Slashdot Mirror


Floating Houses Designed For Low-Lying Countries

Zothecula writes "Venice may soon be sharing its 'Floating City' moniker thanks to a research project developing 'amphibian houses' that are designed to float in the event of a flood. The FLOATEC project sees the primary market for the houses as the Netherlands, whose low-lying land makes it particularly susceptible to the effects of rising sea levels. Such housing technology could also allow small island-states in the Indian and Pacific Oceans that are at the risk of disappearing in the next 100 years to maintain their claim to statehood through the use of artificial, floating structures."

173 comments

  1. uh-oh by RenHoek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Floating houses for low-lying countries?!?

    Do they know something I don't?

    Signed,

        Suspicious, from the Netherlands

    1. Re:uh-oh by nospam007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      'Floating houses' get 30 million Google hits so either this idea has been very successful in a very short time or it's very old news.
      What could it be....

    2. Re:uh-oh by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Floating houses are old hat... Being from Seattle, WA I hear that damned "so do you live in a houseboat like that movie, Sleepless in Seattle" all the time. And for the record, I don't - there's really no flat land in Seattle, it's all hills with lakes and rivers.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:uh-oh by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's indeed nothing new. The Netherlands has them for decades already. The only somewhat-new part here is that these houses are amphibian (i.e. floating only when there is a flood, most of the time sitting on dry ground), and even that's something I've heard about for well a decade or so at least. And yes that's also related to Dutch houses.

      Indeed reading TFA it's a Dutch company (Dura Vermeer) that's been developing such homes for the past 12 years. Nothing new under the sun. Also it seems no spectacular new developments in the field recently, there is ongoing innovation of course but it doesn't seem to be game-changing.

      Oh well. It's good filler for the /. home page at least.

    4. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Floating houses...

      In my country, we call these contraptions "boats".

    5. Re:uh-oh by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      A boat?

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:uh-oh by grouchomarxist · · Score: 3

      Note that the specific phrase "floating houses" gets less than 300,000 hits.

    7. Re:uh-oh by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      sarah palin worships atan and eats babies also get over two thousand results, and Google prompts you with the question, "do you mean sarah palin worships satan and eats babies?" The search results do not mean what you think they mean.

    8. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does Seattle not having any flat land have to do with a houseboat?

    9. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the case all along the Pacific really. The Pacific coast is all mountains except for cities built in river delta's (eg Vancouver/Richmond BC, Seattle/Tacoma WA, San Francisco CA, Tokyo Japan), which if it weren't for the fact that these large cities aren't going to float a condo building, aren't the target of the article.

      Rather the target is landfilled areas (which all named above cities have) with a cheaper alternative to pilings that go into bedrock. It might be possible to float a 3-story house (with the basement and first floor effectively "an entrance/car garage and nothing more") so that in the case of a catastrophic flood the upper 2 floors float up linearly at high tide, and come straight back down when the tide subsides. Or in the more likely case of a Tsunami, can be pushed off the fixed foundation and the uppermost floors become an instant houseboat-liferaft. The house and occupants might survive, though a new house would need to be built.

      But in case you're not really familiar with Venice. Venice is literately built on a hundred or so islands centuries ago. The city has subsided 30cm in the last century, and has had tides of nearly 2meters. The buildings don't float, so literately the lower (stone) floors of the buildings are completely useless as shop/storage/sleeping areas since the possibility of a flood coming in and washing everything away is always there. They have flood alerts like Japan has Tsunami alerts.

      So the article itself is an attempt to long-term solve a problem instead of a short term (eg put the building on stilts) where erosion and rotting would otherwise prevent reclamation. These areas are as effectively useless as Atlantic areas prone to storm surge in a hurricane. The average home in the US is built with wood and will last only about 200 years should it not succumb to fire or rot (Pacific coast cities are prone to mold and rot, and therefor have to have suitable breathability.)

      Taking the article one step further, in theory one could build a permanently moored "boat" that in the event of a tsunami or storm surge will float in an area surrounded by at least 3 pillars so the house "boat" part itself will go up and down with the water rise. Crazier things have been done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McBarge

      "Only a fool builds their home upon the sand"

    10. Re:uh-oh by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Or, the 'floating houses' of TFA aren't the sole usage of that term. Which, unsurprisingly, is what I find when I actually take the time to look at the actual results rather than just the numbers.

      When I search on 'floating houses', the first ten pages of images are almost totally either conventional houseboats, or the newer style which are (more or less) actually conventional houses built on barges. The same is true of the links - some are the houses that are the topic of TFA, but overwhelmingly they are on either conventional houseboats conventional houses built on barges.

    11. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And those semi-floating houses (the ones that sit on dry land, but float in case of flooding) are used in the parts of the Netherlands that are *above* sea level. To be more precise, they are located in the outer portions of the river beds. The bits that are dry 99% of the year, but flood for a few days after heavy rain etc.

      The parts of the Netherlands that are below sea level have so much pumping capacity, backup pumps/generators and areas where water can temporarily be stored, that flooding of residential areas has never been a problem. At least not in the last 50 years. Except in some very isolated cases where dykes broke (Wilnis for instance).

    12. Re:uh-oh by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Obviously, if you park a houseboat on a hill it tips over. Do I have to do all the thinking round here?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:uh-oh by lxs · · Score: 1

      If you don't know that we're sinking my fellow Dutchman, then you have been living under a rock.
      However with the population density we have here in the Netherlands, free standing houses are a massive waste of space, and I don't see tower blocks floating any day soon.

    14. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already got one!
      [/monty-python]
      This concept already exists in The Netherlands in Maasbommel:
      http://www.henkmoesbergen.nl/handelsonderneming/czhoutskeletbouw/drijvendewoningenmaasbommel/index.htm

    15. Re:uh-oh by lxs · · Score: 1

      The truth will out!

    16. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's old news, I remember seeing images from the first prototypes about a decade ago.

