Saw an article yesterday interviewing a couple who says they’ll now have to rebuild their beachfront house for the third time, and that their second rebuild wasn’t even finished when Helene sent their house surfing down the street. That their insurance won’t cover it.
I’m flabbergasted that anyone would even consider rebuilding there. You’re lucky to even have insurance – most insurance companies have been fleeing the state.
Here’s a radical idea: don’t rebuild there. This is only going to get worse.
So, I built a second one! That sank into the swamp...
So I built a third one! That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp!
But the fourth one stayed up!
Same mentality...
Huston is one of the most populated cities in the US and it’s built on a swamp. Everyone acts super surprised when it floods semi-annually, like it’s some kind of tragedy as opposed to basic physics.
Next thing you know Arizona will start complaining that they’ve run out of water. I mean, yes? You’re in the desert. Your choices were to fix the climate, move, or die. Instead you’ve built a gigantic parking lot of a city.
There should be no aid whatsoever for natural disasters that strike predictably on a regular basis. Human beings aren’t dumb animals. We can communicate. Also Florida, Louisiana, and Texas literally voted for global warming. They got what they voted for so what is the issue?
Actions have consequences. We failed to act for a century. That’s how long we’ve known with absolute certainty that the climate was fucked. We put people on the moon, and we went to war with Iraq, but heaven forbid people stop eating meat, driving their precious cars, or taking pleasure cruises. Zero. Pity.
Arizona will start complaining that they’ve run out of water
Little community refused to connect to the public utility grid. Wanted to live the libertarian, no government, get eaten by bears ideal. Local government they were mooching off for water said "Hey, we actually need this for our community. No more mooching." They could fix the problem by incorporating, but instead they went to the news media.
Worse is the Supreme Court not honoring centuries old treaties in water rights cases for native tribes. These people were promised the land and now the government wants to say the right to water was not part of it.
Meat? 😶🌫😶🌫😶🌫
There are probably some cases where it's true it was irresponsible to build somewhere. For most people though, they may have been born there; they may have had to move there for work. Denying pity to people who have suffered a tragedy without ever knowing their circumstances is heartless. The world you want to live in would step over you in a minute the moment you fucked up.
people who have suffered a tragedy
Global warming is not a tragedy. It’s a highly predictable FAFO moment. We decided, as a civilization, to do this to ourselves. It’s not an anomaly. We voted for it. People were asked “do you want hurricanes to wash away your houses?” and they said, “yes, please!”
Of course, that’s not true for children and animals, and I have so much sadness for them. But the adults? No. I watched them choose this.
Global warming is a tragedy. The greatest tragedy of our time.
My point is our culture needs more empathy. Outrage and anger, there's enough of that. Empathy, even for those who made a mistake.
Or more to the point. If you have the money to build a beachfront house, why are you not building it to be virtually indestructible? Like one of those indestructible monolithic dome homes.
We can build concrete structures that will laugh at hurricanes. We can build them with their living areas raised well above the ground so water can simply flow underneath and around them. Sure, it's more expensive to build this way, but it can be done. And really, I would argue that if you can't afford to build such a home, you simply cannot afford to live right on the beach.
I always wonder what's going on in the heads of Americans when they go to an area notorious for being hit by hurricanes or tornadoes and then decide they should build their house out of basically toothpicks with some plaster. Here in Switzerland, pretty much everything except for maybe a garden shed is poured concrete, and I guarantee that if the folks in Florida or Oklahoma did the same the "devastation" would be comparatively tiny.
Europeans never understand why houses are made out of "flimsy" materials in the US.
The simple answer is that your brick and mortar houses would also be completely destroyed by a hurricane or tornado or earthquake.
They're just way more expensive and take longer to rebuild.
The scale of natural disasters in the US is and always has been such that we expect buildings to be demolished by nature from time to time. Europe is a very stable place. The US is not.
Having a house that is lighter and stronger per pound than brick makes a lot of sense too. Stick frame houses can twist and shift a considerable amount and recover. Twist a brick house and it crumbles.
Japan builds skyscrapers that resist 8+ magnitude earthquakes. They are not made of sticks.
Neat. Show me one made of bricks or concrete.
A skyscraper made of concrete? Unpossible!
