I always wonder why people don’t build brick and mortar homes in natural disasters prone areas. Sure the initial cost is high but the recurring cost due to all this damage is probably way higher.
Apologizing in advance if this is a stupid question. But when I compare houses in say Germany or Singapore to those in the US, I can’t believe the ephemeral construction here.
Yes, unreinforced masonry building walls as describe on the link is an absolutely bad idea on earthquake prone areas.
But reinforced concrete structures are a different story. Concrete and masonry itself is brittle, but the steel rebar reinforcement adds flexibility and and tensile strength to the concrete. With an adequate design it is as safe or even safer than lighter wood structures, considering that it's inherently more fire safe, which is a big safety concern post quake.
Taiwan homes nowadays are mostly built with reinforced concrete structures and those modern buildings behaved very well in the 7.4 quake earlier this year.
Japan is probably the most earthquake-prone country in the world, and houses here are generally made with timber framing, for smaller buildings. For large apartment buildings and housing towers and such, they're made of concrete-reinforced steel of course, but timber is far more economical for individual houses.
>I always wonder why people don’t build brick and mortar homes in natural disasters prone areas.
If there's any chance at all of an earthquake, those types of buildings are deathtraps. I guess Germany doesn't have to worry about earthquakes, but they do happen in the US occasionally, especially in the west, but sometimes also in the east (there was a significant one in New Jersey earlier this year).
Brick and mortar takes a lot more labor than stick built houses. And the US has a lot of timber to build housing with.
There are ways to build more resilient wood buildings too, but it requires more expensive materials and/or more labor, so it only happens when it's mandated... most states, including Florida, limit how new building codes apply to existing structures, but I'd expect most buildings in Florida that were built within the last decade to do pretty well with hurricanes. Most of the worst damage is to older homes that weren't updated to meet newer standards; or is in places with so much impact from storms that no reasonable building would survive.
Yes, but other than for aesthetic reasons, concrete and masonry is also very low maintenance.
The negative aspect is that insulation is more expensive and leads to even thicker walls. But the thing basically lasts forever after it is built.
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 code requires wind rated houses for new builds. While they could probably use engineered wood, I'd bet it's more expensive than concrete.
Put another way, every home I saw built in Florida when I lived there was made of concrete blocks.
So they're not even allowed to use cheap yellow pine framing like most of the rest of the US does.
I always wonder why people don’t build brick and mortar homes in natural disasters prone areas. Sure the initial cost is high but the recurring cost due to all this damage is probably way higher.
Apologizing in advance if this is a stupid question. But when I compare houses in say Germany or Singapore to those in the US, I can’t believe the ephemeral construction here.
I can think of at least a few:
1.) Cost (mostly in the labor rather than materials, and because of less standardization probably)
2.) [1]Earthquakes. Unless you do extra steps (which add more cost), it's much likelier to collapse in an earthquake.
3.) Harder to tear down for new construction. (More of a city-planners nicety than a homeowner's consideration, but still there.)
Probably a couple other points I'm missing.
[1]https://www.earthquakecountry.org/step4/urmwalls/
Yes, unreinforced masonry building walls as describe on the link is an absolutely bad idea on earthquake prone areas.
But reinforced concrete structures are a different story. Concrete and masonry itself is brittle, but the steel rebar reinforcement adds flexibility and and tensile strength to the concrete. With an adequate design it is as safe or even safer than lighter wood structures, considering that it's inherently more fire safe, which is a big safety concern post quake.
Taiwan homes nowadays are mostly built with reinforced concrete structures and those modern buildings behaved very well in the 7.4 quake earlier this year.
Japan is probably the most earthquake-prone country in the world, and houses here are generally made with timber framing, for smaller buildings. For large apartment buildings and housing towers and such, they're made of concrete-reinforced steel of course, but timber is far more economical for individual houses.
>I always wonder why people don’t build brick and mortar homes in natural disasters prone areas.
If there's any chance at all of an earthquake, those types of buildings are deathtraps. I guess Germany doesn't have to worry about earthquakes, but they do happen in the US occasionally, especially in the west, but sometimes also in the east (there was a significant one in New Jersey earlier this year).
Like the sibling said, cost is a big factor.
Brick and mortar takes a lot more labor than stick built houses. And the US has a lot of timber to build housing with.
There are ways to build more resilient wood buildings too, but it requires more expensive materials and/or more labor, so it only happens when it's mandated... most states, including Florida, limit how new building codes apply to existing structures, but I'd expect most buildings in Florida that were built within the last decade to do pretty well with hurricanes. Most of the worst damage is to older homes that weren't updated to meet newer standards; or is in places with so much impact from storms that no reasonable building would survive.
Yes, but other than for aesthetic reasons, concrete and masonry is also very low maintenance. The negative aspect is that insulation is more expensive and leads to even thicker walls. But the thing basically lasts forever after it is built.