Rebuilding cities destroyed by hurricanes and floods
M. Orhan Tarhan
October 01, 2008
In the past, cities on the Gulf coast and on the Atlantic shore were hit by hurricanes once in ten or twenty years and were rebuilt. The destruction was not all that much, and taking this kind of risk was not unreasonable.
With the change of climate, the hurricanes became monstrous things that can wipe out an entire town. Also they have become much more frequent. Recently in Texas, before the evacuated people of one hurricane could be returned to their homes, a second hurricane hit the same city. With these huge hurricanes the destruction is more intense, nothing remains up. Entire cities are just wiped out. It all started last year with Katrina. A big part of New Orleans was totally wiped out. Several $billions were poured there, part of which was stolen, and the city is by far not what it was before Katrina. This year, New Orleans was barely missed by the hurricanes. The sea-wall is still not completed and many people did not return. The experience with new Orleans and this year with Galveston, TX show that the taxpayer´s money is just wasted after these hurricanes.
It does not seem wise to return the people to such vast destruction. Actually, it is not wise to attempt to rebuild such places, because, with the new frequency of the hurricanes, the new construction may survive only a very short time. These places must be made non-habitable. Buildings in these areas should not be insured. If any one insists in remaining there, the government should not have to evacuate them in case of hurricane.
The people who cannot be returned to their homes (because these homes do no longer exist) should be absorbed by the rest of the country.
The construction of buildings near the non-habitable areas, should be reviewed and new construction standards should be developed. New Buildings must be resistant to high wind and storms. They will be probably made of reinforced concrete. Of course they will cost more than wood houses that are blown by storms, but in the long run they will be cheaper. Americans will have to kiss 5000 sq.ft. wood homes good bye and settle for smaller homes that they can afford and in which they will be safe.
Entire Gulf states may become non-habitable. This is a serious problem and may entrain some political problems with it.
Of course, the "non-habitable lands can still be utilized. The beaches and related tourist organizations might be permitted to operate if housed in hurricane-proof buildings. Still tourists would be evacuated in case of hurricane. The operators of these organizations will remain in their bunker-like buildings. The same idea can be used for people who are willing to operate agricultural enterprises in the non-habitable region. They must build themselves absolutely hurricane-proof buildings which need no insurance.
In Florida tourism is very important. The whole state might be declared non-habitable. The only way out is to develop hurricane-proof reasonably priced buildings that are not insurable, but really do not need any insurance. In hurricanes, tourists would be evacuated, but Floridians would remain in their bunker-like houses.
When hurricanes hit the Atlantic shores, they are generally weaker and do not do the damage they do on the Gulf cost. Because of climate change, Atlantic shore cities must strengthen their construction standards any way and build hurricane-proof homes. I hope one will never declare any city there un-habitable. Hurricane danger lessens from Florida towards the North.
The country will need a lot of new hurricane-proof homes. This should create new employment and enliven the economy.
We have a different kind of danger in many American cities and towns. The rise of river level or excessive rain cause flooding that make many homes unlivable. This problem has many possible solutions.
(1) Do not build homes near the rivers. Build them on some heights. River side homes should not be insured.
(2) Know the highest rise of the river and build the house on a foundation slightly higher than that historical rise. That is, if you must build near the river.
(3) Build high enough flooding walls around the towns.
(4) Towns far away from rivers can be flooded by strong rain, if the town is all flat and water has no where to go. When towns are planned this problem has to be solved by selecting a better location for ii, such as one having a slight inclination for water to flow out. Otherwise, flooding insurance must not be available
If the above precautions are taken, $billions of tax-payers´ money would be saved.
With the change of climate, the hurricanes became monstrous things that can wipe out an entire town. Also they have become much more frequent. Recently in Texas, before the evacuated people of one hurricane could be returned to their homes, a second hurricane hit the same city. With these huge hurricanes the destruction is more intense, nothing remains up. Entire cities are just wiped out. It all started last year with Katrina. A big part of New Orleans was totally wiped out. Several $billions were poured there, part of which was stolen, and the city is by far not what it was before Katrina. This year, New Orleans was barely missed by the hurricanes. The sea-wall is still not completed and many people did not return. The experience with new Orleans and this year with Galveston, TX show that the taxpayer´s money is just wasted after these hurricanes.
It does not seem wise to return the people to such vast destruction. Actually, it is not wise to attempt to rebuild such places, because, with the new frequency of the hurricanes, the new construction may survive only a very short time. These places must be made non-habitable. Buildings in these areas should not be insured. If any one insists in remaining there, the government should not have to evacuate them in case of hurricane.
The people who cannot be returned to their homes (because these homes do no longer exist) should be absorbed by the rest of the country.
The construction of buildings near the non-habitable areas, should be reviewed and new construction standards should be developed. New Buildings must be resistant to high wind and storms. They will be probably made of reinforced concrete. Of course they will cost more than wood houses that are blown by storms, but in the long run they will be cheaper. Americans will have to kiss 5000 sq.ft. wood homes good bye and settle for smaller homes that they can afford and in which they will be safe.
Entire Gulf states may become non-habitable. This is a serious problem and may entrain some political problems with it.
Of course, the "non-habitable lands can still be utilized. The beaches and related tourist organizations might be permitted to operate if housed in hurricane-proof buildings. Still tourists would be evacuated in case of hurricane. The operators of these organizations will remain in their bunker-like buildings. The same idea can be used for people who are willing to operate agricultural enterprises in the non-habitable region. They must build themselves absolutely hurricane-proof buildings which need no insurance.
In Florida tourism is very important. The whole state might be declared non-habitable. The only way out is to develop hurricane-proof reasonably priced buildings that are not insurable, but really do not need any insurance. In hurricanes, tourists would be evacuated, but Floridians would remain in their bunker-like houses.
When hurricanes hit the Atlantic shores, they are generally weaker and do not do the damage they do on the Gulf cost. Because of climate change, Atlantic shore cities must strengthen their construction standards any way and build hurricane-proof homes. I hope one will never declare any city there un-habitable. Hurricane danger lessens from Florida towards the North.
The country will need a lot of new hurricane-proof homes. This should create new employment and enliven the economy.
We have a different kind of danger in many American cities and towns. The rise of river level or excessive rain cause flooding that make many homes unlivable. This problem has many possible solutions.
(1) Do not build homes near the rivers. Build them on some heights. River side homes should not be insured.
(2) Know the highest rise of the river and build the house on a foundation slightly higher than that historical rise. That is, if you must build near the river.
(3) Build high enough flooding walls around the towns.
(4) Towns far away from rivers can be flooded by strong rain, if the town is all flat and water has no where to go. When towns are planned this problem has to be solved by selecting a better location for ii, such as one having a slight inclination for water to flow out. Otherwise, flooding insurance must not be available
If the above precautions are taken, $billions of tax-payers´ money would be saved.
Print
Email