It’s an overpressure problem. A tornado causes a sudden vacuum, and the house can’t withstand the pressure. Brick will fly just like wood in these conditions.
We have 3.2+ earthquakes, well, the rate I get alerts I'd estimate every other month on average. 4-5 times a year in a hundred mile radius (what I've got alerts set at). You are correct. Brick is used at most as a facade around here.
We don't even issue alerts for anything below magnitude 5. Below 4 can barely be felt, we wouldn't even call that an earthquake here.
I would only find out on half of them because folks on reddit, mostly new arrivals to the area, would be freaking out "DID YOU FEEL THAT" and those of us who grew up here would be like "what, a truck?". Then I set up the google alert and you know.
I mistook a 4.0 for a plane flying over once. I am directly under an air road or whatever ya want to call it, ive seen everything from a B-29 to an Osprey.
How arrogant of you.
Florida is a little different than Switzerland, not least due to weather and poverty. There indeed ARE fully concrete and hemp-crete type homes (many styles of homes), but they are unpopular (but becoming more popular) because they trap damp (Florida is extremely humid, unlike Switzerland), grow mold, don't breathe, and cause sickness. Since 2005, all newly built homes are required to have concrete and rebar at certain areas including windows and doors.
They also are prone to cracking due to shifting. The lower blocks can absorb water, either through these cracks or cracks in waterproofing like paint, and then leak with every heavy rain. Cement (a component of concrete) is one of the largest CO2 emitters in its production, and cement dust is carcinogenic. Concrete houses that are flooded (eyewitnesses report up to 25-50feet of water height) will have to be gutted and possibly torn down anyway once flooded, since the flooding itself ruins everything and makes it unsafe. Since you'll have to gut the whole thing anyway, may as well use wood which can be replaced more easily.
Tornados (since you mentioned Oklahoma) can punch a 2x4 board through a concrete wall. Concrete isn't a Kevlar vest house against all weather types and it isn't an ideal material either for building in every climate.
If the people who were flooded had stayed because they had concrete houses, even more would have died, but instead drowned in a concrete box. This was a storm that needed evacuation.
Florida is extremely humid, unlike Switzerland, grow mold, don't breathe, and cause sickness.
Concrete houses are still being made in the humid regions near the equator and will still be made in the long future... As for the mold problem, the houses are made such that water seepage is minimised heavily.
Don't wooden houses have the problem of termites making big joint families of their siblings?
And full concrete houses are made in Florida currently. But the original question was why do some people prefer wood houses to concrete in Florida - and I gave a long list. Yes there are pros and cons to many materials. That's not really the original question though, which was asked pretty insensitively and condescendingly in a thread about a very recent, ongoing disaster where they are still finding bodies.
Maybe in proper houses they would be fixing broken windows instead of finding bodies.
"it's not the time to discuss solutions to this" seems to be the American way of dealing with any disaster, from hurricanes to mass shootings.
A proper house won't save people from fucking 25 FEET (7.6 meters) to 50 FEET of flooding in a hurricane. A ship can't even save them because it'll get knocked into houses. Same thing with a sub. There's weather you can't survive.
it’s not the time to discuss solutions to this
I never stated that. I am just unwilling to go over every building material pedantically when the problem - overwhelming climate events - isn't going to be fixed with fucking concrete blocks.
So don't build in flood-prone areas.
Wow, amazing thought. Tell me how the literal Appalachian mountains are a flood plain or flood prone.
Termite infestations are rare. And they can be easily eliminated through pesticide control if you should be that unfortunate.
they trap damp (Florida is extremely humid, unlike Switzerland), grow mold, don't breathe, and cause sickness
Hi. Brazilian here. A very humid country where I live. Here, almost all houses are made of brick and concrete, even near the seashore. There are even entire concrete buildings near Brazilian beaches (such as Rio de Janeiro, Santos, Salvador, Recife, Porto Alegre, Florianópolis and so on) as well as near rivers (such as Manaus and even at the capital, Brasília). Indeed, mold is a thing, a thing that needs constant cleaning. Wall painting does a role in protecting from mold buildup.
We don't exactly have hurricanes (because it's scientifically a thing from the northern hemisphere) but we do have tornadoes and strong winds very often. We have hailstorms. However, there are very old houses and buildings still standing since 1800, centennial houses.
