[effgee]

Originally Posted by Troll

Now I'm confused. First you said they cost the same and then you said wood is cheaper.

I admit that my post was long and a bit on the convoluted side ... but you still need to read the entire sentence ... they will (roughly) cost the same if you build them in the same location, adhering to exactly the same standards, etc. - that first example was more of a mind-exercise than anything else.



Homes in the US are (generally) considerably cheaper than their counterparts in Europe because of the lower price of land, lower requirements in energy efficiency, cheaper materials (if you don't adhere to the same standards in energy efficiency and leave out much of the insulation, wood-frame structures are a lot cheaper than solid ones), etc. Lower requirements in terms of energy efficiency also leads to cheaper heating systems, plumbing, etc.

Originally Posted by Troll

I'll concede that you can make a wood frame house as energy efficient and comfortable as a masonry house, but I just don't buy the allegation that you can build it as strong. If you built your house out of railway sleeper (which are the toughest wooden objects I can think of), I still think a masonry wall of the same thickness would be vastly stronger. Masonry constructions are steel reinforced too. If wood were as solid as stone, we'd see more wooden monuments around today.

To get the same strength, you'll need a considerably thicker wooden wall but we're not talking astronomical differences here. As far as energy efficiency goes, here's a quick'n dirty example ...

Here in Krautland, the "insulation value" of any construction material is called the "lambda value", the lower the number, the better the insulation. Areated concrete for example, has a lambda value of 0.09 (which is very good!), solid Canadian red cedar has a lambda value of 0.079, meaning that if you were to build a house out of massive logs of Canadian red cedar, you'd have a higher level of energy efficiency than if you were to do using areated concrete (assuming the thickness of the walls is equal) - which in itself is one of the most energy efficient concrete products.

And no, most masonry walls (brick, concrete products, lime malm brick, etc.) do not have a steel-rod infrastructure that would "cover" an entire wall. Usually, steel reinforcements are made for solid concrete elements such as the parts above windows/doors (no idea what the proper English word for those is - "Stürze" in German), the foundation and the foundation-like bed on top of which the roof is constructed (as long as you have a heavy roof construction such as concrete roof tiles, etc.) - steel reinforcements are also very common for commercial buildings where the sheer height and/or weight requires the structural advantages.



edit: There are some brick products (they're almost entirely hollow, "Hohlziegel" in German) that need to be filled with concrete and require the insertion of story-tall vertical steel rods after you complete the intial masonry process - but at least in my area that is considered "cheap" / "outdated" not only because of the relatively large amount of work involved in building such a structure but also because of the poor energy efficiency of the wall itself (needs lots of insulation to get to the same level of energy efficiency as other comparable brick products)

[The iMac Man]

Yey, another reason to trash on America! Sigh.... can't you find anything better to do?

[effgee]

Originally Posted by The iMac Man

Yey, another reason to trash on America! Sigh.... can't you find anything better to do?

and you were talking to who exactly?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

von Wrangell, why are we arguing? We seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.

Because it's fun! hmmm, maybe not.

Exactly. Getting away is not a practical solution for you, as you say further down, and so you try to weather the storms (and similar phenomena) instead. The best defense is not being where the storm is, but that doesn't mean there aren't other good defenses if (as in Iceland) getting away poses problems.

The point is that different techniques are appropriate for different places, and they depend on many different factors. What works for Louisiana doesn't work for Iceland, and vice versa.

Actually, we started building our houses in a way to withstand the weather as soon as we settled this island. And we are very stubborn and won't accept having to move because of some natural phenomena. Only a 100 years ago (and even less in certain places) people here lived in houses like these that were able to withstand most storms:

http://chris.laine.free.fr/Islande/IMGP1049.JPG

I guess we are not necessarily arguing about what is best but rather about what we accept in our lives. Icelanders don't accept having to move or evacuate unless absolutely necessary (like in Heimaey). Which makes it impossible for me to understand why people build houses that can't withstand storms as well as how people can accept having to evacuate their homes.