    17. Re:uh-oh by tancque · · Score: 1

      We better watch the dikes for these people might try to create or increase their market!

      signed,
      Living below sealevel, The Netherlands

      --
      Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!
    18. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The North of the Netherlands is some distance above sea level. To make up for this the southerners are removing the natural gas from underneath it and bringing it down to the same level as the rest.

    19. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's not really a population density problem. I remember a documentary from about 2004 that stated that if everyone here lived in a free standing house with a garden and the whole lot we would waste about 11% of our total surface are we have. Also note that building here takes ages due to the bureaucracy corporation have to face. Some of them look elsewhere to build like belgium where they can build a residential within half a year.

      Add to that that the west part is sinking(water draining from the clay, thus the clay becomes more compact) and the east part is rising(pushed up by the alps) and we have a interesting time ahead. I live in the west part near the coast and realize that it's inevitable that one day this will all be reclaimed again by the sea.

    20. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sarah palin worships atan

      And I thought she was one of the believers of e = 3 = pi

    21. Re:uh-oh by Medevilae · · Score: 1

      Maybe in China. I have "About 28,800,000 results (0.18 seconds)."

    22. Re:uh-oh by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      Try putting quotes around the expression and see how many results you get.

    23. Re:uh-oh by rve · · Score: 1

      The awesome power of natural selection will inevitably take care of a land dwelling and air breathing tribe that chooses to live below sea level.

    24. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trig will out!

      FTFY.

    25. Re:uh-oh by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      and realize that it's inevitable that one day this will all be reclaimed again by the sea.

      Necessity will drive creativity and technological evolution. It will spur alot of young (to be) inspired engineers to come up with new solutions and create a new generation of Dutch specialists in these type of projects.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    26. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so that is all fine. But, if you have to build an entirely new house, wouldn't you just build it somewhere else? Like where it wasn't a flood zone or something? I have to imagine it would be cheaper to just MOVE (even if you build a new house) than it would be to build a new floating house. Effectively getting out of the flood zone should prove more sustainable anyway.

    27. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of which, is anyone else particularly annoyed at the way Google now silently drops search terms to inflate the number of results? They do this to the point that the new altered search is no longer for the specific thing that you're searching for. Obnoxious!

    28. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it's time you read the fucking search guidelines then.

    29. Re:uh-oh by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Well, if all the people in the Netherlands would moved out of the flood zones, the country would probably cease to exist.

    30. Re:uh-oh by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Most likely, new people would just move in. It's pretty good living here. Most flood zones in the world tend to be both very fertile and trade hubs. Paying for a better house isn't that hard in those conditions.

      And if nobody would live in a flood zone, near a volcano, near fault lines, near deserts or infertile land, areas susceptible to tornadoes or other violent storms, coasts (tsunamis), or in any other area that has some sort of problem or disaster risk, I don't think there'd be any place on earth left for us to live. It's much better to pick the place that's most advantageous, and manage the risks. By building floating houses, for example. Floods are much easier to defend against than any of those other disasters.

    31. Re:uh-oh by mcvos · · Score: 1

      However with the population density we have here in the Netherlands, free standing houses are a massive waste of space, and I don't see tower blocks floating any day soon.

      I've worked in a floating office. Not a huge office building, but much bigger than a single house.

    32. Re:uh-oh by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The awesome power of economics will take care of those who don't. Flood plains and polders tend to be very fertile, and rivers tend to be important trade arteries.

    33. Re:uh-oh by jp102235 · · Score: 1

      exactly, people complain about new orleans, but manhattan is just as vulnerable to sea level rise/surge/flood. of course, they have the advantage of building very tall 'houses'.

      --
      jp
    34. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, good call. Your post has turned my life around and brought me to seeing your way! I will religiously check Google's guidelines and change the way I search for things at their every whim. Shill.

    35. Re:uh-oh by swalve · · Score: 1

      New Orleans is a sinking bowl, Manhattan is a rocky mound. When New Orleans floods, you have to pump the water out. When Manhattan floods, it washes back out to the rivers.

    36. Re:uh-oh by jp102235 · · Score: 1
      ok, that's one.
      what about all those Millions of people in other sinking bowls ( sacramento river valley).
      New Orleans is not unique, and you can't blame people who live there for being in the path of disaster.
      besides, the old city of new orleans is above sea level, its the 'burbs that get flooded (definition of 'burbs in new orleans can get sticky though, but basically, any neighborhoods that existed a loooong time ago are well-tested with flood history)
      there are many places [1] [2] in the world below sea level
      this picture is a little exaggerated, but shows that the main threat is the mighty mississippi, not the sea. and the army corps of engineers has a divert-the-mississippi spillway upriver that virtually guarantees the river flood threat to mitigated.
      ask anyone from new orleans (or others) and they will say that it was engineering that failed the city: intracoastal canals, notably MRGO, created for commerce gave intrusion paths to storm surge from the lake and the gulf. it was those levees that failed and spilled into the city.
      from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_in_New_Orleans we have:

      On August 31, flood levels started to subside. The water level in the city had reached that of Lake Pontchartrain, and as the lake started to drain back into the Gulf, some water in the city started to flow into the lake via the same levee breeches they had entered through. In 19th century lake floods, the water soon flowed back into the lake as there were no levees on that side.

      as humans, what makes us special is not just our ability to adapt, but to adapt the environment around us. If we never lived anywhere there was a threat of disaster, I am not sure where you could live(definitely not Texas, or a few other places. And those maps don't even include floods (the most common natural disaster), for that threats see this map of flood hazards for the US.

      --
      jp
    37. Re:uh-oh by rve · · Score: 1

      The awesome power of economics will take care of those who don't. Flood plains and polders tend to be very fertile, and rivers tend to be important trade arteries.

      If water were the one thing that makes land fertile, you'd be all set. However, crops also need sunlight and warmth, of which you have so little that only grass and potatoes seem willing to grow without the help of greenhouses and grow lights.

