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.
More heavy rain (snow in the mountains) forecast. Rains have already begun over the southern two-thirds of the state. See 3:15pm radar below. In addition, there is small risk of a tornado, especially tomorrow morning, in coastal areas of Southern California, shown in dark green.
[Note, no more updates to this story as of 1pm Tuesday; there is an updated story here .] ...so said the chief executive of Kerr County, Texas, Rob Kelly. He went on to say, "We had no reason to believe that this was going to be anything like what's happened here, none whatsoever." I'm sorry to report that he is probably correct. The flood was underforecast and the "emergency" warnings were later than they could have been. In fairness, as of the time of this update, 1:30pm Monday, the U.S. Geological Survey has determined this was the highest crest on the Guadalupe River at Hunt, Texas, since the river gauge was installed. As of 1p Tuesday , 105 have been confirmed to have been killed and "dozens" are missing. Those numbers imply a total death toll near 130. This past autumn, Hurricane Helene killed 249. In 2011, a single tornado killed 161 in Joplin. We must stop these mega-disasters! This is another tragic example of why America desperately n...
2am While the risk of tornadoes may continue during the night, this will have to end my coverage. Note the risk of tornadoes farther east later today. 1:35am Wednesday: Tornado watch will likely be issued for the outlined area, including the Kansas City Metro. Make sure you have a way to receive tornado warnings the rest of the night. 11:55p Tuesday: New tornado watch has just been issued for most south central (including Wichita), southeast and east central Kansas. This watch is in effect until 7am Wednesday. This is the overnight tornado threat we've been talking about. I am now providing additional updates on Twitter/X @usweatherexpert . --- original posting (still valid) --- Now until 7a Wednesday The tornado risk has decreased in Oklahoma south of I-40. 7am to Noon Wednesday For Wednesday morning, there is a significant chance of tornadoes in western and, especially, northern Missouri. It is unusual to have tornadoes during the morning....
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.