That or I just like talking about Iceland and comparing it to other areas on this planet.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by The iMac Man

Yey, another reason to trash on America! Sigh.... can't you find anything better to do?

Actually I think a lot of people are showing concern for the well-being of Americans. There's a story on the BBC and CNN about an old guy from a poor neighbourhood who was on the roof of his home holding the hand of his wife as their house split in two and she was washed away. That's heartbreaking and I think natural to ask whether the houses couldn't be built stronger. I asked the same questions of places affected by the tsunami. Isn't there something that could be done to prevent this happening again. I don't think that's using an opportunity to bash America.

[ghporter]

Troll, the point is that the wall in question withstood Hurricane Camille, previously the most devastating storm to hit that area ever. And the pictures of shattered houses are almost entirely ALONG OR VERY NEAR TO THE BEACH. That's storm surge destruction you're seeing. Anything away from the beach that was destroyed that way was done in by a tornado.

Pooka, I was in Biloxi for Frederick-a category 3 storm if I recall correctly. We spent a LONG time cleaning up after that. NO hurricane is "minimal" if you're in it, and any hurricane deserves respect.

tooki, I've long thought that we should place "decoy trailer parks" out away from residential areas-they seem to attract tornadoes so well, maybe that would help keep them away from where people really live! Having had a tornado go through my front yard when I was a kid, these things are still pretty scary to me.

von Wrangell, while high winds, particularly as high as the ones you report, are nothing to sneeze at, sustained wind is only part of the destructive power of a hurricane. The driving, torrential rain and flooding are also significant, and worst of all is the storm surge, which can basically bulldoze anything in its path. In reports from Biloxi, multi-megaton casino barges were moved inland over structures built entirely to keep them in place. After Hurricane Camille they found an oceangoing freighter half a mile inland in the middle of Gulfport. Wind can do a lot of damage, but it ain't got nothin' on the water!

I still maintain that you can build out of anything you want and still not be safe from a severe storm. I also agree with Pooka's assessment that there should be no tears shed for millionaires who lost vacation mansions they foolishly built in harm's way.

In general, the "standard construction materials and methods" for a given area are effective and safe in most situations. Just living in a place like the Gulf Coast (particularly in places like the Mississippi Gulf Coast counties) is a gamble that a storm WON'T come your way, so whatever you build with should take that gamble into account. If it doesn't and you "roll craps," that's how the game goes. But NEVER ignore an evacuation warning. NEVER, EVER!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

von Wrangell, while high winds, particularly as high as the ones you report, are nothing to sneeze at, sustained wind is only part of the destructive power of a hurricane. The driving, torrential rain and flooding are also significant, and worst of all is the storm surge, which can basically bulldoze anything in its path.

Take a look at a map of the northern Atlantic When there's wind there is water. Both from above and from the ocean.

It's quite refreshing actually

[Troll]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Which makes it impossible for me to understand why people build houses that can't withstand storms as well as how people can accept having to evacuate their homes.

As someone else pointed out, there are certain things you can't build a house to withstand. If your home suddenly becomes part of a lake, there's not much you can do to make it resist. A wave of water whacking your home is probably going to wipe it out and if it doesn't, it's still not much good being holed up inside a house that's now on the bed of a lake.

I don't think it's realistic to build houses in anticipation of absolutely anything that might happen, but in this area, it must be pretty clear to people that they need special construction techniques just as parts of Japan use special construction techniques for earthquakes.

I think we need to purchase and distribute copies of "The Three Little Pigs" once people have got over the trauma of this event. Maybe just after we form a company building houses out of good ol' masonry.

[MacNStein]

Stone, wood, use both. A couple of quick snaps of my house last winter... and the structure is rated at 150MPH gusts, >125MPH sustained. Not that that helps much in East TN, we get tornados (300MPH focused winds, ouch).





It has the benefits of wood (looks and flexibility) while keeping the strong points of stone (better structure support and improved heating & cooling performance).