    38. Re:uh-oh by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to say that Netherland is somehow not that fertile? That this tiny country is not one of the largest agricultural exporters in the world? And it's not just milk, cheese and potatoes. A large part of it is actually flowers (growing outside, on the fields) and a wide range of other agricultural products. It's true that this summer was a bit too wet (which isn't all that good for potatoes, actually), but mostly we get a pretty nice mix of sun and rain, which is what farmers need. A climate with only non-stop sunshine isn't really all that good (although the presence of rivers will always help).

    39. Re:uh-oh by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      When typing input to such a complex thing as a search engine, perhaps knowing the syntax of the language would benefit you. So, read the freaking guidelines and understand how to search.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Claim to Statehood? by DWMorse · · Score: 1

    Really? What does "Claim to Statehood" actually mean to you when your house is now floating in the middle of Nowhere, Pacific Ocean. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the commute to work just got more entertaining...

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:Claim to Statehood? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      You just need a floating post office that companies can locate their HQ in as a tax dodge. Of course, they'll first need to pay the necessary fees...

    2. Re:Claim to Statehood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard somewhere that in order to claim an area at sea as your own (as opposed to it just being considered international waters) you need a natural piece of land. This is why countries get so pissy over islands that are basically just uninhabitable rocks: because it gives them a claim to the waters in that area. If these people have nothing but floating homes and submerged land, they're not going to be considered countries anymore.

    3. Re:Claim to Statehood? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      We might have to make an exception to that policy for the teeny little islands that have cool national TLDs...

      Can you imagine the outcry if .cx, .fm, and .tv were wiped out by the rising seas?

    4. Re:Claim to Statehood? by migla · · Score: 1

      Interesting points. But surely the international legal status of an area previously claimed and recognized should remain in case of it drowning if buildings are floating and anchored there or perched on sticks...?

      Are there any precedents for a case like this?

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    5. Re:Claim to Statehood? by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too much legalese.

      The current international law is just a collection of all the contracts and agreements that have proved to either work well enough to be enforced or to be of so theoretical nature that no one ever had a reason to challenge it.

      So whenever a situation occurs that was never part of the considerations around those rules, the rules will be written anew. There is no Supreme World Court (ok., there is the International Criminal Court, but it is ignored by the U.S.), which decides case law and provides some sort of continous interpretation and development of the rules.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Claim to Statehood? by fritsd · · Score: 1

      There might be a complication in a few centuries that the International Court of Justice, which normally does this kind of non-war arbitration about land ownership between nations, is based in The Hague which is on the coast in the Netherlands; looks like it is in the dunes so it's probably a few meters above sea level :-)

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    7. Re:Claim to Statehood? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There's Graham Island. And Atlantis.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. How did they ever think of that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...Considering that you can go out and buy a houseboat in Seattle or many other places, I wonder how anyone ever thought to make houses that float. Genius, I say!

  4. this sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kinda reminds me of that giant floating refugee camp in the novel Snow Crash.

    That didn't exactly end well for anyone..

    1. Re:this sounds familiar by Noitatsidem · · Score: 1

      Shh, you'll scare away the customers!

      --
      Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
  5. Wrong "Floating" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Misread tweet as "Floating Houses Designed For Low-Flying Countries", clicked, and now disappointed. Also less confused.

  6. illegal submersion by igny · · Score: 1
    From a communique by some island's Ministry of international affairs.

    We and all other nations in the world do not recognize the occupation and annexation of our land by the Pacific ocean as legal. We shall maintain out statehood and membership to the UN even though evicted from our land onto a floating reservation. Even though this may last for several millenia, we consider the current situation as temporary only

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  7. landfill by currently_awake · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think those disappearing islands would be better off digging up the top layer of dirt and raising their island with imported garbage, then cover with top soil and plants. I would think you only need 2 meters to keep their island homes above water, and the first world nations would likely cover the full cost just to be rid of the junk. Having a floating home won't do any good without a job to pay for it, you may as well move to somewhere dry.

    1. Re:landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you may as well move to somewhere dry.

      That only works for countries that don't disappear underwater. Or you think most countries would give citizenship for a whole island?

    2. Re:landfill by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that New Zealand would accept environmental refugees from its Pacific neighbours.

      --
      signature is pants
    3. Re:landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Would? We already do. And by the way, some of us here aren't complete douches and think helping your neighbors is the right thing to do. We're all humans and my family certainly didn't evolve here naturally. I have no more right to this land than you or anyone else.

    4. Re:landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      old problem: rising sea levels

      new problem: cancer

    5. Re:landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      douches help women to clean their vaginas

    6. Re:landfill by tragedy · · Score: 2

      Labor day in the US has nothing to do with the War of Independence. It is the US version of International Workers Day (May Day). It's a Union/socialist holiday. Interestingly, May Day actually commemorates a US event: the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago. For political reasons, in the US, they didn't want to commemorate the massacre, so opted for a more generic Labor day in September promoted by the Central Labor Union.

    7. Re:landfill by h5inz · · Score: 4, Informative

      What junk? Typical landfill junk decomposition produces dioxins. There is a reason why you don't want your house on a graveyard or a landfill. Also what about the drinking water? I bet the surrounding sea ecosystem wouldn't be overly happy about it either.

    8. Re:landfill by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      They've been doing it for years, if you define "environmental refugee" as "talented rugby player".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In NZ its spelt neighbours

      And there are already more Cook Islanders in Auckland than in the Cooks, (and Samoans and Tongans)
      but unlike the Hispanics in the USA, most of them speak English (Or Maori which is NZ's other official language)

    10. Re:landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedantry and spelling fail. Now go squeeze through the door of your trailer and jerk off over pictures of Sarah Palin, you fat lardass redneck.

    11. Re:landfill by raynet · · Score: 2

      Actually douches are bad for vaginas...

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    12. Re:landfill by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Celebrating May Day (May 5) dates back about 3000 years before the existence of the US. It's an ancient pagan festival called Beltaine, that marks the halfway point between the vernal equinox and the summer solstice, and the start of the summer planting season. Most of the symbols and rituals surrounding Beltaine are about fertility and celebrating life.

