That's a lot of investment in something that's going to be standing on water before their grandkids get to own it.
In the future, Motte & Bailey style constructions will become the norm, and beachfront properties will be viewed of like lead in the water pipes, unfortunately.
Why wouldn't a beachfront property be built to endure a storm? The sea is a strong beast, I don't understand why you'd build a fragile home near the sea.
Costs a lot of money, gamble that you'll basically get your worth out of it before a hurricane strong enough to destroy it comes through.
That's a big gamble in Florida considering how close the ICTZ can get to it, making the formation of hurricanes almost a certainty rather than a gamble.
A cat 4 hurricane hasn't hit the Florida panhandle in over 100 years. It was kind of a safe bet to not worry about them, as dumb as it sounds.
Over 100 years really isn't a lot. We in lisbon are shitting ourselves because an earthquake similar to that of 1755 could hit at theoretically any time, it just hasn't since then. It destroyed the whole city at the time.
christ guys chill down with these kinds of comments
always downers
It's a lot when it's less than the lifespan of the average human and there isn't a lot of investing money to build a building up to par to a storm that hasn't hit very often.
Reminds me of the guy who had is California home burned down twice, so he rebuilt his home out of concrete in a half-dome. Sure enough, a few years later, fire rolled in, and noting happened to his house due to the concrete. Don't skimp on concrete.
Even if these events are rare, it's always worth the investment in the long run. It doesn't really costt hat much more, unless you're going crazy with structure.
Hopefully it survives when that area is flooded and they just have this weird waterworld structure they can boat out to.
Make the best of a bad situation lol
"lead in the water pipes" as in "eh, no big"?
Its a safe bet until it happens
A safe bet isn't always a smart bet.
Personally, I would never live or own property within 5 miles of the coast. That's just long term stupidity.
Yeah a lot of these probably build cheap, get return on profits like crazy and probably have insurance in case this happens.
Waterproof the house and give it an airlock
We'll stop when Republicans stop denying it.
Build it taller
Coastal communities are important economic and industrial centers. People will live there as long as possible. While Mexico Beach may be primarily a tourism/vacation economy, there are many coastal communities that do not have the luxury of moving away. As well as communities that may not realize they are prone to tropical cyclone damage. These communities would greatly benefit from improved building techniques designed to withstand category 5 storms. We already have improved standards with things like roof ties and stronger windows, but it's obvious more work needs to be done.
"Well it's dumb to live on the coast" is not helpful for the people who don't have a choice.
The minimum development standards for an area are intended to protect prospective homeowners from the average, run of the mill storm. If a house is designed within those specifications and it fails, the engineer behind it is gonna get rolled and the homeowner will probably get a pretty thick check. In this case, the panhandle is a bit of a special area.
A large swathe of Florida, largely the Southern coast, has strict requirements on buildings in the area. They must be able to withstand 175 mph winds. In the panhandle, this requirement is between 120 to 150 mph for new developments. Take note; new developments. Properties that were developed prior to 2007 obeyed a different code from this current iteration and, as a result, were nowhere near built up enough to withstand a category 4 hurricane. It's easy to say that we can try to upgrade old houses to meet modern standards, but such upgrades are exorbitantly expensive.
they don't give a shit, let alone roam this forum to see it
It's also important to realize a lot of the problem is human expansion along the coast putting more people in harm's way. This is the case for areas like Houston, New Orleans, Miami, and other coastal urban centers. We actually got pretty lucky with Michael since ground zero was pretty uninhabited. Because of this expansion it's important to consider engineering projects like strategic dunes and flood gates to control the flow of storm surge and rising water from populated areas. We can't build a wall along the whole coast but we can do it where it matters most.
It's also important to realize that this is a problem that has always existed and will always exist. Climate change makes it easy to be a Debbie downer about articles like this because yes, storms will get worse and the seas will rise, but cyclones are a worldwide seasonal weather pattern that will not go away. So are tornadoes. Weather will kill humans forever. I mean you can go into the history books and find examples of hurricanes basically being a biblical catastrophe that wiped out entire regions. The biggest disaster in US history was a hurricane that destroyed an entire city killing maybe 12,000 people and injuring everyone else. The term Kamikaze translates to "divine wind" which referred to a literal typhoon that wiped out countless Mongol invaders in 1274. These storms are a part of our history.
So these things aren't going away and they're probably going to get worse. But we have more technology than ever before with radar and satellite tracking and computer model estimations, floating weather buoys and real time aircraft reconnaissance. We can build our structures to withstand the worst nature can throw at us. We can erect barriers that put the flow of water in our hands. Climate change makes it easy to dispair, but you know what you are going to do? You're going to get up, brush off, and rebuild it stronger, better, and smarter than before. Just like the people of Galveston did in 1900. Just like the stubborn, big brained, ingenious human you are.
Better downer than drowner. 😏
Maybe that's why the second floor is so elevated?
I'm sorry but you went to the whole other end of the spectrum completely, that's just baseless paranoia. Sure coastal cities are the ones that get the most ravaged by hurricanes, by definition of what a hurricane is, but there's plenty of coast that just doesn't get hit by hurricanes at all. Humans have always built and prefer to lived by the coast; that isn't gonna change, ever.
Living by the coast is only now considered a luxury in western nations. Before the turn of the twentieth century and in poorer nations, the poor and undeserved have historically lived waterside due to land being so cheap due to flooding, disease brought by waste dumping and insects, and a lack of defense.
That's not entirely true.
Props to the architect, it looks almost entirely intact.
Coastal cities have always been important economic points of countries; the reason has just shifted from coastal cities being good all-around hubs from a practical point of view (fishing, trade/travel by boat) to being popular tourist spots, no doubt partially due to the immense history usually correlated with these places, and also the inherent growth of them in the past leading to increased land value in these areas -> "glamour". Also the reason why certain places like Japan, Finland, Norway, Portugal, etc. have coastal cities as their capital; cause that's just where all the economic growth and investing happened.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