People need to build more log homes.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Troll

As someone else pointed out, there are certain things you can't build a house to withstand. If your home suddenly becomes part of a lake, there's not much you can do to make it resist. A wave of water whacking your home is probably going to wipe it out and if it doesn't, it's still not much good being holed up inside a house that's now on the bed of a lake.

I don't think it's realistic to build houses in anticipation of absolutely anything that might happen, but in this area, it must be pretty clear to people that they need special construction techniques just as parts of Japan use special construction techniques for earthquakes.

True, there is little that can be done about the flooding (except perhaps build bigger walls, or whatever it is called, to stop it) but the wind shouldn't do nearly as much damage as it did there. That's the thing I don't understand. It is known that this area (Mexican Gulf) will be hit by hurricanes. Then why do they build houses that are so weak?

I think we need to purchase and distribute copies of "The Three Little Pigs" once people have got over the trauma of this event. Maybe just after we form a company building houses out of good ol' masonry.

Sounds good!

[pooka]

got wood?

And you suck!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Stone, wood, use both. A couple of quick snaps of my house last winter... and the structure is rated at 150MPH gusts, >125MPH sustained. Not that that helps much in East TN, we get tornados (300MPH focused winds, ouch).

...snipped images....

It has the benefits of wood (looks and flexibility) while keeping the strong points of stone (better structure support and improved heating & cooling performance).

People need to build more log homes.

Beautiful house you got there.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by analogika

Wood is cheaper until you start factoring in stuff like energy-efficiency, etc.

That depends. Traditional wood-frame construction can be troublesome, but there are some interesting things being done right now. I've been mentioning it a lot recently, but I'm really interested in combining it with straw-bale construction. The result probably wouldn't stand much chance in a hurricane, but it would be very easy and inexpensive to rebuild relative to most other methods, and it's hard to beat straw bale for energy efficiency. The early r60-insulation claims are dubious, but more rigorous testing still shows values of almost r30, while most traditional insulation can't even hit r10.

Of course, that simply isn't the case in the US, where... the cultural background of home-ownership is a very different one, probably more akin to the European idea of owning a car.

I don't understand what you mean by this, mostly because I'm not sure I understand "the European idea of owning a car". Could you elaborate?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Troll, the point is that the wall in question withstood Hurricane Camille, previously the most devastating storm to hit that area ever. And the pictures of shattered houses are almost entirely ALONG OR VERY NEAR TO THE BEACH. That's storm surge destruction you're seeing. Anything away from the beach that was destroyed that way was done in by a tornado.

Well, we're talking past each other here now. It seems to be generally accepted that masonry is STRONGER than wood. Whether it would have been STRONG ENOUGH I guess we won't know until we see a picture of a masonry building along the coast that survived. At least we can build them to resist the wind, don't you think?

Resisting the sea is obviously a multi-layered strategy consisting of a breakwater plus having buildings that are secure enough to resist flood waters. If you look at St Malo, a city on the French coast that has faced huge storms for 800 years, everything is built there from stone. They have breakwaters that consist of wooden piles along the beach to break up the waves before they hit, then a big stone retaining wall and stone houses facing the sea. I'm not saying that these buildings would have resisted the force of Katrina but they are strong enough to resist anything nature has thrown at them for 800 years. As others are pointing out, some of these homes haven't even been repaired since the last hurricane that happened only a few years ago. People know that wood isn't strong enough and yet they are using the same construction techniques to build the new ones. It doesn't make sense.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The result probably wouldn't stand much chance in a hurricane, but it would be very easy and inexpensive to rebuild relative to most other methods, and it's hard to beat straw bale for energy efficiency.

I have three words for you - hemp.

It's a great insulator and if your house catches fire, you won't care.

[pooka]

I'm going to have to ask some of the builders I work with what their opinions are on this. I do a bit of work with several coastal real estate and building companies. Most of the homes and communities being built along the gulf are some of the most expensive in the country. I can't see material costs being that significant a factor when these multi-million dollar developments are built. Maybe it's a huge insurance scam.