That's fine and perfectly allowed, but constant mold cleaning fyi isn't good for your health in general compared to minimal or no mold cleaning. The concrete holds moisture, and the paint is what keeps it at bay, sure. But there are likely other materials that can be developed that might not do this. And there's also the impact to the environment to consider, as well as health impacts of what could be getting offgassed in our paints and walls, especially when mixed with cleaners because they are constantly being moldy.
It's not that I personally think concrete houses are bad anyway. I personally think housing variety is important and that housing standards are also important as we learn more about civil engineering. I think concrete has limitations as a material, which is long established in material sciences, that no material is a "perfect" material for everything. There are risks and flaws and benefits to every choice. Therefore again, to answer the question of "well why not all full concrete houses?" It's mainly the 25 FEET OF FLOODING that makes it irrelevant as a solution in this case.
I've lived in the Caribbean. Well-off people lived in reinforced concrete buildings not in flood areas. Worst that usually happened is some broken window.
No plaster except on drywall seams.
Yes I’m sure you know better than the engineers who write building codes for a living.
I used to live in Charleston SC and my boss owned a beach home on Folly Beach - one of two houses there that survived Hurricane Hugo in 1989. It survived because it was elevated on massive concrete pilings that extended 60' down to bedrock. When it was built in the 1970s it was two streets back from the beach; after Hugo it was beachfront property.
My dumbass boss (a Rush Limbaugh fan, no surprise) had it torn down despite its being in perfect condition because it was too small (it was "just" a two-bedroom, two-bathroom, one-story layout). He built a much larger, conventional foundation house on the lot, which was apparently badly damaged by Hurricane Matthew in 2016, although it apparently survived and has been repaired. Just a matter of time ...
Even in UK, houses are made of brick and concrete which have the ability to withstand flood and hurricane at a certain level
Good job y’all don’t have earthquakes.
That's why earthquake was not mentioned ^... And no Ivan earthquake seems to hate the place so they don't bother
I was just driving around the beaches of Pinellas County (Tampa Bay area) today. Entire neighborhoods are destroyed. Beach front condos, restaurants and stores, also destroyed. In many areas, anything ground level got flooded/wrecked by storm surge. I saw several boats in places there are not supposed to be boats.
If Tampa Bay takes a direct hit right now it's going to be really fuckin bad for a lot of people.
What's also scary is that right now everyone has been piling up debris, ruined appliances and all manor of belongings outside for disposal. Piles ten feet high along every street. All this shit is about to be flying around in hurricane force winds and storm surge. Is a recipe for disaster.
That's terrifying... I hope you and your family are able to get somewhere safe for the time being
They also had sunk all their savings into that rebuild. How do you think about trying a third time when you have nothing to even work with?
this might be a shock, but: in florida there are a lot of stupid people with a lot of money but don't know what the fuck they're doing with money
these people likely also bought spray painted gold sneakers not too long ago
The best way to prepare yourself psychologically for the next fifty years of ecological catastrophe is to cling to this fact and save your pity for people who matter.
Yeah, I don’t get it, except the couple I saw (maybe you saw the same interview, there seem to be several of these) acted like this is just a bad year for weather and they ‘don’t want to think’ about climate change. They at least seem the type who don’t think it’s real.
I feel for rescue units who can’t leave, and who will likely be rescuing these stubborn cunts when the next massive storm of the year hits them.
Honestly this is great news because then I don’t have to feel bad about them. Kinda uplifting actually.
Get more people to donate to your GoFundMe campaign, I guess?
literal sunk cost fallacy
We’ve been using the sunk cost fallacy for too long to give up on it now.
Slow clap
Sunk Coast Fallacy
I don’t know if this is the case for that couple, but a lot of insurance requires that you rebuild on the same location. We need to change laws so that this isn’t the case anymore. It is a massive problem.
I mean, you can probably build a house that can reliably survive the conditions there. It's just gonna be really expensive and may not look all that pretty.
It's gonna have to handle water up to a certain height and wind-blown debris smashing into it.
Like, think of a lighthouse or flak tower or something.