      As with most pagan festivals, it's been claimed and modified by modern folks, but you can still find the roots of the ancient festival in the modern practice... the most visible for May Day would be dancing around the may pole, but there's other elements of the ancient festival that have made it into the modern version. For further enlightenment, look up Ostara, Samhain, and Yule, all of which show up in the xian calendar in different forms.

    13. Re:landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the low countries, that is exactly what has been done since the middle ages. A "terp" or "wierde" is a village built on top of dried cow shit in an area which is often flooded by the sea.

    14. Re:landfill by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Isn't May Day on May 1st, not 5th? In any case, International Workers Day and Beltane are celebrated on the same day and, depending on region are probably mixed. The actual Haymarket massacre happened on May 4th, but people had been shot on May 3rd and the actual protest for the eight hour working day had begun on May 1st. It's possible that day was chosen due to it being an existing holiday (although not celebrated much in the US that I'm aware), but it was probably a coincidence. Today, there are plenty of countries that celebrate International Workers Day on May 1st which have absolutely no tradition of celebrating Beltane.

      Interesting thing that I hadn't really been aware of is that the US actually does celebrate May 1st. It apparently started in 1921 as "Americanization Day" as a way to counter International Workers Day. In 1959, it officially became "Loyalty Day" as a sort of anti-communist holiday. I find all of this rather creepy.

    15. Re:landfill by h5inz · · Score: 1

      That is why I was asking "What junk" as the one that I was criticizing was the typical landfill junk. In the other hand, the cow manure isn't entirely safe either:
      http://www.ehow.com/about_5533501_nitrogen-effects-cow-manure-humans.html

      Although, some if not all of these problems could be controlled, but I didn't dig much deeper (no pun). But hey..the article was about floating houses and we ended up discussing about cow dung?
      Nevertheless, thank you for a really nice piece of historical info about villages built on crap. I can and will use it as a valuable input in my next lunch table conversation.

    16. Re:landfill by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      I think those disappearing islands would be better off digging up the top layer of dirt and raising their island with imported garbage, then cover with top soil and plants. I would think you only need 2 meters to keep their island homes above water, and the first world nations would likely cover the full cost just to be rid of the junk. Having a floating home won't do any good without a job to pay for it, you may as well move to somewhere dry.

      The applicable international law(s) require that your land must be "naturally" above sea level. Once you fuck with a piece of land you cannot use it in your claims.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    17. Re:landfill by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      New Zealand only has two official languages. Maori and NZ Sign Language. English is de-facto because 98% of the population speak it.

      --
      signature is pants
    18. Re:landfill by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Sadly the process seems to be people migrate to NZ because they are more humane in accepting refugees than Australia. NZ citizens migrate to Australia.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  8. Hmmm.. yeah... by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Such housing technology could also allow small island-states in the Indian and Pacific Oceans

    What's next? "Floating rainwater basins", "floating desalination plants" or "regular shipment of bottled water"? "Floating coconut farms" maybe?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:Hmmm.. yeah... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Such housing technology could also allow small island-states in the Indian and Pacific Oceans

      What's next? "Floating rainwater basins", "floating desalination plants" or "regular shipment of bottled water"?
      "Floating coconut farms" maybe?

      These guys are just out there. You're going to float a house on Styrofoam in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Maybe they've been fooled by the name (Pacific - Peaceful) but one little baby typhoon is going to put your Styrofoam and assorted crap in the middle of the Pacific garbage patch. If you want to create floating cities, then go ahead and do so. The tech is there, it's just expensive.

      This might work in a low lying area that gets flooded every couple of years (although the stilt idea previously mentioned seems easier) but it's not going to float well. Somebody needs to torpedo this concept before anyone gets wet.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Hmmm.. yeah... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      he tech is there, it's just expensive.

      That's what I wanted to emphasize. Somehow, I don't think the pacific islanders have the money to build an artificial archipelago for themselves (I can bet the cost of it will be much less than the maintenance of a "floating village" for 5-10 years).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Hmmm.. yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Submarines are floating islands. Their primary expense is the ability to dive deeper than ~100 ft. Think more creatively.

    4. Re:Hmmm.. yeah... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Submarines are floating islands. Their primary expense is the ability to dive deeper than ~100 ft. Think more creatively.

      Do you know many Pacific island nations maintaining even a single submarine? Or even some civilian ships the size of a battleships? Please do share.

      Here's an example of one that doesn't: Tuvalu - and seems they need a solution to a problem they didn't create.
      Back to you AC: feel free to think as creative as you like if you can offer them a solution that they can afford.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Hmmm.. yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torpedo... now that's an interesting thought

    6. Re:Hmmm.. yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Floating Nuclear plants.

  9. Ignoring the bigger problem by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    If the land belonging to these nations goes underwater for any length of time... who cares if their houses are intact? With no land, they've likely lost any ability to sustain themselves individually or as a culture.

    Or are these floating houses edible and self-repairing?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by c0lo · · Score: 2

      If the land belonging to these nations goes underwater for any length of time... who cares if their houses are intact? With no land, they've likely lost any ability to sustain themselves individually or as a culture.

      Or are these floating houses edible and self-repairing?

      Potable would be the first problem.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by kermidge · · Score: 1

      No reason not to build on ferro-cement pontoons; well-made they're durable (a century or three) and no reason one couldn't have enough room and flotation for all kinds plants and critters. (If you've got submerged metal fittings, you'd need zincs; you'd also need anti-fouling coating and/or a cleaning routine.) It'd put a crimp on burden but they could be built as boat hulls; worse gets to worst, one could unhook from neighbors and utilities, up mast, and sail away.

    3. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      The houses may help if the sea rise is less severe. For example, instead of getting flooding once in 5 years, they now get it several times a year, but usually the island is above water. Such flooding will come with cyclones, so the floating houses will need to be well anchored. It is also not clear whether agriculture and fresh water supplies can be maintained in such circumstances.

