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.
The title of this essay is from a press release that indirectly "blames the victim." The author is Sedgwick County Emergency Management regarding a fatal tornado that occurred just north of Wichita at 1:14 this morning. The tornado was rated EF-2 ("strong") intensity. I believe the wording is unfortunate as discussed below. Photo: KAKE.com. Note that with a basement, as little as seconds to dash down the stairs might have been sufficient to avoid injury. In what has increasingly and unfortunately become the norm in tornado situations, no NWS tornado warning was issued even though: Rotation was depicted on radar Radar shows lofted debris People from outside the NWS are observing tornadoes and bringing them to NWS's and the public's attention. I want to be clear: the tornado formed practically on top of the home and there was probably no way to have warned in time to help the man killed. But there is absolutely no reason a tornado warning could not have bee...
This past Friday, we had a great example of how a meteorologist can tell the difference between side-lobes (a false echo that mimics a tornado's circulation on radar) and one indicating a tornado is forming or in progress. I'm going to walk you through it so young meteorologists, in a similar case, won't make the mistake of mistaking side lobes for a tornado. This case was in north central Texas on February 2nd. I'm using the Abilene/Sweetwater WSR-88D and the software is RadarScope. When I draw on one panel of the screen, it shows up on the other in the same place, so the measurements are about as exact as any in meteorology. The Thunderstorm Cluster, 4:24pm Above is a cluster of thunderstorms with the two storms with arrows starting to transition to supercells. We already have the northern storm (just south of Aspermont) moving north northeast. In a situation like this, the storm will likely be "a hailer" -- meaning it is likely to produce hail, possibly ...
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.