Hurricane-proof House

Page 7 of 8  


Disagreement: If you're going to this length, you should use a more reasonable figure for time-to-rescue of 7 days. 72 hours is the figure used for people who are trying to do the best they can with what's available. 72 hours is what you should keep in the trunk of your car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | > | >The answer will be a storm-proof safe room built on top of this | >concrete structure. It will probably be the size of a large bathroom | >and made of steel or concrete for protection against flying debris or | >tree falls. It should be capable of being buttoned down and float | >upright like a boat should it be dislodged. At that level of storm | >intensity there is no longer any consideration of living in it to | >guard your property. All you want is to survive the perfect storm and | >get the hell out, a stay of less than 48 hours. | | Disagreement: If you're going to this length, you should use a more | reasonable figure for time-to-rescue of 7 days. 72 hours | is the figure used for people who are trying to do the best | they can with what's available. 72 hours is what you should | keep in the trunk of your car. | | |
Seems to me Noah planned for a longer stay. Also seems his structure was a bit bigger too.
<BG>
-- PDQ
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Seems to me Noah planned for a longer stay. Also seems his structure was a bit bigger too.
You were there?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--
| | Seems to me Noah planned for a longer stay. | Also seems his structure was a bit bigger too. | | You were there? | |
There are days when I feel as if I were.
Mostly, I have to go by what I read.
-- PDQ
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well, here... read this: http://www.venganza.org /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think he read about it somewhere. I believe that story is in a book that's an anthology of sorts. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bottom line is 30 days! Katrina shows areas still under flood waters, well after a week. The object is NOT rescue! I maintain 6 months food and water in my food cellar. This will allow me to ride out the worst and be able to relocate to safer area if need be and still maintain a solid homefront!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

More significantly, how does one prevent the flooding of the cellar or the complete destruction of the entire dwelling given a Cat 5 or Fujita 5 storm?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

Precisely my point...to do what HMFIC wants in general is a very difficult and expensive task. You can be prepared for ordinary events pretty well and make things a lot easier on yourself, but in a catastrophic situation things are likely to get out of hand for almost everybody in the affected area.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

Yes, when one attempts to do something inherently fool^h^h^h^hrisky, one should at least make the effort to protect the investment. It's still an area not really suitable for the use.

Those that were flooded, probably not, although what is going to be done is pretty well still in the future...

Relocated, yes. Permanent location, job? I suspect that would probably be <<1%, so far.

Some is, a of lot that isn't even left or worth the cost of rebuilding, either. They're talking of trashing the Superdome, even, which was a pretty substantial structure and investment.

130 mph is strong, but certainly far below the full-force 200+ mph plus storm surge of a head-on coastal barrage. 130 mph is "designable" for survival at a cost that isn't <totally> prohibitive. As you're well aware, that cost will escalate rapidly as the design criteria rise.
...

Guaranteeing, after the rest are elevated that the low spots will then be flooded.

As it should be if in such a location. It simply isn't a very good choice of location for building permanent structures. I've thought what folks who want to live in such places should do would be to simply build disposable houses and when the big one comes leave, planning from the beginning to simply bulldoze and start again. Be cheaper, structurally, albeit less convenient.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting angle. You'd get to change the design every so many years. I like the concept. Let the old one blow away. I guess it's all in how one looks at things, eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The food is expensive? Look if need be I can pack a canoe or the Kayaks and head where ever!
Don't over estimate the fear factor, in a catastrophic event, you already beat the system if you live. Then you have to address what and where. I'm located in a pretty good valley that protects is from all directions because of how it follows the river. I could flood but that would have to be enough to flood the whole valley and since it's most narrow miles north the flood plains will handle it there. and honestly if anything does flood the food and gear are all sealed.
I wouldn't build a house to take a Cat 5, I'd let it go and move!!!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

FEMA sets building codes?
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Daly wrote:

No, not specifically. They have made some efforts particularly since the spate of FL hurricanes to address design issues regarding roofs, etc., for enhancing survivability. The results I've seen haven't been uniformly successful attempts as, for one example, the guidelines for upgrading asbestos shingle roofs apparently were developed and published internally or w/ consulting input but not using any input from any of the manufacturers, etc. Consequently, there are published guidelines for which there are no commercially available materials to meet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We don't get much Cat 5's up here!!!!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Four Hellraisers in 04, huh ? How did FEMA do it these ? What was the difference between Florida and NO ? Was it Jeb Bush VS Kathleen Babineaux Blanco ?
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

