a reply to: the owlbear
Again, normal, traditional houses, which are not built using defensive strategy in mind for the conditions which prevail in a locality, should not be
In hurricane prone areas, the risks are high sustained winds, flooding through rainfall and storm surges, and flying debris. Therefore, to mitigate
the damage from winds, similar strategies as used in my example of a hypothetical tornado proofed house would apply, but with augmentation to improve
their ability to survive a storm surge. That augmentation would come in, when deciding the shape of the footprint of the building. To prevent the
building being destroyed, one would want the buildings footprint to be a tear drop shape, with the fat end pointing toward the sea.
This shape would do two very important things. First, it would allow waves to break over the curved fat end of the shape, and flow around the
structure, rather than impacting fully against a flat surface, and pushing entire buildings off their moorings. Second, if you imagine that all
beachfront properties, or properties within a previously effected area are built to the same basic principle, then what you have is a system which
breaks up waves, stealing their momentum from them, with every block the storm surge passes. The tear drops thin end would face inland, and this would
allow water to recede with far less difficulty, and channel receding waters in such a way as to reduce the amount of time it takes for sea water to
leave the area and flow back to the sea, AND would sculpt the flow of the water so that it would flow between, rather than over the buildings.
In addition to the teardrop shaped footprint, the houses themselves would either have to have an entire body shell which was able to be pressurised
in the event of a serious emergency flooding scenario, or a basement with a family sized capsule inside which could be. Now that I grant you, would
cost a fair bit. But the fact is, if the house is GOING to be hit in the future with waves and rain and wind, capable of destroying the house, and
that it will happen again is a statistical certainty, then a regular house should not be insurable in that position, and builders should refuse to
construct it on the grounds that it will not last. Only houses specifically designed to survive that sort of thing, and protect occupants and property
within, should be put in place of what has already been destroyed!
It does not matter which scenario we are talking about, whether it be repeated coastal flooding due to storm surges from hurricanes, or swirling
killer vortexes in the alley. The unifying feature is, that there are building design possibilities which could mitigate these problems, materials
which could be used to make those designs workable, building methods which will expand the possibilities still further, and no one is implementing
these things, and that is just plain wrong.
ETA: a word on materials... One of the strongest materials I can think of to make these homes out of, would be ferrocrete , which is a mixture of iron
and concrete, which is then heated and left to set. Normally it is used to build bank vaults, out of big sheets of the stuff, which have steel
reinforcement bars sunk into them. If three dimensional printing techniques were industrialised, there is no reason that these buildings and their
foundations, could not be printed in place. Once set, the whole structure would be proof against all manner of environmental assault, and a coating
could be applied to all surfaces to minimise salt water damage to the iron components in the mixture.
edit on 8-5-2014 by TrueBrit because: Detail added.