The great 1928 flood of London(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
The great 1928 flood of London
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241
6 comments
Isn't a car easier to move than a house, when when threatened by flood?
Sure, but (based on anecdotal experience of places I know along the Thames) there are lots of places where houses are built to expect at least some level of flooding - steps up to the door, etc. - meanwhile cars left on the street can go very quickly (e.g. overnight) from fine and dry to completely screwed.
From the end of the video in the article:
[The Thames Barrier] has closed nearly as many times in the last 10 weeks as in the whole of the 1990s.
Meanwhile, it wasn't closed at all between September 2010 and April 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier#Barrier_closures...
[The Thames Barrier] has closed nearly as many times in the last 10 weeks as in the whole of the 1990s.
Meanwhile, it wasn't closed at all between September 2010 and April 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier#Barrier_closures...
The barrier is too small to protect London now.
This sort of stuff is why I buy an OS LandRanger map of the area in question before I rent/buy. Waterways, reservoirs and elevations are really quite important! London isn't that well protected either despite much fanfare about it over the years.
The Environment Agency also puts their flood risk maps online:
http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?...
so you don't even need to spend the money on an OS map.
so you don't even need to spend the money on an OS map.
I wonder how difficult it would be to import/integrate this data with OpenStreetMap.
That's great - didn't know that. Thanks for posting.
I'll see your flooding river and raise you The Great Molasses Flood of Boston:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Molasses_Disaster
21 dead. 150 injured.
Had they done their calculus/physics homework properly, they'd have known to calculate thickness of the tanks required as a function of the depth of the liquid. Stay in school, kids.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Molasses_Disaster
21 dead. 150 injured.
Had they done their calculus/physics homework properly, they'd have known to calculate thickness of the tanks required as a function of the depth of the liquid. Stay in school, kids.
The London Beer Flood
Only 8 dead, but beer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Beer_Flood
Ah London. Easily my favorite place on Earth.
Do you actually live in London?
Not yet. But my wife and I spend a month there each year since 2010. Will be heading back in late May of this year.
What does it matter?
Usually the drawbacks of any locality would only be apparent if you lived and worked there. For example: visiting Disneyland for a day versus woking at Disneyland for a year.
Can probably be said about most places, but a common joke is that true Londoners both think London the best place in the world, and also the worst.
(Personally I spend 1-3 days a week in London, have done for years, absolutely love it but wouldn't want to live there.)
(Personally I spend 1-3 days a week in London, have done for years, absolutely love it but wouldn't want to live there.)
> (Personally I spend 1-3 days a week in London, have done for years, absolutely love it but wouldn't want to live there.)
London and Vegas share that view in my mind. I love Vegas and London, but want to spend no more than 72 hours in each place at a time.
London and Vegas share that view in my mind. I love Vegas and London, but want to spend no more than 72 hours in each place at a time.
For similar reasons? I've never been to Vegas (on purpose, I refuse to go to CES each year, I wouldn't do well stuck in casinos day after day!) but imagine it quite different to London. And actually I don't mind spending more than 3 days in London at a time, although mostly I'll go one day at a time, I do have to stay there a few times a year for up to a week, and it's not too much time that I mind, I just like knowing that at some point I can go home to somewhere that isn't London.
Different reasons. Vegas because of its culture, London because of its cost and density of people.
Same here.
Unfortunately I've been living here for over three decades now...
Unfortunately I've been living here for over three decades now...
Good and accurate judgment usually only comes after years of direct and relevant experience.
I never said that London is the perfect place, or that it's better than anywhere else. I said it's my favorite place. As in, of the places I've been I prefer London the most. Why?
The art. The history. The theatre. The culture, The food. (Like £2 curry in Camden Town? You can't beat it)
Is it expensive? Sure it is. Are there problems? Of course there are. But I enjoy my time there.
The art. The history. The theatre. The culture, The food. (Like £2 curry in Camden Town? You can't beat it)
Is it expensive? Sure it is. Are there problems? Of course there are. But I enjoy my time there.
The English in a nutshell:
".. we forget the force of nature. So these sorts of moments are quite disturbing to people."
If you walk around there you can see plaques on a few buildings marked like "-- 1917 flood level --". These can be several meters above the normal water level, and clearly so high that great damage will occur whenever that level is reached. But people keep calm and carry on living there, too low for comfort but in oh-so-cute dwellings by the river. They even park there cars down there which makes little sense. I walked there during the last historic flood, which was all of 15 months ago.
As an aside, the Thames Barrier is a fantastic sight to see, and reachable on foot from Greenwich in a few hours (take the water taxi home).