posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by stormcell
I disagree that the notion that risk is the same in all regions that some have repeated and that the physical environment itself (plains and lack of
trees promotes the creation and increases duration/strengths of the phenomena or that high structures including buildings in a high urban environment
will not make it safer).
I accepted as valid the notion that it goes basically towards a cultural and "false economy" notion (it depends on what you see as worth spending
money). Personal safety and property value seems to be secondary to ease of construction, costs and even complexity of planning. For example in most
of Europe permanent house constructions require an architect and a civil engineer and without any exception for any medium or large urban areas. There
is a bit of bureaucracy and licensing and most of Europe lives in condominiums (several houses aggregated into a single unit) not in individual single
or double floor houses (there are some but not on a similar scale, there is space constrains, if urban demographies increase buildings tend to start
to grow not in number but in height).
had a few graphics on the US situation and there is clearly a link
between property worth and the type of preferred construction and environment (like you said).
As I said before there is a clear difference in house quality Europeans prefer "masonry walls" (from bricks to cement) instead of wood framing, they
use tile roofing instead of asphalt shingles. Even prefer copper flashing and gutters instead of aluminum. The quality windows tend also to be
superior with beefier frames and better quality hardware. Much higher quality interior and exterior doors etc... (Generally speaking, culturally
Europeans also give more importance to the ownership of a house).
I still believe that the size of calamities, even costs in lives and property damages could be reduced by better construction and urban planning vs
cheap and easy to replace housing. I also got and agree with the point that someone made about changes in construction and urban density being a
factor, having potential targets over a larger area would make the second option more economically viable even without reducing the risks and
discomfort of any victims as the social/economical structure would still be in place after a disaster.
PS: Just an edit to add that the difference may also be due to the social infrastructure, especially communal transportation offerings and the less
reliance in individual transportation. The car (industry and road construction) may have been the primary factor for the way American society evolved
their suburbs they way it did.
edit on 19-11-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)