      The simple fact that corral atolls are uniformly just above sea level despite sea level changes due to ice ages etc. shows that they react to and track sea level changes. They will build themselves up in response to rising sea levels, so if the sea rises for a while and then stops, the islands can catch up. I have no idea whether this will occur on a time scale useful to islanders however.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    4. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2 words. Sea Cucumbers.

    5. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may as well as point out that the vast majority of the world's population are ignoring the bigger problem of cancer by not throwing themselves into oncology, or that there's no point looking for NEOs because if the big ones hits we're all goners anyway. What life-changing problem did you solve this morning?

      If the land belonging to these nations goes underwater for any length of time... who cares if their houses are intact?

      What if the land doesn't go underwater for a great length of time? What if it's gone in a few days? Then people will want their homes.

      Eejit.

    6. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have dibs on a floating roads patent.

    7. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by blarkon · · Score: 1

      Reefs. How do they work?

    8. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is good reason not to use cement and steel. In winter houseboats can be _cold_, obviously because they're partially submerged in the water. Polystyrene is besides very light also a good insulator.

    9. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "so the floating houses will need to be well anchored. It is also not clear whether agriculture and fresh water supplies can be maintained in such circumstances."

      Agriculture? No. Not unless it is salt-tolerant. Fresh water? From rainwater, yes. From groundwater, probably not.

      [increased rate of coral reef growth during sea level rise]
      "I have no idea whether this will occur on a time scale useful to islanders however."

      It probably won't. The rise is too fast by comparison, and the increase in growth occurs below sea level. It doesn't affect the areas that are already above sea level due to redistribution of sediment. On top of that, ocean acidification may kill off the corals or at least impede their normal rates of carbonate deposition.

      While having floating houses may help in the short term, the idea that you could have a self-sustaining floating country is ridiculous. Even if you had housing complexes the size of an aircraft carrier you would still have to continually bring in boatloads of supplies, and what could such a country offer in exchange? A seagoing cruise that is anchored in one spot? It isn't economically sustainable either.

    10. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others have noted here, houseboats are nothing new. The new bit here is the use of polystyrene/concrete composite materials, which provide cheap buoyancy. That makes greenhouses entirely feasible; you'd be able to grow your own food as well. Floating offices are equally trivial. Flexible links for telephone/data, electricity and natural gas aren't new, either. The biggest problem may in fact be transportation.

    11. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You would be positively amazed at how much can be grown on rooftops and container gardens; water can be taken care of with vacuum distillation or reverse osmosis

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    12. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by mrjb · · Score: 1

      With no land, they've likely lost any ability to sustain themselves individually or as a culture.

      FYI there didn't use to be as much land to the Netherlands as there is now. Quite a bit of it is below sea-level and used to be- wait for it- sea. Conquering that sea, pumping it away, building dykes and turning sea area in to land has been part of Dutch culture for a good while now. For those here who have been to the Hacking in Progress event in 1997 in Almere, the Netherlands- That whole area used to be sea.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    13. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      And if it's that valuable, reclamation. You'd have to put some type of covering over the plants to prevent the soil being contaminated by salty ocean spray, so why not just enclose in poly-tents? Then the plants suck water through the roots, it goes into contained vapor through transpiration, you condense it back into water. It wouldn't quite be a closed cycle (Have to get in there to plant/harvest/fertilise/etc) and there would be a few leaks, but it would still reduce water needs significantly.

    14. Re:Ignoring the bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The coral is dead from the CO2 level rise (=acidification of ocean water), so the answer is no.

  10. Aren't they called houseboats? by jandrese · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure people have been living on boats for a long time now. It combines all of the charm of living in a trailer with the joy of not having stable ground under your feet. It's not terrible, but the idea of a region changing en-mass to living in houseboats is absurd. What use is having a floating house if the roads are always flooded out and the utilities don't work?

    There are much better solutions to the problem if you live in a flood prone area.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Aren't they called houseboats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall people in Vietnam had something like this a long time ago.

    2. Re:Aren't they called houseboats? by wagnerrp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not exactly. They build their homes on stilts, so they remain above water during the seasonal flooding.

    3. Re:Aren't they called houseboats? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Conversely having a house which could temporarily float when flood waters are abnormally high might save a lot in damages for places built on floodplains, not to mention lives.

  11. Just call me ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    .... Noah.

    Damn! Not enough room for the elephants or the donkeys. I guess you guys will have to fight it out as the water rises.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Is it just me, or does this look like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atlantis per Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias
    Shamelessly ripped off of elsewhere, which ripped it off:
    The lost city of Atlantis has two chief characteristics, firstly that it was located in the centre of a perfectly level, rectangular shaped plain in a continent opposite the Strait of Gibraltar and secondly and probably most importantly, that it had the distinctive shape of a circular central island surrounded by concentric rings of land and sea "enclosing each other like cartwheels"

    And doesn't Floating city sound terribly prone to be destroyed by hurricane?

    1. Re:Is it just me, or does this look like by c0lo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And doesn't Floating city sound terribly prone to be destroyed by hurricane?

      If it truly floats, redesigned rather.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  13. Misread.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read "Floating Houses Designed For Low-FLying Countries" and immediatly thought of buildings hovering in the air above. Damn, 'cos that'd be cool.

  14. Which countries exactly are at risk of submersion? by BenJCarter · · Score: 0

    We've been looking at the weather for thousands of years. Historic records of permanently submerged civilizations seem to be nebulous at best (Noah in Atlantis maybe?)

    The next hundred years is a ways off. At least several more emerging "the sky is falling" hysterical periods will occur as we gain a better understanding of the ecosystem that is our home. We've already moved from the "Global Warming" to the "Climate Change" hysterical model in just the last decade.

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
  15. Re:Everybody, listen up by Luke727 · · Score: 0

    If you're God then you can see everything. Tell me, how many penises am I holding up right now?

