A superb commentary by Dr. Kevin Simmons on why better building codes in tornado alley pay for themselves. It is short, to the point, and well worth your time.
While this is great news that should be more widely adopted, I wonder how much impact it will truly have.
In, say, 10 years, what percentage of the total number of homes will have been constructed? 1%? Maybe 5%?
It would take another Greensburg-type disaster that wipes the slate clean - at immense human cost, both monetarily and and in human capital - for these building codes to truly have a lasting affect.
At "fault" is the superb construction under normal circumstances that this country has had in the past 100 years. I wouldn't know where to get this data, but I wonder what percentage of homes built since 1900 are still standing. 1930? 1950? 1970? There are diminishing returns the further you go back, but it's far cheaper to build on vacant land (which the US has in massive supply, especially in the plains) than to tear down a house and rebuild.
The following link answers a different question (what percentage of homes were build before date x) but interesting none the less.
Actually, there's a chart that tells the percentage of homes built between 2000 and 2009: 14.3%. That means nearly 86% of the homes in the country were built before 2000 and so wouldn't benefit from the new building codes.
As noted in the piece, this is highly geographic... the NE and the rust belt have the highest percentage of very old homes and even so, those are most likely to be very solidly built (we put an offer in on a home a few years ago from 1930 that had steel girder construction on the main floor... build like a commerical building!).
I guess my point is this... I'm not disagreeing with the premise, especially because the new codes are very inexpensive, relatively. But they would be massively more expensive per square foot if they were implemented in retrofitting older homes, which would have a wider impact.
The forecast path of the center of Hilary has shifted a bit to the west. This increases the threat to the Southland, especially in terms of flooding. Rainfall Note the heavy rains are forecast for Los Angeles County. Serious flash flooding may result. Because the forecast path has shifted to the west, that increases the threat of serious flooding in Los Angeles County north into Yosemite and the southern Sierra. It lessens the threat in Utah and western Arizona. While the threat of widespread flooding in Utah and Arizona lessens, note that some thunderstorms with localized heavy rain show up on the map. In Nevada, the more western path increases the risk of serious flooding around Mt Charleston and into the central part of the state. Here is the updated (9am PDT) flash flood risk map. Wind There are already about 40,000 people without power in California, mostly in the center of the state. The maps above are the peak gusts forecasted with the storm. The highest winds, in general,
-- Note, more current info available. Scroll up. --- Updated Information as of 8am PDT You are risking your life if you attempt to travel through the purple area. While the rain has not begun in coastal California, I would urge you to use this time to make any preparations. Power outages have occurred already in southeast California. Here is the latest radar as of 7:55am PDT. As of 6:40am PDT , the radar indicates moderate to heavy rain falling over desert areas of Southern California and far western Arizona (click to enlarge). Rainfall amounts for the 24 hours ending at 7am PDT show more than two inches have already fallen. There are reports from reliable sources that roads are already washed out and that people are stranded in isolated parts of the desert. Below is a high-resolution computer model's rainfall forecast from 5am PDT to 11pm PDT Sunday. More than a foot of additional rain is forecast to fall. This will lead to catastrophic flooding. Here is a map of current watc
[There is an updated version of this forecast. Scroll up.] This tornado outbreak has the potential for violent, long-tracked tornadoes at night. It is a recipe for a terrible disaster in terms of human life if precautions are not taken. Here are the color codes: Red hatched: High risk of strong tornadoes. Yellow hatched: Enhanced risk of strong tornadoes. Brown: Significant risk of tornadoes. The northern area of Iowa-Illinois-Missouri will see tornado-producing thunderstorms beginning tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon and continuing into Tuesday night. The southern area, from St. Louis across the Ozarks and into northeast Texas, may not develop until evening and then continue well into the night. Nighttime tornadoes are 2.5 times more deadly than tornadoes during the day. Addition, 7:30pm. The Texas Tech model shows thunderstorms developing over the Flint Hills and in Oklahoma 7-8pm. Those are already supercells in Kansas and the red lines in both areas are local rotation in the storm
While this is great news that should be more widely adopted, I wonder how much impact it will truly have.
ReplyDeleteIn, say, 10 years, what percentage of the total number of homes will have been constructed? 1%? Maybe 5%?
It would take another Greensburg-type disaster that wipes the slate clean - at immense human cost, both monetarily and and in human capital - for these building codes to truly have a lasting affect.
At "fault" is the superb construction under normal circumstances that this country has had in the past 100 years. I wouldn't know where to get this data, but I wonder what percentage of homes built since 1900 are still standing. 1930? 1950? 1970? There are diminishing returns the further you go back, but it's far cheaper to build on vacant land (which the US has in massive supply, especially in the plains) than to tear down a house and rebuild.
The following link answers a different question (what percentage of homes were build before date x) but interesting none the less.
http://www.oldhouseweb.com/how-to-advice/how-old-are-americas-houses.shtml
Actually, there's a chart that tells the percentage of homes built between 2000 and 2009: 14.3%. That means nearly 86% of the homes in the country were built before 2000 and so wouldn't benefit from the new building codes.
As noted in the piece, this is highly geographic... the NE and the rust belt have the highest percentage of very old homes and even so, those are most likely to be very solidly built (we put an offer in on a home a few years ago from 1930 that had steel girder construction on the main floor... build like a commerical building!).
I guess my point is this... I'm not disagreeing with the premise, especially because the new codes are very inexpensive, relatively. But they would be massively more expensive per square foot if they were implemented in retrofitting older homes, which would have a wider impact.