Hurricane-proof housing

Computer-controlled simulators? Bah. If these chaps want to learn something about building hurricane-proof homes, they should take a trip to Bermuda instead.

Comments

[young1 on 26.06.06 at 09:43]

I always thought it was odd how people built wooden houses in hurricane hot spots particularly Florida. Did they never read the three little pigs?

[ace on 26.06.06 at 09:58]

"You get swirling and rapid changes from positive to negative pressure," said Mr Wilkinson.

"If you were going to pull a panel off a roof you wouldn't just heave on it, you'd try to waggle it, and that's the most destructive thing for the wind to do."

At least they are being realistic about how winds actually behave in a hurricane.

Hurricane "rated" house products are generally tested in a wind tunnel. They say "This will withstand winds of 150mph"...except they say this because they put it in a wind tunnel and blew 150mph winds at it.

Hurricanes don't work that way....just ask anyone in Bermuda who has endured one.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 26.06.06 at 10:09]

It is strange that people think of wind speed rather than uplift pressure when talking about hurricanes. Wind speed is a concern but the ability of a building material to resist uplift is an even more important factor.

A roof can be rated and installed to resist 150 mph winds but be unable to withstand the uplift pressure that is created as the wind passes over the roof.

[ap on 26.06.06 at 10:13]

The yanks don't think anything outside the U.S. is worth paying attention to, so they would never examine how Bermuda houses are constructed. That's why I laugh everytime a hurricane hits Florida, and those morons boo-woo about their houses collapsing.

[BBC on 26.06.06 at 10:52]

apparently neither do the Limeys or Canucks if you clicked on the link.

[Adjustah on 26.06.06 at 11:12]

Hurricane rated usually isn't. That's why much of the pre-existing buildings at the Baselands have been torn down - they weren't up to standards here.

I do recall one set of very expensive, custom-made windows on a ridiculously expensive house we visited after Fabian. Ballistic grade, German windows custom built to withstand high winds and pressure on the seaward facing side of the house overlooking South Shore.

Unfortunately, they were not waterproofed. Oh dear. Water come in. Bye, bye floors, bye bye.
Not many hurricanes in Germany, then?

[ap on 26.06.06 at 14:28]

There's no hurricanes in Canada or the U.K.

[BBC on 26.06.06 at 14:43]

No shit. But that's whose doing the reporting and the research into hurricane proofing the houses.

[H Reardon on 26.06.06 at 14:57]

"The yanks don't think anything outside the U.S. is worth paying attention to, so they would never examine how Bermuda houses are constructed. That's why I laugh everytime a hurricane hits Florida, and those morons boo-woo about their houses collapsing."

Posted by ap on 26.06.06 at 10:13

First of all, the study was done for the University of Western Ontario. Pretty sure that isn't in the US.

Secondly, it is not practical to build concrete block in Florida--the difference of $90-120 a square foot construction cost in Florida to $300 a square foot in Bermuda is significant. Further, Florida does not have the volcanic bedrock of Bermuda. Putting concrete block on reclaimed swamp land doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

[observor on 26.06.06 at 15:01]

Florida does not have the volcanic bedrock of Bermuda. Ummmm .... you might want to research that comment a little further. That volcanic bedrock is a little deeper underground than you might think.

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 15:12]

Deep? Only at the Pembroke Dump and that's getting deeper by the day. ;-)

[Adjustah on 26.06.06 at 15:26]

"Deep? Only at the Pembroke Dump and that's getting deeper by the day. ;-)"

Getting pretty deep around Parliament too...

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 15:33]

Lol - that house is a great example of hurricane proofing. With all the hot-air lift it's roof gets I'm surprised it hasn't blown off and is sitting in the harbour....

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 26.06.06 at 15:50]

Reardon,

Sorry I disagree with you about the practicality. It is not about what is practical it is purely about the tme it takes to build because a frame house, from a material perspective, is really no ore expensive than a concrete block house.

Cement in South Florida is about $4 per bag and sand is about $10 per ton. Framing lumber is not as inexpensive as one might think when compared to concrete block.

It is purely about the developers completing as many houses as possible in as short a period as possible. The sooner he completes the sooner he can pocket his proceeds.

