Florida or out of the state entirely.


Commercial_Board6680 t1_j5n28l3 wrote

I'm surprised by the lack of flooding in my area of Eastie considering its built on landfill.


shiverMeTatas t1_j5nhw3k wrote

There was a lot of flooding near the Tall Ship area very recently


jimjimbo111 t1_j5n3b2o wrote Never shared a Facebook link before....


Commercial_Board6680 t1_j5ot9po wrote

Not that far from where I used to live before a condo developer took over the block.

Yes, the developers are scoundrels taking the money and leaving town afterwards, but who approved their work? Developers can't do shit without city approval. All this concern and anger should be directed at the planning boards/committees, because these are the assholes approving our city's destruction.


huyzee t1_j5n3eey wrote

I’ve hypothesized that in the future, there will be demand for engineers that update buildings and make them taller to accommodate for rising sea levels.

Boston will probably resemble Venice in many neighborhoods


ahecht t1_j5n6jaz wrote

> Boston will probably resemble Venice in many neighborhood

Slowly sinking while all the residents get priced out of housing and no one who works there can actually afford to live there?


[deleted] t1_j5ni45z wrote

So pretty much like today… but with flooding.


Damaso87 t1_j5na3ta wrote

This is a ridiculous hypothesis, man.


princess-sewerslide t1_j5mwve3 wrote

Climate change in action, coming soon to a neighborhood near you!


theblinkenlights t1_j5n8926 wrote

If there’s cars parked on Long Wharf, it’s not submerged yet.


huron9000 t1_j5o5b7k wrote

Build the Seawall.


NoButThanks t1_j5p3ggn wrote

Out of waste from deer island. We'll call it the "sew-wall"


DiMarcoTheGawd t1_j5olmbk wrote

What does this do to the first floors of all these buildings? Cannot be good for their longevity (assuming they’re around in another 50 years).


AgitatedEggplant t1_j5opj8h wrote

I wonder when Boston will roll out kayak rentals like those Bluebikes


TuggieBoi420 OP t1_j5pxrw6 wrote

Yeah maybe we just need go increase the flooding make this shid go Venice


NomNomDePlume t1_j5non9z wrote

Beacon Hill won't act on it because they want the statehouse to be a beach house.


jro10 t1_j5q4f3b wrote

The ocean is coming for us. Why we sunk billions and billions into developing Seaport when it’ll just be underwater in a few decades is beyond me.


LitaXuLingKelley t1_j5qngjy wrote

in a few years that whole area will be flooded permanently.


justvisiting7744 t1_j5s1hs3 wrote

holy shit, I’ve never seen or heard anything like this. it makes more sense in hindsight tho, I remember standing there in the hot july sun for one of the ptown ferries


packsox4 t1_j5mv1ib wrote

Looks like venice


MongoJazzy t1_j5obv80 wrote

Cool Photo & Fun storm !!


-Reddititis t1_j5nyb3k wrote

This looks like a rich-people problem.


parrano357 t1_j5odjrn wrote

classic reddit city subreddit jizzing their pants over a storm surge. theres a reason celebrities and politicians are still buying up all the coastline properties in LA, palm beach, hamptons and nantucket/vineyard and its not because they are afraid of global warming


Professional_Win_332 t1_j5o7dws wrote

Here comes the doom and gloomers.


PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j5oazo6 wrote

doomers gotta doom. 1/8" annual sea level rise and its constant since BEFORE the industrial revolution. Plan for it and build it up.

(Edit: added "annual" ...appreciate the DVs all you KB warrior doomers)