    --
    If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
  16. Waterworld by mprindle · · Score: 1

    This really sounds like an "island" from the movie Waterworld...

  17. Waterworld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do I get this really bad image of the movie "Waterworld" in my head when reading the summary and comments thus far....

  18. US gov't insurance by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of problems would go away if the US would simply get rid of its government flood insurance program. If you want to build a house somewhere its likely to get flooded, and its too risky for a private insurer to cover, and the bank won't loan without insurance... it won't get built. .

    1. Re:US gov't insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this insurance you mention available to non-US people living on non-US land? That's who the target audience is. Should have held your anti-US rant for another article.

    2. Re:US gov't insurance by InspectorGadget · · Score: 1

      That doesn't seem to stop people in the UK building in flood plains. I think you'll find people will keep on building in risky areas, accept the financial hit in case of a flood, and keep an eye on extreme weather warnings.
      After all, properties built in such areas will be cheaper as a result.
      But then bricks & mortar houses don't tend to float away in floods.

    3. Re:US gov't insurance by MonsterMasher · · Score: 1

      And what happens to the many, many, many who can only afford land in 'risk' in a flood plan?

      Oh, I agree with the general sentiment, but until we get serious about our homeless issues. Of course we do have millions of homes foreclosed on - perhaps the owners might be able to live in them, to at least keep the bears from moving in and destroying the house.

      We need to use that pesky 'science' thing to redefine flood plains as our climate changes.

    4. Re:US gov't insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S will never get rid of the NFIP because there are many, many wealthy people living on the coasts. They own Congress (declared legal to buy a Congressman by SCOTUS) and want their beach houses protected by the taxpayers (which they are not).

      When you own the government and the taxpayers keep blindly paying their taxes, programs that benefit you will not be gotten rid of.

    5. Re:US gov't insurance by westlake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot of problems would go away if the US would simply get rid of its government flood insurance program.

      It is the sort of thing kids used to be taught about geography in grade school.

      You build along the river because the river provides cheap transportation, fresh water and power. The river often ends in a seaport - giving you a chance to become a major player in coastal and foreign trade.

      Periodic flooding means that your valley remains fertile, perhaps as fertile as the Mississippi Delta.

      For extra credit:

      Map the flood plain of the Mississippi, the Missouri and their tributaries.

      Count the number of people dependent on these rivers for their living, calculate the cost of moving every one of them to higher ground --- including the cost to American trade, agriculture and industry.

    6. Re:US gov't insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because it's not like we need waterside cities like New Orleans for transport of goods into the heartlands or anything.

      And the problem is definitely not existing settlements, nosiree, the problem is all those people with money trying to build in weird places, not those poor folks who have inherited the single most valuable possession they will ever have that happens to be in a flood plain.

      Why cloak your thinly-veiled contempt for helping out people that have an indirect effect on your way of life? Why not just come right out and say it?

    7. Re:US gov't insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to move everyone in a flood plain, you just have to stop enabling the skullfuckingly idiotic behavior of building houses in flood plains in the 21st century.

    8. Re:US gov't insurance by Reziac · · Score: 1

      So go ahead and build the warehouses, the barge docks, etc, along the flood plain. Stuff that can get flooded with minimal structural damage (if you choose to keep rice or paper in your riverside warehouse, don't say we didn't warn you). But don't build the residentials there.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  19. High priced areas by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    A couple years ago I thought it would be a great idea to create a floating city in an expensive area like off San Deigo or San Fransisco where space and price are premium.

    If you could make a floating city you could earn 2 - 3 million a house. That is a lot of cash that would yield a great ROI and give price relief to those who live in these metropolitan areas. Just a thought I had.

    All you would need is the same rubber foam used to float various structures near the shore. Do it on a massive scale and you make gold.

  20. Nothing new by AG+the+other · · Score: 3, Informative

    When I was growing up, during visits to my grandmothers we would visit the Ouachita river to fish. Yes it's a word. It's from some Amerind culture.
    There were lots of structures that were built on 55 gallon barrels and tied to trees with big ropes for the annual floods. They even had a union in the gas pipe so that the gas could be turned off and the house allowed to float up off the foundation.
    When the flood was over the neighbors would get together and help put everyone's house back where they belonged.
    Floating houses another recycled idea. Hopefully someone hasn't tried to patent it. There is plenty of prior art.

    --
    Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
    1. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Drive some i-beams or 6x6's into the ground, and attach a slide to the house so it can move up and down the i-beam or 6x6 but not laterally (just like most docks at marinas). Then the house or object would float up and down but no other direction. Then there's no need to put it back in place

    2. Re:Nothing new by couchslug · · Score: 2

      Just build on piles or stilts. Pile driving equipment is simple enough, and the raised housing makes for useful shade underneath.

      They have been common in Asia for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  21. And you will grow food exactly HOW? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    what a dumb idea - you can't float a country. Those people are fucked. In 200 years we will all be living at the Arctic circle....

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:And you will grow food exactly HOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe in the future there will be advanced scientists who can obtain food from the ocean. They will call those amazing people 'fishermen'.

    2. Re:And you will grow food exactly HOW? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      "Soylent Houseboat People" . . . the main foodstuff of houseboat people will be . . . other houseboat people. It's a shame that there won't be any Fava beans, though.

      Fishermen? "I will teach you to be a fisher of . . . men." Wow, that old quip seems to make more sense now.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:And you will grow food exactly HOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to be the one to tell you but in 200 years, we'll all be long dead. In the meantime, we'll be wanting somewhere to live. This won't help much in the event of catastrophic sea level rise but for areas where a rising water table leads to increased seasonal flooding in previously habitable areas, this sort of thing could slow the exodus of populations that many fear climate change will bring.

    4. Re:And you will grow food exactly HOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a boat that has been in the sea for more that two years now, without moving, and yes a lot of food is growing....