And I could be wrong, but in my personal experience with hurricanes, it's the water and debris that wreak the most havoc. That and the damn trees. (pic from my neighborhood yesterday)

Aside from roof damage, I've haven't seen that much structural failure from the wind alone.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I don't understand what you mean by this, mostly because I'm not sure I understand "the European idea of owning a car". Could you elaborate?

In Europe, a car is considered a tool. Europeans generally don't wash their cars ever, they park by simply driving into the car in front of them. A car that is more than 6 months old that isn't dented is extremely rare but the average European wouldn't care if it did have dents. I think he's saying that Europeans treat cars as consumables. In my experience, Americans have very similar "cultural links" to their homes to Europeans although it is true that a home seems to represent less of a financial commitment to the average American than to the average European.

What do you guys pay per square metre where you stay? My flat in Paris cost me 5,000 Euros per square metre (about $580 per square foot) and that's an average price for a normal area. When I was living in LA, prices were significantly lower.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by pooka

Looks like the tree was just dropping in for a cuppa. "But baby it's cold outside".

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I don't understand what you mean by this, mostly because I'm not sure I understand "the European idea of owning a car". Could you elaborate?

Sorry - owning a car is something that's understood to generally happen to most people eventually, like founding a family or having a steady job. My understanding is that home ownership is a similar "norm" in the States. Cars are bought, used, and sold, as income, status, or state of the automobile change over time.

In Europe, or at least in Germany, the vast majority of people rent their homes, not own, and when they buy, they generally either rent it out, or stay for the rest of their lives.


Oh, and as for parking by driving into the car in front of them: Paris is not representative of the entirety of Europe, but yes, living in Hamburg's party/red-light district, I too have mastered the art of "contact parking". However, I am very careful - and that is the art - not to leave a mark.

And of course, if it's a car without a bumper (stupid cars) or an oldtimer or something - no contact at all.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Troll

When I was living in LA, prices were significantly lower.

I started to do the math and got to this part. I don't even want to know.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by pooka

I started to do the math and got to this part. I don't even want to know.

I edited it to add a conversion. I reckon the value today is about $600 per square foot.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

In Europe, or at least in Germany, the vast majority of people rent, not own, and when they buy, they generally either rent it out, or stay for the rest of their lives.

Note that while this may apply to Germany (and probably France) as Analogika states, it doesn't apply to the UK, where most people own (and now aspire to own, since Blair's boys screwed up the housing market). Frequency of movement after purchase seems to be a personal thing (some people stay, some people use the property ladder as a way of building net worth).

[ThinkInsane]

My first home was 181 years old (that would make it 189 now, and it's still there) . It was wood frame construction, and in fine shape. Except for the foundation and basement, as the masonry was crumbling and had to be reworked.

Granted, we don't get hurricanes and tornados here, but we measure snowfall in feet, not inches, and at least one yearly storm that measures 6+ feet of snow in 24 hours isn't uncommon. That's an awful lot of weight, but the wood frame houses, even the very old ones, bear it just fine (of course there are exceptions, roofs do come down from time to time). Oh, and the joyous ice storms that have taken down more than one building around here, concrete or wood.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

Granted, we don't get hurricanes and tornados here, but we measure snowfall in feet, not inches, and at least one yearly storm that measures 6+ feet of snow in 24 hours isn't uncommon. That's an awful lot of weight, but the wood frame houses, even the very old ones, bear it just fine (of course there are exceptions, roofs do come down from time to time). Oh, and the joyous ice storms that have taken down more than one building around here, concrete or wood.

In the alps a lot of the old chalets are made of wood too. Nothing better than a log cabin, snow, a nice warm fire and the co-ed naked womens' ski team.

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by Troll

What do you guys pay per square metre where you stay? My flat in Paris cost me 5,000 Euros per square metre (about $580 per square foot) and that's an average price for a normal area. When I was living in LA, prices were significantly lower.

