Housing choices and climate risks

[Wildcat]

The thing about people moving out of flood zones, or not buying in flood zones, is that this country is growing and all that building changes the topography.

Water from storms that used to absorb into the ground is now prevented from doing so because of new roads, houses with driveways, shopping centers with huge parking lots and building footprints, etc. Plus, most builders clear cut all the trees so make it easier for the equipment to get around and will flatten out small mounds/hills to create a more level area. All that displaced water used to absorb into the ground, or at least take more time to get to the streams and rivers, now goes into our streams and rivers in a hurry, causing flooding downstream where it never used to be an issue.

I saw it happen first hand in my previous city.

So, while an area may be safe from floods now, it might not be safe down the road.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Wildcat

[Carrie12345]

36 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

But heat risk and wildfires aren't the same thing.  
I didn't see Cold Risk.   Extreme Cold is 10X more deadly than Extreme Heat.  
 

I wonder if it’s because there are more ways to combat extreme cold than there are to combat extreme heat?  
I’m not saying it isn’t a big deal, particularly in areas that aren’t already equipped. But there’s electricity, oil, coal, wood, natural gas, propane, kerosene, solar, geothermal…
Each of which have their own drawbacks of course and, no, people aren’t set up to choose which they want for the day. Plus the expenses vary.  
But cooling is highly dependent on electric to a larger degree than heating.

Just theorizing. 

[shawthorne44]

Well, that could be taken care of by eliminating the max. number of stories that many non-big cities have.   Skyscrapers are extremely environmentally efficient.    

You can't put them everywhere, for example, while apartment skyscrapers would be environmentally desirable in San Jose (just think of the eliminating the two-hour commutes), you have the earthquake problem.   But, outside of earthquake zones, they should be allowed.  

[Innisfree]

51 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

But heat risk and wildfires aren't the same thing.  
I didn't see Cold Risk.   Extreme Cold is 10X more deadly than Extreme Heat.  
 

Certainly, cold temperatures kill. At the same time, it’s possible to dress appropriately to minimize harm from the cold. That doesn’t work for extreme heat.

When temperatures are frigid, there’s not much agricultural activity taking place. Many of our most important agricultural areas are in regions affected by extreme heat. Workers there are vulnerable, as are athletes, military personnel, small children, the elderly, and anyone without access to air conditioning. 

Humid heat can be especially dangerous.

Quote

I believe that humid heat is the most underestimated direct, local risk of climate change,” said Radley Horton, a Columbia University professor and lead of NOAA's Urban Northeast RISA team who co-authored the study. “As with sea level rise and coastal flooding, we are already locked into large increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme humid heat events, and the risk is much larger than most people appreciate.”

High humid heat defeats the body’s cooling system

The researchers conducted the most rigorous analysis yet using an index called “wet-bulb temperature” based on weather station temperature and humidity data. Wet-bulb temperature, the reading from a thermometer when covered in a wet cloth, is related to how muggy it feels and represents how effectively a person sheds heat by sweating.

Sweating alone does nothing to cool the body unless the water evaporates. Around a wet-bulb temperature of 95°F (35°C), human’s survivability limit, evaporation of sweat is no longer enough for our bodies to regulate their internal temperature. But serious impacts occur at values as low as 79°F (26°C). 
….

The southeastern United States, especially along the Gulf of Mexico, had multiple incidences of wet-bulb temperatures at or above 88°F; specifically, in east Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, the Florida Panhandle, Arkansas and North Carolina. Parts of India, Pakistan, northwestern Australia, the coast of the Red Sea, and areas along the Gulf of California in Mexico saw even higher extremes. 

These hot spots were primarily concentrated in coastal areas near high ocean surface temperatures and intense continental heat — a recipe for extreme humid heat.

“Wet-bulb temperatures above 86°F (30°C) are rare in the U.S. As wet bulb temperatures approach 95°F, even the healthiest people, relaxing in the shade without heavy clothing and with an endless supply of water, cannot prevent themselves from overheating,” Horton said. “Even at lower wet-bulb temperatures, like 79°F (26°C), those with pre-existing health conditions (like respiratory, cardiovascular, and renal disease), the elderly, as well as those performing strenuous outdoor labor and athletic activities, are at a high risk.”

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2621/Dangerous-humid-heat-extremes-occurring-decades-before-expected

Some other, more general resources:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/the-dangers-of-extreme-heat/

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/climatechange/health_impacts/heat/index.cfm
 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Innisfree
Added more to the quote

[shawthorne44]

Just now, Carrie12345 said:

I wonder if it’s because there are more ways to combat extreme cold than there are to combat extreme heat?  
I’m not saying it isn’t a big deal, particularly in areas that aren’t already equipped. But there’s electricity, oil, coal, wood, natural gas, propane, kerosene, solar, geothermal…
Each of which have their own drawbacks of course and, no, people aren’t set up to choose which they want for the day. Plus the expenses vary.  
But cooling is highly dependent on electric to a larger degree than heating.