    5. Re:And you will grow food exactly HOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnamese floating homes have a hole in the middle and a big net attached to it where they grow fish. They're doing great. There's so much you can grow or harvest from the sea.

  22. pinko by decora · · Score: 2

    what we need is a free market solution. maybe if we started charging money for seawater, people wouldn't be so wasteful with it.

  23. Nothing to see here by Foske · · Score: 1

    Uhm guys, floating houses already exist for decades here in the Netherlands, and then I don't even count our famous "woonboot" (houseboat), which would extend that period to hundreds of years. Looks like the world is reinventing the wheel, except that a wheel of course quite useless in water...

    1. Re:Nothing to see here by kahless62003 · · Score: 1

      Looks like the world is reinventing the wheel, except that a wheel of course quite useless in water...

      They are?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_boat

    2. Re:Nothing to see here by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      See also:

      http://www.walmart.com/ip/Swim-N-Play-Inflatable-Water-Wheel/14003676

      And yes they come in adult sizes too.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  24. Did anyone else read that as... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

    Floating houses for low-flying countries.

    It made me think of the airborne aircraft carrier in Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow... only entire countries instead of just an aircraft carrier. That would be pretty awesome.

    1. Re:Did anyone else read that as... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2

      It made me think of the airborne aircraft carrier in Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow...

      And that made me think of Angelina Jolie.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    2. Re:Did anyone else read that as... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      She really was the worst part of that movie. Maybe someday they'll release a directors cut that cuts out every scene with her in it.

    3. Re:Did anyone else read that as... by Serpents · · Score: 1

      And that made me think of Angelina Jolie.

      Put your hands where I can see 'em!

  25. Top heavy by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    + nasty storm = ?

  26. Prior Art by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    It's called a boat.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  27. Slight problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the "at risk" countries have populations that have yearly incomes in the hundreds or thousands not tens of thousands a year. High tech solutions aren't a solution. Unless they can build the structures with the available resources it's no option. I'd be more impressed if the solution involved Bamboo instead of a petro chemical like styrofoam. Looks good on paper but it's not a practical or realistic solution.

  28. Really? by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 1

    Floating houses were already designed 1000's of years ago, they're called boats.

    But on topic, 'floating' houses are nothing new, we've had them for decades already here in the Netherlands

    --
    Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
  29. Homes that float can also move. by cvtan · · Score: 1

    With apologies to Steven Wright: "One day, when I came home from work, I accidentally put my car key in the door of my apartment building... I turned it... and the whole building started up.... So I drove it around.... A policeman stopped me for going too fast... He said, 'Where do you live?'... I said, 'Right here'... Then I drove my building onto the middle of a highway, and I ran outside, and told all of the cars to get the hell out of my driveway."

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Homes that float can also move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they weren't on the lawn.

    2. Re:Homes that float can also move. by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Next to the sofa, dead fridge, and trampoline.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  30. Japan by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    Well. We all remember what "a flood" will look like. For low-laying countries this could very well look the same, so even IF the house will float you'll have to look for it between tons of rubble, driftwood and cars...

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it won't. We know what Japan looked like after an earthquake and associated tsunami. The Low Countries don't get tsunami's; they get flooded by either excessive rain or stormfloods. Both are certainly destructive, but less energetic than the earthquake/tsunami combo. These houses will be chained together in flotilla's (look at the pictures), even a few broken links won't cause it to get lost.

      However, for those reasons I do suspect it's not a solution that can be used directly around Pacific islands. There you will need something more sturdy.

    2. Re:Japan by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Sorry but the 7 ft of water in your living room was not a flood, but a hurricane, which is not covered under your policy. This has been a public service announcement from your friendly insurance company.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    3. Re:Japan by budgenator · · Score: 1

      On 1 November 1755 (All Saints' Day!) a magnitude 8.6 earthquake at Gorringe Bank destroyed much of Lisbon. Minutes after the earthquake, the tsunami arrived. At least three great waves about ten meters high entered the city. The waves also raked the nearby coasts of Spain and North Africa, and did extensive damage in the Azores, Madiera, and Canary Islands. Minor damage occurred as far north as Ireland and as far west as the West Indies. Gorringe Bank remains a severe tsunami threat for Portugal, and the Portuguese are now installing seafloor pressure gauges there to get advance warning. Tsunamis in the Atlantic Ocean

      Minor damage in Ireland can easily be major damage in the low countries; Your confusing being lucky so far with "The Low Countries don't get tsunami's." An seismic event in Iceland or a slip-splash on a mid-atlantic island could easily send send a tsunami into the low countries.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  31. All houses are floating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on the surface of very dense and usually very viscous fluid. It becomes apparent in case of large natural disasters. However, most houses aren't built with that in mind and therefore when soil shows its fluidity, houses tend to capsize, get torn apart, float away, or even sink.

  32. You need land to be a state... by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

    ... doesn't have to be much, but it has to be actual land. And if you want to claim some sort of exclusive economic rights over the surrounding seas the land has to be habitable (look up Okinotori Islands). A perpetually floating house is a ship even if it used to be moored on solid ground. And it can't be registered in a country that doesn't exist because it's underwater.

    But I don't suppose your lack of statehood would be your most pressing concern.

    1. Re:You need land to be a state... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual land? Iceland had a small volcanic island, that was being eroded away. That would loose them a lot of territorial water. So they built a concrete helipad there, that covers much of the island. So it is not going away anymore. Same trick would work anywhere else.

      You don't need anything special to declare a a state. To get any respect, land would be handy. Or some good weapons - which is tricky to arrange without land.Still, one could imagine a floating state with a navy. Fish-based economy, black-market nukes - if all they demand is to be recognized as a nation. . .

  33. Gizmag by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Gizmag, brought to you by Samsung.

    Seriously, I browsed through 4 pages and came across 7 plugs for Samsung products.

    If you're going to accept sponsorship then you should disclose it.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  34. If only... by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

    Too bad the Atlantians didn't think of this.

