Slashdot Mirror
Building the Ultimate Safe House
Hugh Pickens writes "Candace Jackson writes that an increasing number of home builders and buyers are looking for a new kind of security: homes equipped to handle everything from hurricanes, tornadoes and hybrid superstorms like this week's Sandy, to man-made threats ranging from home invasion to nuclear war. Fueling the rise of these often-fortresslike homes are new technologies and building materials—which builders say will ultimately be used on a more widespread basis in storm- and earthquake-threatened areas. For example, Alys Beach, a 158-acre luxury seaside community on Florida's Gulf Coast, has earned the designation of Fortified...for safer living® homes and is designed to withstand strong winds. The roofs have two coats of limestone and exterior walls have 8 inches of concrete, reinforced every 32 inches for 'bunkerlike' safety, according to marketing materials. Other builders are producing highly hurricane-proof residences that are circular in shape with 'radial engineering' wherein roof and floor trusses link back to the home's center like spokes on a wheel, helping to dissipate gale forces around the structure. Deltec, a North Carolina–based builder, says it has never lost a circular home to hurricanes in over 40 years of construction. But Doug Buck says some 'extreme' building techniques don't make financial sense. 'You get to a point of diminishing returns,' says Buck. 'You're going to spend so much that honestly, it would make more sense to let it blow down and rebuild it.''
The home may survive, but if it's beachfront, you may find the distance from your bunker to the waves is a lot less when you emerge after the hurricane.
'You're going to spend so much that honestly, it would make more sense to let it blow down and rebuild it.''
Naturally, a bean-counter and an actual occupant might have different thoughts about that... :p
Using brick instead of wood may help some. Nothing high tech about that.
Naturally, sponsored by a republican, the same kind that are against government regulation
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Or, how about moving to somewhere with a safer climate to begin with ?
Geologically and climatologically safe places are almost always boring, empty and low-value.
Fertile soil means flood-plains, which means floods. (Hell even deserts flood every few decades.) Too flat and you can add tornadoes. Forests and parks means fire risk, trees falling in storms, etc. Good views of the sea means storms, up to and including hurricanes, along with coastal erosion. Good views inland usually means hills and mountains, which means landslides, probably earthquakes. Rivers and valleys means floods, landslides, and wild-fire funnelling. Then you've got ice storms if you're too far north, blackouts from too many air-conditioners if you are too far south, resulting in heat-deaths. (Northern hemisphere).
And, even if you pick well, you've only got a few decades of in-your-lifetime awareness of weather events to go on. A century or so if you make an effort to go into the records. That still leaves you fucked if you get a once-in-a-century (-or-three) event. Or if climate changes and makes your previously low risk site suddenly higher risk.
And that's just nature. Then you've got people. Home invasion, riots, arson, government falling, invasion, zombies...
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Because when your house is on fire, you want the fire department to be able to enter as quickly as possible. Instead of finding the key to your house somewhere at the station, among hundreds of others, an axe works nicely as a universal door opener.
When my house is made of steel and concrete, it's not on fire. Especially with sprinkler systems to drown carpet/drapes fires.