Further, the geologically South Florida and the Bahamas are nearly identical and every house here is built using concrete block. There are many places here in the Bahamas where entire developments have been built on re-claimed land.

Also, the foundations in South Florida are conrete block filled with rubble, just as they are here in the Bahamas.

What I find strange is that both Bermuda and the Bahamas base their building codes on BOCA yet the structures in Bermuda and the Bahamas can survive hurricane force winds. Insurance premiums are also lower in the Bahamas and Bermuda. The problem for the Bahamas is that from a reinsurance perspective we are lumped with South Florida and from time to time there is a capacity problem.

If South Florida built hurricane resistant buildings, there would be less damage following a hurricane and reinsurance rates would stabilise. Unfortunately, the lumber suppliers are also a very strong lobby group, thus the reason every roof in South Florida must be sheathed in plywood.

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 16:06]

Guilden - The demand for housing in the hurricane belt has been so strong that they throw them up as fast as possible. It just seems to me that sometimes they build houses in the US with the same mentality as they built cars. Don't make so them so they will last.
I think we will see major improvements as the newer technologies and pre-manufacturing starts getting into the field. Otherwise insurance will become prohibitive.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 26.06.06 at 17:04]

Smoking,

There are numerous products now being used, one in particular that I have been asked to participate in can be designed to withstand 200+ mph sustained winds and can be built faster than a wood frame structure.

I am really excited about what this product can do for the construction industry.

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 20:33]

Guilden - sounds great. Is it a project/product born out of the Bahamas? Or is it a US/Florida program?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 26.06.06 at 22:15]

Smoking,

It is actually a Canadian product. I actually act as distributor for another Canadian manufacturer and I can tell you there are some very good building products coming out of Canada.

It really does not surprise that the testing above is being done in Canada because the country is a leader in new building product development, many of the products are for hurricane prone regions.

[H Reardon on 27.06.06 at 14:07]

"from a material perspective, is really no ore expensive than a concrete block house."

But when considering labor, it is much more expensive to build concrete block. And obviously the insurance credit you would get for building concrete block versus wood frame isn't great enough to offset the increased cost.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 27.06.06 at 16:03]

Reardon,

So at what point do U.S. hurricane prone regions wake up and realise that the structures they build are a hazard in hurricane conditions? Why should residents have to drive hundreds of miles to stay in a shelter when all they need to do is build homes that are conducive to the local evironment?

Surely the cost of insurance could have been much better contained had homes been built to at least stand a chance in a severe hurricane, some major damage has been caused in South Florida through not so severe storms.

Katrina came ashore in South Florida as a Cat 1 and cause over a billion in damage.

Come on Reardon, there is no harm in admitting that change is necessary.

[Tooner on 27.06.06 at 16:34]

The good thing about Bermuda's building code is that homes built with typical N.A. construction methods and materials aren't allowed. The bad thing is that it's a challenge to build BETTER buildings using new ideas and materials.

Have a look at http://www.domeofahome.com/ to see what I mean. I wonder if something like this could ever be built in Bermuda, even though it's a lot more disaster-proof than cinder block and slate roof homes. It's also considerably more energy efficient, too.

The contruction method is essentially spray-on concrete. There are no blocks used. See www.monolithic.com for more details than you could ever want.

[Pistolet de tabagisme on 27.06.06 at 16:53]

Pardon the slight deviation but the one thing that really concerns me about more modern constructiuon methods is the effect it will have on emplyment and sustainability in a small island economy. Granted it might be more expensive but the fact becomes what will happen to skilled artisans when all we start doing is bringing in pre-made walls and slabs and just hoist them in place in a matter of 24 hours?

As far as the over-all economy is concerned we could find oursleves putting ourselves out of business in the long run over some very short-term gains. This will obviously have some major trickle down effects.

It is a major issue that a place like Bermuda really needs to spend some time evaluating and doing the projections. I suppose one of the benefits of a hurricane is it helps keep people employed in the construction business. (There that got it back on topic.)

[SmokingGun on 27.06.06 at 16:54]

Oh shoot - I gave my identity away. Rats.