About $100 per sq/ft. Which is about the national avg.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Troll

In the alps a lot of the old chalets are made of wood too. Nothing better than a log cabin, snow, a nice warm fire and the co-ed naked womens' ski team.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

About $100 per sq/ft. Which is about the national avg.

Unbelievable. That is so cheap. I don't know what the national average is for France. It looks like NY and Paris are pretty comparable so perhaps the average for France is a lot lower than Paris.

What's really interesting though is the increase in prices in various places. Here's the top ten:

Rank Country One-Year Change Three-Year Change
1 SOUTH AFRICA 28% 95%
2 CHINA (Shanghai) 27% 68%
3 SPAIN 17% 63%
4 AUSTRALIA -3% 56%
5 NEW ZEALAND 16% 55%
6 UNITED KINGDOM 11% 50%
7 FRANCE 15% 48%
7 IRELAND 13% 42%
9 CANADA 10% 31%
10 UNITED STATES 11% 29%

I wish I had bought in South Africa when I was living there.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Troll

Unbelievable. That is so cheap. I don't know what the national average is for France. It looks like NY and Paris are pretty comparable so perhaps the average for France is a lot lower than Paris.

What's really interesting though is the increase in prices in various places. Here's the top ten:

Rank Country One-Year Change Three-Year Change
1 SOUTH AFRICA 28% 95%
2 CHINA (Shanghai) 27% 68%
3 SPAIN 17% 63%
4 AUSTRALIA -3% 56%
5 NEW ZEALAND 16% 55%
6 UNITED KINGDOM 11% 50%
7 FRANCE 15% 48%
7 IRELAND 13% 42%
9 CANADA 10% 31%
10 UNITED STATES 11% 29%

I wish I had bought in South Africa when I was living there.

Where did you get that list?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Troll

In Europe, a car is considered a tool. Europeans generally don't wash their cars ever, they park by simply driving into the car in front of them. A car that is more than 6 months old that isn't dented is extremely rare but the average European wouldn't care if it did have dents.

French ≠ European

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

That's the thing I don't understand. It is known that this area (Mexican Gulf) will be hit by hurricanes. Then why do they build houses that are so weak?

It's just a different point of view. The thought is that since it's not possible to completely guarantee that a building will weather a storm, it's better to take for granted that it will be destroyed and plan in advance for rebuilding. Rather than reduce the risk of destruction, they plan around it, opting for cyclical rebuilding over permanent structures. I don't know if I agree with that mindset, and there are certainly better choices they could be making if they wanted to go for cyclical rebuilding, but it works for them. And if it doesn't, they'll change; this is a good opportunity for that to happen should they choose to do so.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Where did you get that list?

Economy.com printed it a while back, but you can find it here:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen..._real_est.html

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Troll

Economy.com printed it a while back, but you can find it here:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen..._real_est.html

Thanks

[Troll]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

French ≠ European

True, it wasn't my point. In Germany, it's a whole different story.

By the way, the word you were looking for earlier, the thing above the door is called a lintel in English. Wie heisst's auf Deutsch?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by effgee

Usually, steel reinforcements are made for solid concrete elements such as the parts above windows/doors (no idea what the proper English word for those is - "Stürze" in German)

Lintel.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Troll

By the way, the word you were looking for earlier, the thing above the door is called a lintel in English. Wie heisst's auf Deutsch?

That was effge, not me. The German word is "Sturz" ("linteau" in French).

[Judge_Fire]

Originally Posted by Troll

Wait a minute. Wood comes from trees. Bricks and concrete come from sand. Surely it's less environmentally friendly to use chop down trees than to bake sand into bricks?

Trees (can) grow back, reusing the space instead of leaving a hole in the ground. And as they grow, they tie up carbon dioxide. Add that to the molecules in the wood used for construction and whoa, reversal of greenhouse effect

J

[Troll]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

That was effge, not me. The German word is "Sturz" ("linteau" in French).