Sometimes a lighthouse needs to be constructed in the water itself. Wave-washed lighthouses are masonry structures constructed to withstand water impact, such as Eddystone Lighthouse in Britain and the St. George Reef Light of California. In shallower bays, Screw-pile lighthouse ironwork structures are screwed into the seabed and a low wooden structure is placed above the open framework, such as Thomas Point Shoal Lighthouse. As screw piles can be disrupted by ice, steel caisson lighthouses such as Orient Point Light are used in cold climates. Orient Long Beach Bar Light (Bug Light) is a blend of a screw pile light that was converted to a caisson light because of the threat of ice damage. Skeletal iron towers with screw-pile foundations were built on the Florida Reef along the Florida Keys, beginning with the Carysfort Reef Light in 1852.
With concrete walls up to 3.5 m (11 ft) thick, their designers considered the towers to be invulnerable to attack by the standard ordnance carried by RAF heavy bombers at the time of their construction.
The Soviets, in their assault on Berlin, found it difficult to inflict significant damage on the flak towers, even with some of the largest Soviet guns, such as the 203 mm M1931 howitzers.
After the war, the demolition of the towers was often considered not feasible and many remain to this day, with some having been converted for alternative use.
Living in a lighthouse sounds great. If you open windows at the top it’ll pull air up through the whole structure for cooling.
It would be cool, but you would also have to contend with the rest of Florinda.
I mean a flak tower could be pretty badass to live in. If shit ever hit the fan you'd already be fortified. It would probably look good to an insurer too.
Buy me a flak tower in Berlin daddy. Rescue me... and my wife and cats.
only if it comes with the original flak guns and a good supply of ammo.
Need something to keep those damn kids off my grass.
So listen, those flak guns don't aim below the horizon, so you're going to need to modify those. Don't want you going in blind. Like as blind as you would quickly be shooting flak at close range.
Its not about being effective.
its about sending a message.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when an insurer has to come up with a policy for a veritable fortress with 11ft thick reinforced concrete walls.
I would love to be the local concrete supplier because it would be north of $5.8m in just concrete.
Good point, thanks!
You mean a house that looks like a cybertruck?
Ya know, if Musk was actually smart, he’d start a company building ugly, impenetrable fortresses. His fanbois would step over each other, since a fair amount of them are tinfoil hat conspiracists.
I know some people from Clearwater and I think they’d just say “this is our community and our home”. It doesn’t make logical sense, but I’d say a lot about the town a person decides to live in is emotional over practical (unless you move somewhere for a job).
Well it might be where you live but there ain't gonna be any home or community there much longer
At least don't fucking rebuild it the same way, with the same materials, as the last half dozen times.
Sink some footings down deep, cast the walls out of concrete (you can still put fancy shit up on the concrete to make it look nice, but the concrete will be a fuckton stronger against wind/water/etc)
They are morons and refuse to do the smart thing no matter how much it costs the government and insurance company.
Saw an article yesterday interviewing a couple who says they’ll now have to rebuild their beachfront house for the third time, and that their second rebuild wasn’t even finished when Helene sent their house surfing down the street. That their insurance won’t cover it.
I’m flabbergasted that anyone would even consider rebuilding there. You’re lucky to even have insurance – most insurance companies have been fleeing the state.
Here’s a radical idea: don’t rebuild there. This is only going to get worse.
I built it all the same! Just to show em!
It sank into the swamp...
So, I built a second one! That sank into the swamp...
So I built a third one! That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp!
But the fourth one stayed up!
Same mentality...
Huston is one of the most populated cities in the US and it’s built on a swamp. Everyone acts super surprised when it floods semi-annually, like it’s some kind of tragedy as opposed to basic physics.
Next thing you know Arizona will start complaining that they’ve run out of water. I mean, yes? You’re in the desert. Your choices were to fix the climate, move, or die. Instead you’ve built a gigantic parking lot of a city.
There should be no aid whatsoever for natural disasters that strike predictably on a regular basis. Human beings aren’t dumb animals. We can communicate. Also Florida, Louisiana, and Texas literally voted for global warming. They got what they voted for so what is the issue?
