Ok, how do propose making structures be made more durable without much extra cost?My overall position is that homes should be better able to withstand all adverse weather conditions, including floods.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ok, how do propose making structures be made more durable without much extra cost?My overall position is that homes should be better able to withstand all adverse weather conditions, including floods.
He never said anything about walls, he stated wind records
That is a fact. 120 mph roofs come off. 130 mph walls start to fail.
We have to determine how much more some buyers would pay for a stronger house, and determine what features other buyers would give up to mitigate the higher costs of a stronger house. Initially it has to be a market-based effort. If such structures prove out, then building codes would lilely follow.Ok, how do propose making structures be made more durable without much extra cost?
When you act stupid you must be!A photograph? ...
Hey jc456 ... you're wrong ... he is talking about walls ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...
...highest wind speeds ever measured globally were recorded at 301 ± 20 miles per hour (484 ± 32 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar.
You're describing the free market and that has already been done.We have to determine how much more some buyers would pay for a stronger house, and determine what features other buyers would give up to mitigate the higher costs of a stronger house. Initially it has to be a market-based effort. If such structures prove out, then building codes would lilely follow.
When you act stupid you must be!
Doppler on wheels. Hmmmm you skim over? Or stupid?
That’s not his point. Again, highest winds recorded! Never about damage as a result. That’s where you went incorrectlyThat's what I was acknowledging with the NWS diagram of that tornado ... see the purple zone ... winds were 301 mph there ... not anywhere else ...
Do you have any pictures of this EF-5 damage? ... the most the photo in ding's post is EF-4 ... "houses destroyed and crumpled upon their respective foundations" ... do you see any houses swept clear of their respective foundations? ...
Yes or no ...
That’s not his point. Again, highest winds recorded! Never about damage as a result. That’s where you went incorrectly
All of which will be subject to damage from extreme weather events.True. Stronger, and better designed, structures are being built here and there but generally buyers go with conventional construction.
That's what I was acknowledging with the NWS diagram of that tornado ... see the purple zone ... winds were 301 mph there ... not anywhere else ...
Do you have any pictures of this EF-5 damage? ... the most the photo in ding's post is EF-4 ... "houses destroyed and crumpled upon their respective foundations" ... do you see any houses swept clear of their respective foundations? ...
Yes or no ...
The point is to reduce such damage as much as is practical.
New 'flood zones' are appearing all the time.Then stop building in flood zones, Hurricane landfalling zones, stop building cities are sea level, stop building cities inside of forested areas.... etc......
Your points were that structures should be made to withstand extreme weather events and that can be done without much extra cost. I'm disputing both points.The point is to reduce such damage as much as is practical.
Some can afford it, others would have to sacrifice some bells and whistles, but it certainly can be done. It's like adding extra insulation. The upfront cost might be daunting but the savings in energy costs down the road makes up for it and then some. And as noted, insurance costs would be reduced as well. Another point in my favor is that such homes don't need to be made so large. So called smaller "starter homes" developments used to be common. Let's do that.Your points were that structures should be made to withstand extreme weather events and that can be done without much extra cost. I'm disputing both points.
How exactly would they be made to be more durable? What needs to be done differently?Some can afford it, others would have to sacrifice some bells and whistles, but it certainly can be done. It's like adding extra insulation. The upfront cost might be daunting but the savings in energy costs down the road makes up for it and then some. And as noted, insurance costs would be reduced as well. Another point in my favor is that such homes don't need to be made so large. So called smaller "starter homes" developments used to be common. Let's do that.
All of which will be subject to damage from extreme weather events.
Build houses out of solid wood. We do that now. They're called log homes or log cabins. They're stronger against flood, wind, and fire damage.How exactly would they be made to be more durable? What needs to be done differently?
Do you a link that supports your assertion?Build houses out of solid wood. We do that now. They're called log homes or log cabins. They're stronger against flood, wind, and fire damage.
Of course.Do you a link that supports your assertion?