Just theorizing. 

I'm reminded of my co-worker who came in one day and said her sister had died the night before.   She lived in one of the Dakota's and driving home from work later than usual her car died.   They think she died of hypothermia within two hours.    Whereas in say Texas you will live long enough for someone to notice your car and send police to check on you.  
 

[She Travels]

My home flooded in Katrina and we were displaced for fourteen months while we rebuilt our home. It was devastating at the time. But I consider my family one of the lucky ones because we only flooded. My MIL and both BILs had their homes reduced to toothpicks. All total, our family—in-laws, aunts, and uncles—lost seven homes. 
Today I can look back and be thankful my family had the experience. My children slept on a blow-up mattress for a year. We had no other furniture than just a kitchen table. That was, of course, after we found a place to rent after spending weeks bouncing among friends and family that still had homes. We watched as people came from around the world to help rebuild our community. We saw how neighbors stepped in to help neighbors. My kids learned what real hard work meant, helping my husband gut and rebuild our home. So why wouldn’t we just move? This is our home. I can walk out my back door, get in my boat, and go to a fabulous restaurant with the best seafood ever. I can see peaceful water out my back windows. It is beautiful. And until recently, we lived here because my husband was bringing oil and gas to be used around the country. It wasn’t until another hurricane hit last year that his refinery shut down. And because of the current administration, the refinery was not rebuilt, hence part of the reason you now pay so much for gas, but that’s another story. Natural disasters can hit anywhere. Despite what the news likes to tell you, hurricanes are not getting any worse.  

[Carrie12345]

41 minutes ago, Wildcat said:

The thing about people moving out of flood zones, or not buying in flood zones, is that this country is growing and all that building changes the topography.

Water from storms that used to absorb into the ground is now prevented from doing so because of new roads, houses with driveways, shopping centers with huge parking lots and building footprints, etc. Plus, most builders clear cut all the trees so make it easier for the equipment to get around and will flatten out small mounds/hills to create a more level area. All that displaced water used to absorb into the ground, or at least take more time to get to the streams and rivers, now goes into our streams and rivers in a hurry, causing flooding downstream where it never used to be an issue.

I saw it happen first hand in my previous city.

So, while an area may be safe from floods now, it might not be safe down the road.

 

 

This was what I hated most about building a new home. (Well, about the principle; the experience is separate!)

We cleared more trees than expected. We laid a 16x20 cement pad that I feel icky about.  We’re at the top of the hill on our street.

I plan to put in a good bit of water-holding plants and what not, and we had the building and basic landscaping engineered to flow as responsibly as possible, but it’s still a noticeable change.

Our old neighborhood, less than 3 miles away, has an increase in houses flooding and septics oversaturating. My house’s location wasn’t in a spot to be impacted like that, but my unpaved driveway began washing out when my neighbor decided to pave his. Sigh.

It all adds up.

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

I'm reminded of my co-worker who came in one day and said her sister had died the night before.   She lived in one of the Dakota's and driving home from work later than usual her car died.   They think she died of hypothermia within two hours.    Whereas in say Texas you will live long enough for someone to notice your car and send police to check on you.  
 

The internet says 12 people died in Texas’ heat wave this year.

No one denies cold can kill. 

[Faith-manor]

19 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

This was what I hated most about building a new home. (Well, about the principle; the experience is separate!)

We cleared more trees than expected. We laid a 16x20 cement pad that I feel icky about.  We’re at the top of the hill on our street.

I plan to put in a good bit of water-holding plants and what not, and we had the building and basic landscaping engineered to flow as responsibly as possible, but it’s still a noticeable change.

Our old neighborhood, less than 3 miles away, has an increase in houses flooding and septics oversaturating. My house’s location wasn’t in a spot to be impacted like that, but my unpaved driveway began washing out when my neighbor decided to pave his. Sigh.

It all adds up.

It really does. And new construction is one of those times when new science, new tech should come into play so the property is more resistant to climate change issues. bUT, I find most contractors here are not up to date at all, and refuse to do things in new ways if it is not dictated by building codes. Since our building codes are about 30 years behind where they should be in this county, it is absolutely maddening. So all we can do is the best we can do, and you are doing great in my book.

That said, the individual choices of regular people won't make that much of a dent. Corporations, businesses, and the stupid federal and state governments have got to get on board. Here, every time that is suggested, one would think that someone is trying to get everyone to drink Jim Jones Koolaid. It is absolutely epic push back except where it concerns specific Great Lakes issues. Then people get fire up. Michganders love their lakes, love their wild spaces, so they do suddenly turn into activists on things like "don't dump chemicals into waterways" and such. But they can't seem to put 2 and 2 together for the conclusion that "the Great Lakes will not be immune to climate change so massive changes across the entire planet are required, and the US needs to own up its faults and get on the train before it is fifty miles out from the station". Sometimes it makes me so angry!!