Actions have consequences. We failed to act for a century. That’s how long we’ve known with absolute certainty that the climate was fucked. We put people on the moon, and we went to war with Iraq, but heaven forbid people stop eating meat, driving their precious cars, or taking pleasure cruises. Zero. Pity.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/27/arizona-scottsdale-water-cut-off-rio-verde-foothills-drought
Little community refused to connect to the public utility grid. Wanted to live the libertarian, no government, get eaten by bears ideal. Local government they were mooching off for water said "Hey, we actually need this for our community. No more mooching." They could fix the problem by incorporating, but instead they went to the news media.
Worse is the Supreme Court not honoring centuries old treaties in water rights cases for native tribes. These people were promised the land and now the government wants to say the right to water was not part of it.
Meat? 😶🌫😶🌫😶🌫
There are probably some cases where it's true it was irresponsible to build somewhere. For most people though, they may have been born there; they may have had to move there for work. Denying pity to people who have suffered a tragedy without ever knowing their circumstances is heartless. The world you want to live in would step over you in a minute the moment you fucked up.
Global warming is not a tragedy. It’s a highly predictable FAFO moment. We decided, as a civilization, to do this to ourselves. It’s not an anomaly. We voted for it. People were asked “do you want hurricanes to wash away your houses?” and they said, “yes, please!”
Of course, that’s not true for children and animals, and I have so much sadness for them. But the adults? No. I watched them choose this.
Global warming is a tragedy. The greatest tragedy of our time.
My point is our culture needs more empathy. Outrage and anger, there's enough of that. Empathy, even for those who made a mistake.
Or more to the point. If you have the money to build a beachfront house, why are you not building it to be virtually indestructible? Like one of those indestructible monolithic dome homes.
We can build concrete structures that will laugh at hurricanes. We can build them with their living areas raised well above the ground so water can simply flow underneath and around them. Sure, it's more expensive to build this way, but it can be done. And really, I would argue that if you can't afford to build such a home, you simply cannot afford to live right on the beach.
I always wonder what's going on in the heads of Americans when they go to an area notorious for being hit by hurricanes or tornadoes and then decide they should build their house out of basically toothpicks with some plaster. Here in Switzerland, pretty much everything except for maybe a garden shed is poured concrete, and I guarantee that if the folks in Florida or Oklahoma did the same the "devastation" would be comparatively tiny.
Europeans never understand why houses are made out of "flimsy" materials in the US.
The simple answer is that your brick and mortar houses would also be completely destroyed by a hurricane or tornado or earthquake.
They're just way more expensive and take longer to rebuild.
The scale of natural disasters in the US is and always has been such that we expect buildings to be demolished by nature from time to time. Europe is a very stable place. The US is not.
Having a house that is lighter and stronger per pound than brick makes a lot of sense too. Stick frame houses can twist and shift a considerable amount and recover. Twist a brick house and it crumbles.
Japan builds skyscrapers that resist 8+ magnitude earthquakes. They are not made of sticks.
Neat. Show me one made of bricks or concrete.
A skyscraper made of concrete? Unpossible!
It’s an overpressure problem. A tornado causes a sudden vacuum, and the house can’t withstand the pressure. Brick will fly just like wood in these conditions.
We have 3.2+ earthquakes, well, the rate I get alerts I'd estimate every other month on average. 4-5 times a year in a hundred mile radius (what I've got alerts set at). You are correct. Brick is used at most as a facade around here.
We don't even issue alerts for anything below magnitude 5. Below 4 can barely be felt, we wouldn't even call that an earthquake here.
I would only find out on half of them because folks on reddit, mostly new arrivals to the area, would be freaking out "DID YOU FEEL THAT" and those of us who grew up here would be like "what, a truck?". Then I set up the google alert and you know.
I mistook a 4.0 for a plane flying over once. I am directly under an air road or whatever ya want to call it, ive seen everything from a B-29 to an Osprey.
How arrogant of you.
Florida is a little different than Switzerland, not least due to weather and poverty. There indeed ARE fully concrete and hemp-crete type homes (many styles of homes), but they are unpopular (but becoming more popular) because they trap damp (Florida is extremely humid, unlike Switzerland), grow mold, don't breathe, and cause sickness. Since 2005, all newly built homes are required to have concrete and rebar at certain areas including windows and doors.
https://www.etr-aw.com/full-concrete-homes/
They also are prone to cracking due to shifting. The lower blocks can absorb water, either through these cracks or cracks in waterproofing like paint, and then leak with every heavy rain. Cement (a component of concrete) is one of the largest CO2 emitters in its production, and cement dust is carcinogenic. Concrete houses that are flooded (eyewitnesses report up to 25-50feet of water height) will have to be gutted and possibly torn down anyway once flooded, since the flooding itself ruins everything and makes it unsafe. Since you'll have to gut the whole thing anyway, may as well use wood which can be replaced more easily.