[Copper on 27.06.06 at 20:03]

Firstly wood framed houses if built properly can be just as resistant to hurriucanes as block houses. It's not the block but the roofs. If the roof fails in a wood framed house then the house goes. If the roof is properly tied down then it won't being going any where. An excellent example is when hurricane Andrew swept through Florida there was a great picture of one development that looked as if nothing happened (other than the trees gone, debris from neighboring hoods scattered etc.) and the surrounding developments totally flattened. The difference was that the one developer just built his house properly. Clips on rafters top plates tied down to foundation etc. I think he said it cost him less than $100 per house.

[SmokingGun on 27.06.06 at 20:14]

Copper - you are correct and in fact I believe it is still legal to build "wood" houses in Bermuda. You just have to make sure you use the clips!
Which will probably set you back $500.00 in "Bermuda" dollars....

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 27.06.06 at 20:16]

Cooper,

I cannot disagree with you that the roof is the weak link in any house and that a wood frame house can in fact, be built to withsatnd hurricane conditions. The problem is most contractors do not build wood frame house as they should be built because there is a lot of pressure on them to build as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

Southampton Princess has a section that is constructed totally of wood, I recently met the President of the Canadian company that designed the section and during Fabian there was a lot of window damage but no damage to the structure.

When building wooden structures for hurricane prone regions heavier lumber is required and the right straps and ties must be used.

[H Reardon on 28.06.06 at 09:28]

Guilden,

I'm never a proponent for forcing someone to use (build on) their property in a certain way, unless it is affecting his neighbors (loud music, working dump, ect). Governments should be focused on getting information to its citizens rather than imposing building restrictions on them.

For example, "if you build this structure it will withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, but if you build this cheaper structure it will withstand only Cat 1. Your annual insurance savings would be X." That's what I'd like to see Florida or US Government doing. Not killing the property values in Florida by imposing stricter standards.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.06.06 at 10:04]

Reardon,

How about flying debris from a house that is severely damaged in a Cat 1, where the owner knew it would only withstand a Cat 1? Surely public safety has to be an issue when it come to building homes in hurricane prone regions.

The building code should very clearly state the qualitity of home that must be built and in a hurricane prone region that quality has to be higher than in a non-hurricane prone region. This must occur for the protection of property, which drives insurance premiums, which impacts all property owners and it must be done to protect life, not necessarily of the homeowner but his neighbours.

From what you have stated, am I to assume that seat belt laws should state that here is what happens in an accident when you wear a seat belt and here is what happens when you don't? Then let the individual driver decide?

[H Reardon on 28.06.06 at 12:02]

Guilden,

Then the owner of the debris is liable to the owner of the property damaged.

Insurance premiums are different for quality of construction. Except in the case where the state steps in and doesn't allow proper pricing of insurance (NJ Auto, for example) the premium is meant to relate to the loss costs of a structure. If the insurance is priced properly and the state hasn't messed things up with bizarre rules and regulations, my next door neighbor with the poorly constructed house will pay his proper amount, and my steel reinforced concrete block will pay my proper price.

Seat belt and helmet laws are once again the state forcing its will--making a choice for someone.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 28.06.06 at 12:32]

Guilden,

You haven't got it yet, have ya?

These guys thing that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want, however they want whenever they want and nobody had better tell them different? Any law that infringes in the slightest on them doing whatever the hell they want? That's evil. That's forcing people against their will.

Arguing with Galt or Reardon is fruitless.

My house is built sub-par for a hurricane? Pshaw. Don't tell me how to build my house, even though it'll explode in a Cat 1, and damage everything around it, whereas if I had built it to specs, it prolly would have been ok. But don't force me to build to your specifications! How dare you?!
Don't force your will on me, maaan.

I've given up, GG... I'd reccomend you do, too... the headaches aren't worth it.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.06.06 at 12:48]

Elvis,

Maybe you are right on that. I will let Reardon have his free thought and expression thereof without getting in the way. I wouldn't want to infringe on his freedoms.

I guess he does not realise that reinforced concrete block can be penetrated by a piece of 2x4 which becomes a misile in hurricane froce winds. This same piece of 2x4 could kill or severely injure someone in his home. He thinks that's ok because the guy next door can do whatever he wishes on his own property, even if what he does can cause severe injury to his neighbour.