Oops. Anyway, danke herr Duden.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

French ≠ European

French have a built-in park assistant which is built-in for decades. For free. It's called hearing, so if you hear and feel a slight bump, you should change gear and then slowly (or not so slowly) approach the other end's car.

Do it in Germany, and, if the owner sees you, you're dead, I would say

[effgee]

Lintel! Duh!

Not only should I have remembered that but I also thought LEO didn't have an entry for "Sturz" (Tür-/Fenstersturz, respectively) at all only to find out 5 minutes ago that I overlooked the entry this afternoon. Time to get those glasses, methinks.

Thanks guys!

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Troll

Well, we're talking past each other here now. It seems to be generally accepted that masonry is STRONGER than wood. Whether it would have been STRONG ENOUGH I guess we won't know until we see a picture of a masonry building along the coast that survived. At least we can build them to resist the wind, don't you think?

Resisting the sea is obviously a multi-layered strategy consisting of a breakwater plus having buildings that are secure enough to resist flood waters. If you look at St Malo, a city on the French coast that has faced huge storms for 800 years, everything is built there from stone. They have breakwaters that consist of wooden piles along the beach to break up the waves before they hit, then a big stone retaining wall and stone houses facing the sea. I'm not saying that these buildings would have resisted the force of Katrina but they are strong enough to resist anything nature has thrown at them for 800 years. As others are pointing out, some of these homes haven't even been repaired since the last hurricane that happened only a few years ago. People know that wood isn't strong enough and yet they are using the same construction techniques to build the new ones. It doesn't make sense.

I keep forgetting that not everyone has the same experience I have with certain geography. The Mississippi Gulf Coase is (maybe was) protected by a series of barier islands, including Ship Island and Cat Island, along with a particularly shallow shelf that goes out many miles. Typically storm surges do NOT surmount both the islands and the shallows. This off-shore geography should provide protection similar to what you get with rock breakwaters and the kinds of underwater bariers usually placed by man to protect a coastline. The area I'm talking about has weathered hundreds of storms, and many hurricanes without this level of destruction, because this was a particularly potent storm.

The whole point I was trying to make was that IT DOES NOT MATTER what you make a home or other building out of if it is subject to these kinds of forces. And I have to admit that I took offense at the thought that people's homes were "needlessly destroyed" because they were made with traditional materials and methods, because that is certainly not the case. Here in the States we do not have 300-year old chateaus, 500-year old castles, and the like, and construction has focused on private family dwellings, not elaborate masonry originally built for aristocrats, so we're not likely to have the kind of building that you talked about your Paris apartment being in. And considering that the vast majority of people in the U.S. live far enough inland that a storm surge is never a consideration makes the assertion that our traditional building methods are dangerous ludicrous.

Except for buildings right on certain coastlines, traditional methods are quite robust and are more than adequate for forseeable weather. Structures that are potentially subject to ALL of a hurricane's effects at the same time must either be exptected to take a huge amount of damage, or be built so massively (and horendously expensively) that they simply cannot fail to survive. And it's foolhardy to even suggest that a home that has stood the test of storm and time should be replaced simply because more robust building techniques and materials are now available? Who's going to pay for replacing all the homes that have been there for 40 or more years and have done just fine until now?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Who's going to pay for replacing all the homes that have been there for 40 or more years and have done just fine until now?

If you're asking who's going to pay for all those homes that were just fine on Saturday and aren't fine right now (after all, they stood THAT long) -- I know the answer. Taxpayers, and insurance customers.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by finboy

If you're asking who's going to pay for all those homes that were just fine on Saturday and aren't fine right now (after all, they stood THAT long) -- I know the answer. Taxpayers, and insurance customers.

I'm talking about some potential project to replace existing homes because they aren't "state of the art" anymore. THAT would be ludicrous.