Tornados (since you mentioned Oklahoma) can punch a 2x4 board through a concrete wall. Concrete isn't a Kevlar vest house against all weather types and it isn't an ideal material either for building in every climate.
If the people who were flooded had stayed because they had concrete houses, even more would have died, but instead drowned in a concrete box. This was a storm that needed evacuation.
Concrete houses are still being made in the humid regions near the equator and will still be made in the long future... As for the mold problem, the houses are made such that water seepage is minimised heavily.
Don't wooden houses have the problem of termites making big joint families of their siblings?
And full concrete houses are made in Florida currently. But the original question was why do some people prefer wood houses to concrete in Florida - and I gave a long list. Yes there are pros and cons to many materials. That's not really the original question though, which was asked pretty insensitively and condescendingly in a thread about a very recent, ongoing disaster where they are still finding bodies.
Maybe in proper houses they would be fixing broken windows instead of finding bodies.
"it's not the time to discuss solutions to this" seems to be the American way of dealing with any disaster, from hurricanes to mass shootings.
A proper house won't save people from fucking 25 FEET (7.6 meters) to 50 FEET of flooding in a hurricane. A ship can't even save them because it'll get knocked into houses. Same thing with a sub. There's weather you can't survive.
I never stated that. I am just unwilling to go over every building material pedantically when the problem - overwhelming climate events - isn't going to be fixed with fucking concrete blocks.
So don't build in flood-prone areas.
Wow, amazing thought. Tell me how the literal Appalachian mountains are a flood plain or flood prone.
Termite infestations are rare. And they can be easily eliminated through pesticide control if you should be that unfortunate.
Hi. Brazilian here. A very humid country where I live. Here, almost all houses are made of brick and concrete, even near the seashore. There are even entire concrete buildings near Brazilian beaches (such as Rio de Janeiro, Santos, Salvador, Recife, Porto Alegre, Florianópolis and so on) as well as near rivers (such as Manaus and even at the capital, Brasília). Indeed, mold is a thing, a thing that needs constant cleaning. Wall painting does a role in protecting from mold buildup.
We don't exactly have hurricanes (because it's scientifically a thing from the northern hemisphere) but we do have tornadoes and strong winds very often. We have hailstorms. However, there are very old houses and buildings still standing since 1800, centennial houses.
That's fine and perfectly allowed, but constant mold cleaning fyi isn't good for your health in general compared to minimal or no mold cleaning. The concrete holds moisture, and the paint is what keeps it at bay, sure. But there are likely other materials that can be developed that might not do this. And there's also the impact to the environment to consider, as well as health impacts of what could be getting offgassed in our paints and walls, especially when mixed with cleaners because they are constantly being moldy.
It's not that I personally think concrete houses are bad anyway. I personally think housing variety is important and that housing standards are also important as we learn more about civil engineering. I think concrete has limitations as a material, which is long established in material sciences, that no material is a "perfect" material for everything. There are risks and flaws and benefits to every choice. Therefore again, to answer the question of "well why not all full concrete houses?" It's mainly the 25 FEET OF FLOODING that makes it irrelevant as a solution in this case.
I've lived in the Caribbean. Well-off people lived in reinforced concrete buildings not in flood areas. Worst that usually happened is some broken window.
No plaster except on drywall seams.
Yes I’m sure you know better than the engineers who write building codes for a living.
I used to live in Charleston SC and my boss owned a beach home on Folly Beach - one of two houses there that survived Hurricane Hugo in 1989. It survived because it was elevated on massive concrete pilings that extended 60' down to bedrock. When it was built in the 1970s it was two streets back from the beach; after Hugo it was beachfront property.
My dumbass boss (a Rush Limbaugh fan, no surprise) had it torn down despite its being in perfect condition because it was too small (it was "just" a two-bedroom, two-bathroom, one-story layout). He built a much larger, conventional foundation house on the lot, which was apparently badly damaged by Hurricane Matthew in 2016, although it apparently survived and has been repaired. Just a matter of time ...