[SmokingGun on 28.06.06 at 12:57]

Guilden - I think you might find your debate is with someone who is working in one of the big cats. Maybe it is financially better to deal with the problem through an insurance policy that can generate ever increasing profits (aka bonuses) as opposed to pro-active improved building codes. As they say common sense is often the least common of the senses.

[H Reardon on 28.06.06 at 15:29]

Let me come at this from a different direction. There is a cost to improving building codes--a cost that can kill an economy. Imposing Bermuda building codes in Florida would likely kill that economy.

Sure I would like everybody's house in Florida to be able to withstand whatever Mother Nature can throw at it (although as Smoking points out, it would hurt my personal bottom line), but that just isn't practical.

It is easy to say "the building codes should be tougher," but you must also consider the consequences of that statement. What would happen if there was a new breakthrough that allowed structures to withstand 250 mph winds, but the construction costs were $1,000 a sq foot, and the Florida government came out and said all new construction must meet this standard? Construction in Florida would stop.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.06.06 at 16:53]

Reardon,

"Imposing Bermuda building codes in Florida would likely kill that economy."

Ok, from that perspective I agree with you because the entire U.S. building practice is based around lumber and plywood. To remove these materials from construction would have a significant impact on the economy.

However, eventually the U.S. construction market is going to experience a significant change because there are now building systems available that are stronger than concrete block and cheaper to build than wood framing. They provide better insulation, reducing energy costs and they can withstand 200+ mph winds, which means they are ideal for hurricane prone regions.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 28.06.06 at 18:57]

Good post, H. That made a lot of sense and put it into perspective.

[SmokingGun on 28.06.06 at 19:32]

"Imposing Bermuda building codes in Florida would likely kill that economy." - H Reardon

"Ok, from that perspective I agree with you because the entire U.S. building practice is based around lumber and plywood." - Guilden

Actually Guilden the entire US building practise is based around Lobbying. Whoever's got the most money and biggest interests will force the status qou.

I really think the idea that the economy will falter is an old mind-set and no-one should really expect it to go to the opposite ends of the extreme.

The fact is many areas of the US are not affected by Hurricanes so there will continue to be great use of traditional materials and methods. However when it comes to the states that are then two things happen. The vast majority of houses that get flattened are in trailer parks. Small mobile home type structures that will not cost an overly high amount to replace with a safer structure built on site as oppossed to having been shipped in from elsewhere. The fact that they are very cheap to start with will just force an increase in the over-all market to a more true selling price. The second thing is the larger more expansive houses tend to have better construction methods and materials so the upgrades may not need to be significant. Eventually a hurricane or tornado or flood is going to do some damage but that's what comes with the territory. By forcing the building standards to move upwards it will in fact improve the economy and bring jobs.

[Njegos on 29.06.06 at 12:13]

I'm never a proponent for forcing someone to use (build on) their property in a certain way, unless it is affecting his neighbors (loud music, working dump, ect).

Sounds like government intervention can be quite useful.

[H Reardon on 29.06.06 at 12:35]

"Small mobile home type structures that will not cost an overly high amount to replace with a safer structure built on site as oppossed to having been shipped in from elsewhere."

You seem to know more about this than I, but I find it hard to believe that a significantly safer structure can be built anywhere near the cost of a mobile home. Getting rid of mobile homes, for example, will create many of the same housing issues that Bermuda has. You can get a fairly nice place to live for $300-400 a month with a mobile home in the US. That's is about a $60,000 mortgage, which includes the price of the land.

[SmokingGun on 29.06.06 at 12:52]

H Reardon - the building technology today for small residences still has a lot to do with being mobile. It's just called pre-assembly/manufacturing. Wall sections etc. will still be manufactured in other parts of the country and brought in for final assembly much like a piece of furniture from IKEA. For instance alot of builders in the North-East USA will source out of the Carolinas because the cost of labour is half or less. The key factor is upgrading the standards along the way. There are also other technologies that allow for building structures using foam cores and poured or sprayed plaster/concrete. Very quick and easy.

Cost containment is all about scale and there's a lot to be said about cookie cutters. Ultimately prices in the housing markets will rise. Ironically it's pretty much what every homeowner wants anyway.