Of course insurance and FEMA and other support will be footing the bill for replacing what has just been destroyed; that kind of thing is covered, at least by flood insurance, and it makes sense. Now if the homes had been rich folks vacation spots built on beaches that are already overexposed to the elements (South Padre Island, NC's Outer Banks), then I'd say "fine 'em for poluting the sea with their ill concieved conspicuous consumption.'" Just my 2¢ worth on that score...

[ThinkInsane]

From these pictures on CNN, it looks like the brick didn't fare much better than the wood did. The wood house only seems to have lost its vinyl siding and Tyvek while there's an awful lot of brick piled up there.







(yes, I know that's not proof that wood is superior to masonry)



It looks like a house soup.

[von Wrangell]

OK, this might cause a stir and make this thread go down in flames but..........

Why is it that in most of the pics I've seen it seems like the areas worst out all are mostly african-american areas? Is there still such a big difference between the living conditions in the US?

edit: example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h..._us/html/1.stm


Disclaimer: Just an honest question and not meant to start a flamewar.

[pooka]

Around 70% of New Orleans citizens are African American. New Orleans is also one of the poorest cities in the nation. A lot of the media coverage has been around the city itself which contains many of the public housing districts and way too many in these areas refused or were unable to evacuate. Plenty of the "richer" surrounding areas have suffered as much if not more damage. St. Bernard Parish is basically gone. The entire area is submerged. I think the main difference is that many chose to flee.

aerial view

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by pooka

Around 70% of New Orleans citizens are African American. New Orleans is also one of the poorest cities in the nation. A lot of the media coverage has been around the city itself which contains many of the public housing districts and way too many in these areas refused or were unable to evacuate. Plenty of the "richer" surrounding areas have suffered as much if not more damage. St. Bernard Parish is basically gone. The entire area is submerged. I think the main difference is that many chose to flee.

aerial view

Ah, k. I didn't know that. Thanks

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by pooka

I think the main difference is that many chose to flee.

How about "many were ABLE to flee." A lot of people don't have the resources to bug out on short notice-with the fair public transportation available in New Orleans (it's there and just about all over, but not in the best of shape), a whole lot of people don't have cars. How does one evacuate with enough to survive for a couple of days without transportation?

[Hugi]

I've paid special notice to houses under construction in San José, CA when I have gone there. Having worked a tiny bit on carpentry here in Iceland, I was amazed at how different house frames look there - the planks are tiny in comparison and very and widely spaced. I remember my astonishment when one night I snuck up to a fire station being built there. The frame was finished and they were about to start covering it - but you could literally shake the entire frame around using a little force!! It almost looked like it was made from matchsticks. (3" planks)

Since then, I have never been surprised when I see US houses being torn to pieces in Hurricanes.

[ghporter]

For everyone's information, we should all note that the basic strength of a wood frame structure is in the COVERING. The framework gives the covering a shape, and the covering gives the structure stiffness. Hugi, I'm sure you could shake an unfinished framework. But once it's sheathed (even in the fairly thin "Thermo Gard" stuff they use around here (it's like thick, non-corrugated cardboard), you could NOT do so. This is one reason that a house that falls victim to a tornado fails so abruptly-when the outer walls blow out, the structural integrity of the whole structure fails completely and what's left is simply a stack of parts.

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by ghporter

For everyone's information, we should all note that the basic strength of a wood frame structure is in the COVERING. The framework gives the covering a shape, and the covering gives the structure stiffness. Hugi, I'm sure you could shake an unfinished framework. But once it's sheathed (even in the fairly thin "Thermo Gard" stuff they use around here (it's like thick, non-corrugated cardboard), you could NOT do so. This is one reason that a house that falls victim to a tornado fails so abruptly-when the outer walls blow out, the structural integrity of the whole structure fails completely and what's left is simply a stack of parts.

My point exactly. When we finished a frame for a building up here, you could definitely _not_ shake it around. Someone trying to patch together a frame with Tex (probably the same material you call "Thermo guard") up here would probably be considered crazy.

Different places, different regulations.