Even in UK, houses are made of brick and concrete which have the ability to withstand flood and hurricane at a certain level
Good job y’all don’t have earthquakes.
That's why earthquake was not mentioned ^... And no Ivan earthquake seems to hate the place so they don't bother
I was just driving around the beaches of Pinellas County (Tampa Bay area) today. Entire neighborhoods are destroyed. Beach front condos, restaurants and stores, also destroyed. In many areas, anything ground level got flooded/wrecked by storm surge. I saw several boats in places there are not supposed to be boats.
If Tampa Bay takes a direct hit right now it's going to be really fuckin bad for a lot of people.
What's also scary is that right now everyone has been piling up debris, ruined appliances and all manor of belongings outside for disposal. Piles ten feet high along every street. All this shit is about to be flying around in hurricane force winds and storm surge. Is a recipe for disaster.
That's terrifying... I hope you and your family are able to get somewhere safe for the time being
They also had sunk all their savings into that rebuild. How do you think about trying a third time when you have nothing to even work with?
this might be a shock, but: in florida there are a lot of stupid people with a lot of money but don't know what the fuck they're doing with money
these people likely also bought spray painted gold sneakers not too long ago
The best way to prepare yourself psychologically for the next fifty years of ecological catastrophe is to cling to this fact and save your pity for people who matter.
Yeah, I don’t get it, except the couple I saw (maybe you saw the same interview, there seem to be several of these) acted like this is just a bad year for weather and they ‘don’t want to think’ about climate change. They at least seem the type who don’t think it’s real.
I feel for rescue units who can’t leave, and who will likely be rescuing these stubborn cunts when the next massive storm of the year hits them.
Honestly this is great news because then I don’t have to feel bad about them. Kinda uplifting actually.
Get more people to donate to your GoFundMe campaign, I guess?
literal sunk cost fallacy
We’ve been using the sunk cost fallacy for too long to give up on it now.
Slow clap
Sunk Coast Fallacy
I don’t know if this is the case for that couple, but a lot of insurance requires that you rebuild on the same location. We need to change laws so that this isn’t the case anymore. It is a massive problem.
I mean, you can probably build a house that can reliably survive the conditions there. It's just gonna be really expensive and may not look all that pretty.
It's gonna have to handle water up to a certain height and wind-blown debris smashing into it.
Like, think of a lighthouse or flak tower or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_tower
Living in a lighthouse sounds great. If you open windows at the top it’ll pull air up through the whole structure for cooling.
It would be cool, but you would also have to contend with the rest of Florinda.
I mean a flak tower could be pretty badass to live in. If shit ever hit the fan you'd already be fortified. It would probably look good to an insurer too.
I think I had seen this on lemmy first, that they turned one of the flak towers into a hotel.
Buy me a flak tower in Berlin daddy. Rescue me... and my wife and cats.
only if it comes with the original flak guns and a good supply of ammo.
Need something to keep those damn kids off my grass.
So listen, those flak guns don't aim below the horizon, so you're going to need to modify those. Don't want you going in blind. Like as blind as you would quickly be shooting flak at close range.
Its not about being effective.
its about sending a message.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when an insurer has to come up with a policy for a veritable fortress with 11ft thick reinforced concrete walls.
I would love to be the local concrete supplier because it would be north of $5.8m in just concrete.
Good point, thanks!
You mean a house that looks like a cybertruck?
Ya know, if Musk was actually smart, he’d start a company building ugly, impenetrable fortresses. His fanbois would step over each other, since a fair amount of them are tinfoil hat conspiracists.
I know some people from Clearwater and I think they’d just say “this is our community and our home”. It doesn’t make logical sense, but I’d say a lot about the town a person decides to live in is emotional over practical (unless you move somewhere for a job).
Well it might be where you live but there ain't gonna be any home or community there much longer
At least don't fucking rebuild it the same way, with the same materials, as the last half dozen times.
Sink some footings down deep, cast the walls out of concrete (you can still put fancy shit up on the concrete to make it look nice, but the concrete will be a fuckton stronger against wind/water/etc)
They are morons and refuse to do the smart thing no matter how much it costs the government and insurance company.