Here in SW FL, home of the 4 hellraisers of 04', everything below the 10'
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Less than 50 cubic feet, but not much less. If you stored it under the bed, the bed would have to be 32" high, plus the mattress. It would also weigh in excess of one US statute ton, so you might want to spread it around a bit.
(Reality check: Dinty Moore Beef stew is 222 calories/cup, so you need 10 cups/day. Since it comes in cans, there's wasted space to the tune of an extra 25% so the storage volume is 12.5 cups/day or around 10 days/cubic foot, for food. Counting the wasted space, water is around 7 gallons/cubic foot. with around, .4cuft wasted space. Figure 2000 calories/day, and 1 gallon of water.) Use the space between cans and bottles for vitamin supplements, other drugs, variety-food)
Each of your 1,800 cups of stew weighs 236 grams, or around 1/2 a pound, call it 1,000 pounds of stew and can. Each of your 180 gallons of water weighs 8 1/3 pounds or 1500 pounds, total.) Note that you can probably get your food volume/weight down if you work at it, but most of the really lightweight/small packaged foods depend on having a ready supply of water to re-constitute. Rumor has it that eating a dehydrated ration without rehydrating it FIRST is really, really bad. As in, may well kill you bad.
--Goedjn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm not a survivor nut just a Cosco, BJ, Sams kind a guy. Food really not much space, but water is a lot, but you can cut water if using a lot of canned foods (because of water). I keep lots of dried legumes, nuts and fruits. I also pick up cases of ensure and power bars when on sale. But don't laugh I actually have a river next to the house... The water is for the little woman. I got my filtration pac. I use 1/2 Gal. perday this is good for heat of summer. I have 20 5 gallon and 10 1 gallon and 6 32 bottle cases. With all the food and gear 12 foot wide by 36" deep and 8 foot high. It takes up one small wall.
The water is really no problem I get it delivered, plus we don't use tap here many years ago it was great but the last 10 heavy chlorination. and normal daily use is pretty consistent with morning coffee to 1 G.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nehmo wrote:

There's a big clue whenever you see news shots of the flooded city. What structures are still standing, almost completely untouched?
The big apartment buildings.
Just build multistory buildings, and put all essential building utilities on the second floor or higher. Let the bottom floor have only easily repaired interiors and utilities. Connect the second floors of the buildings using a system of walkways just like in Minneapolis.
You could even build the walkways open air, using the wrought iron balcony style popular for Mardi Gras in New Orleans. This would make the city a fun place to visit.
Essentially this is the "house on stilts" idea but on a big enough scale you could house a population of 500,000 in a densely populated area.
For car storage some buildings would use the lower 3 or 4 stories for car parks. Again, visit Minneapolis to see this sort of structure. You'd need fewer cars since this would be a densely populated area with lots of people able to walk to work.
This is the future.
Of course, this doesn't fit in with the real estate agent / developer scenaria where every American is isolated on his own lot with 2 acres of grass to mow every weekend. That's going to prove economically non-viable when fuel prices rise, anyway.
Max
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ergebnis.de wrote:

And big office buildings.
And big hospitals.
And big hotels.
And big police stations are also all standing.

1970s style megastructures. Yeehah!
But really, your idea of putting essential building utilities on the above the water line in floods is one I had before (re: thread titled "why don't they" on alt.architecture.
I suggested it for certain buildings that are of importance during catastrophes - hospitals in particular. They are often full of people who are in various states of disability who would have difficulty evacuating or may not survive evacuation. Furthermore, hospitals should be up and running during natural disasters and other catastrophes in order to be used by those suffering injury during the natural disaster.
In retrospect, it would be a good idea, though not as crucial, for fire stations and police stations to have the same hurricane resistance and auxiliary power systems as the hospitals. That way first responders can better do their jobs.
But doing it for every apartment building? Very excessive. Unless the people who choose to live in apartment buildings want it and the people leasing apartments can sell it.

I shudder to think of the poor old woman stuck on the 17th floor, surrounded by gangs of roaming youths who are ready to break in at any moment.
This is what happens when you ignore peoples' desires for open space and the privacy of private homes and cram them into giant megastructures where the identity of their home is reduced to a mere number on a door.
Just go over to Yahoo and do a search for "Housing Projects, Chicago" - you'll see what I mean.

Car storage?
People use their cars.
And Katrina showed us just how vital cars are to the evacuation of cities. Simply put, if you were in New Orleans and could get a car out, you were MUCH better off than you would have been if you were one of the thousands who didn't have a car or a spot in someone else's car.
Access to transportation was really the issue in New Orleans; not directly socio-economics or race. The rich new urbanist yuppie lawyer who refused to drive on principal was stuck in New Orleans. (He was interviewed on NPR) The cabbie who recently arrived from Pakistan and works 18 hours a day 6 days a week so his family can live at the poverty level could use his cab to get out of the city. (I saw him driving down the road in Houston right after I heard the first guy's interview on the radio).

No it's not.

Bullshit. And I know what you're saying is bullshit because if you visit France, or Spain, or Germany, you'll see people living in private suburban houses and driving cars to and from work. Meanwhile they snicker when America goes into crisis over $3 a gallon prices at the pump, because that's what they've been paying all along. In fact, many Europeans pay significantly more than that for gas, and it hasn't dampened their desire for comfortable, private, individual houses.
Their entire nation of Holland is like the city of New Orleans - below sea level and prone to very nasty storms and floods. It's also a nation with all of the high fuel prices and gas taxes as the rest of Europe. But the Dutch haven't abandoned private houses and cars - they've adapted them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.