    --
    I want to shoot the messenger!
  35. Wow! how innovative by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    They invented a boat.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  36. Pontoons on a Trailer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wondered why no one ever put pontoons on a trailer home. The attach an anchor to the bottom for when it floats up.

  37. Re:Which countries exactly are at risk of submersi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ISLANDS most at risk of submersion are those which are hit by typhoons, or whose coral or sedimentary runoff are damaged. Those are the known examples. The COUNTRIES most at risk of submersion are those whose governments think they can get the most money by making such claims.

  38. Say low what now?? A kodak moment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who read "Floating Houses Designed For Low Flying Countries"?

  39. Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've heard about this general concept for over a decade. But I have yet to hear of homes actually being built using it. Most homes are not built on flood planes over 10' deep, making simply building the house on an above ground garage far more economical.

  40. Hmmm... floating houses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in addition to cars, telephone poles etc careening down the streets in the event of a flood, what we *really* need is 1000 tons of floating bricks and mortar bearing down on us...

  41. If they patent this . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Noah called claiming prior art

  42. seen this before by jp102235 · · Score: 1
    --
    jp
  43. What an outrage! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No no no! This will not do! This is a market solution! Market solutions are of the devil! Only government solutions will do! Just pay your taxes to Al Gore and he will wave his magic wand and all your problems will instantly evaporate! Someone needs to arrest these evil entrepreneurs for coming up with solutions that don't involve ManBearPig and Hockystick horror movies!

    SHAME SHAME! :D

  44. Are you sure about that? by brokeninside · · Score: 2

    The NFIP was created because people were already building houses (and businesses) in floodplains and no insurer was willing to insure them. Moreover, it was the same 1968 legislation that created the NFIP that mandated flood insurance if a mortgage was to be issued for a property in a floodplain. So your guess that banks would not be willing to lend money without homeowners having flood insurance is factually incorrect unless you presume that the legislation requiring flood insurance was passed but the accompanying federal insurance program was not.

    Moreover, since many of the floodplains in question were /created/ by the federal government through its river management policies, it was thought at the time to be sensible to make the feds responsible for insuring households built in the floodplains. Were it not for the US Army Corps of Engineers, after all, the Mississippi would no longer go through New Orleans to get the Gulf of Mexico. Dredging rivers, digging channels, installing locks, building levies and flood walls have all altered the natural floodplains of virtually every major river in the US.

  45. floating gardens by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Or perhaps just using landfill to raise agricultural zones above sea level.

    Or, like many countries do, import food. Despite living the US, I have to go out of my way to get fresh fruit that wasn't grown in Chile, Argentina, Mexico, etc.

  46. Based on what determination? by brokeninside · · Score: 2

    Do you make the line of demarcation consistently annual floods, five year floods, fifty year floods, hundred year floods?

    Moreover, what if the feds build a new levy and create a new floodplain? Or what it isn't the feds but mother nature? After all, the Mississippi would have an entirely different course to the Gulf if the feds hadn't intervened. Imagine that they didn't. Now you've got a very large new floodplain that was previously not a floodplain.

    And what about economics? Perhaps the only places that large sectors of the population can afford to build houses is in a floodplain because such real estate is dirt cheap. If you make such real estate off limits, you not only create other problems but also make other real estate artificially more expensive because now there will be more people competing for less space.

  47. For when you just gotta... by kenh · · Score: 0

    Live below sea level (New Orleans)... Near a lake (Pontchartrain) & river (Mississippi)... Next to a large body of water (Gulf of Mexico)... Where Hurricanes are a common occurance.

    I wonder if there is anyother way to keep safe & dry without resorting to living on land-locked boats?

    To quote Sam Kinnison - Move!

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:For when you just gotta... by jp102235 · · Score: 2

      miami, ft lauderdale, houston, galveston, wilmington, lower manhattan, long island, etc.
      I could go on and on.
      New Orleans didn't invent "living below sea level"
      now living in a spillway, the atchafalaya, which is flooded (by man, by God indirectly) fairly often, and is within the path to the Gulf that the mississippi really wants to go (very much so, in fact) - now that is a different story.
      those folks know the risk and use buoyant foundations (trailers with styrofoam underneath) to maintain their homes.
      they love living out there (it is real nice), and they understand they could lose everything one day.
      other parts of the mississippi flood plain include MANY areas up north that flood MUCH more regularly, so lay off of new orleans

      --
      jp
  48. I owned a house in a flood plain before by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    The only time the region flooded to the point where my house would have been under water (had it been built then) was 1913.

    I think you underestimate just how much of US geography is in a flood plain and the social and financial costs of relocating all the residents that are in said flood plains.

    1. Re:I owned a house in a flood plain before by Reziac · · Score: 1

      No, I don't. I used to live in the Fargo ND area, I know what a *real* flood looks like. But so much of the flood plain is developed now, that never should have been, and it's really too late to go back and do something different. But if we could -- well, we could be smarter about it.

      BTW I live at the top of a ridge in the middle of the desert, and FEMA says my house (but none of the surrounding area) is on a "flood plain". Meanwhile, they've delisted the dry lake bed and riverbed that this year weren't so dry. Makes you wonder...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  49. We did this back in 1984 by Wingfat · · Score: 1

    Our family lives in a flood area. almost every year it happens. But in larger floods you have to be ready. We tied canoes to our house so when the flood hit we could paddle to relatives that lived on high ground. On the property we lived we all pitched in together and built a home that would float (but not float away) when the flood waters hit. It would raise up and the pipes below had break away piping that would allow the home to float up. the power lines were all done above ground so it had power, just not working water. but all in all a floating house made it very nice for the people living in it since all their things did not get ruined and everything was intact.

  50. Weird... by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    ...For some reason I thought they meant floating in midair. Silly me.

    Hovercraft houses would be awesome, though. And incredibly impractical. :P

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  51. Re:Everybody, listen up by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Too late for that, the east coast of the US has seen earthquakes and floods already, locusts seem likely.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?