Florida is fast becoming a place where only the wealthy can afford a high quality of life. Actually, I think they crossed that line years ago, but nobody with the ability of speak to a large audience has any incentive to say it out loud.
Anyone that does their due diligence ahead of time will find out for themselves.
Ideally, only sufficiently sturdy homes should be allowed in risky areas. The absurdity of the current situation is subsidizing risky behaviors of people who choose to live in hazardous areas and socializing the inevitable costs onto everyone else when FEMA and/or insurance step in to rebuild in the same risky locations with the same substandard construction and expecting a different result.
Just doing a wee bit of economic risk analysis seems to be beyond this publication.
We can absolutely engineer a home to be resilient against <pick your sigma> natural disaster short of a tsunami, volcanic eruption, or meteor strike, BUT it makes zero economic sense to do so beyond <pick your sigma>.
The rational approach is to build to <lower sigma> and insure to <higher sigma>.
Many Roman civil engineering structures still exist today and they really shouldn't. They were extremely over-built due to the ignorance of materials science and structural engineering at the time.
They are incredibly expensive homes, even by my California standards.
First hit on Zillow: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4207-Marina-View-Way-Cort...
$1.9 million for a 3 bedroom, 3 bath, 1600 sqft.
Re-inforced concrete frame and brick or concrete block walls are not that much expensive, and require less mantainance over time.
People who live in hurricane prone areas should consider those materials instead of the typical wood-frame plus cardboard and stuff.
Florida is fast becoming a place where only the wealthy can afford a high quality of life. Actually, I think they crossed that line years ago, but nobody with the ability of speak to a large audience has any incentive to say it out loud.
Anyone that does their due diligence ahead of time will find out for themselves.
Ideally, only sufficiently sturdy homes should be allowed in risky areas. The absurdity of the current situation is subsidizing risky behaviors of people who choose to live in hazardous areas and socializing the inevitable costs onto everyone else when FEMA and/or insurance step in to rebuild in the same risky locations with the same substandard construction and expecting a different result.
Just doing a wee bit of economic risk analysis seems to be beyond this publication.
We can absolutely engineer a home to be resilient against <pick your sigma> natural disaster short of a tsunami, volcanic eruption, or meteor strike, BUT it makes zero economic sense to do so beyond <pick your sigma>.
The rational approach is to build to <lower sigma> and insure to <higher sigma>.
Many Roman civil engineering structures still exist today and they really shouldn't. They were extremely over-built due to the ignorance of materials science and structural engineering at the time.
Just 'cuz we can doesn't mean we should.