[prairiewindmomma]

51 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

Well, that could be taken care of by eliminating the max. number of stories that many non-big cities have.   Skyscrapers are extremely environmentally efficient.    

You can't put them everywhere, for example, while apartment skyscrapers would be environmentally desirable in San Jose (just think of the eliminating the two-hour commutes), you have the earthquake problem.   But, outside of earthquake zones, they should be allowed.  

You can absolutely safely build skyscrapers in earthquake country. They already do, especially in Japan and Taiwan which regularly have serious earthquakes. You use seismic stabilizing building techniques such as isolators and dampeners, and you use steel framing to even out some of the stresses on the structure.

Why in the world would we ban skyscrapers in earthquake country? It actually makes sense to build a bit more densely in safer areas with better subsoil, and to put more resilience into the infrastructure. You preserve the areas more prone to liquefaction as green space but can still support the same (or more) population numbers.

[ktgrok]

We certainly did consider flood risk when buying our house last year, as well as hurricane risk. Part of that is simply the extra cost of insurance  - had we moved to the coast we knew that certain areas would be much harder to insure a house in - basically HOW close to the actual coast line makes a big difference. We also looked at flood zones, both using the regular letter designation used and I pulled up flood maps as well. 

I wouldn't refuse to live on the coast, there are so many benefits, but I'd have to be able to afford enough insurance for it to make sense, and insuring on the coast isn't cheap. I'd also need to have a hurricane evacuation plan in place, including planning well ahead to store/move items that were most important in the case of a storm. 

That said, I would NOT choose to live in a place that floods regularly. There are parts of St. Augustine that flood every time a big storm comes anywhere NEAR that part of the coast. I don't mean a direct hit, but anything anywhere near there. My aunt has rental apartments that have been flooded 4 times now by storm surge. I'm sorry, but that's mother nature's way of rezoning - time to no longer consider that land that can be lived on. At least not without stilts. (she did rebuild her own home on stilts, and did redo the rental apartments last time to be more flood resistant with PVC wallboard instead of drywall, electrical elevated up on the wall higher, etc...and sealed doors with plastic and tape, but one still got messed up when someone went back in against her wishes to ride out the storm and so door wasn't taped up and water got in. 

If you have to do that kind of stuff, its not livable land. (stilts, okay, maybe)

 

 

[Faith-manor]

Also if any of you know folks who will struggle to pay electric bills this year. If you want to help, save a few milk jugs, rinse, fill with dirt, and insert an inexpensive outdoor solar light into each pot. They can be charged outside during the day, and moved inside at night. I know some college kids who do this, and they are able to have enough light to get buy. They stick a couple of pots on their tables or desks when they need light to do homework or study. As a general rule, they do not use their overhead light fixtures or electric lamps, and it has made a significant dent in their bill. That said, converting from incandescent or fluorescent to LED warm light bulbs can make a big change too.

[Wildcat]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

This was what I hated most about building a new home. (Well, about the principle; the experience is separate!)

We cleared more trees than expected. We laid a 16x20 cement pad that I feel icky about.  We’re at the top of the hill on our street.

I plan to put in a good bit of water-holding plants and what not, and we had the building and basic landscaping engineered to flow as responsibly as possible, but it’s still a noticeable change.

Our old neighborhood, less than 3 miles away, has an increase in houses flooding and septics oversaturating. My house’s location wasn’t in a spot to be impacted like that, but my unpaved driveway began washing out when my neighbor decided to pave his. Sigh.

It all adds up.

Ugh. Man, I read about your building experience. It reinforced my idea that I could not survive a build from scratch.

It sounds like you have done everything you can to mitigate the changes you made to your parcel of land and have plans for more. I think that's great.

 

13 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

We certainly did consider flood risk when buying our house last year, as well as hurricane risk. Part of that is simply the extra cost of insurance  - had we moved to the coast we knew that certain areas would be much harder to insure a house in - basically HOW close to the actual coast line makes a big difference. We also looked at flood zones, both using the regular letter designation used and I pulled up flood maps as well. 

I wouldn't refuse to live on the coast, there are so many benefits, but I'd have to be able to afford enough insurance for it to make sense, and insuring on the coast isn't cheap. I'd also need to have a hurricane evacuation plan in place, including planning well ahead to store/move items that were most important in the case of a storm. 

That said, I would NOT choose to live in a place that floods regularly. There are parts of St. Augustine that flood every time a big storm comes anywhere NEAR that part of the coast. I don't mean a direct hit, but anything anywhere near there. My aunt has rental apartments that have been flooded 4 times now by storm surge. I'm sorry, but that's mother nature's way of rezoning - time to no longer consider that land that can be lived on. At least not without stilts. (she did rebuild her own home on stilts, and did redo the rental apartments last time to be more flood resistant with PVC wallboard instead of drywall, electrical elevated up on the wall higher, etc...and sealed doors with plastic and tape, but one still got messed up when someone went back in against her wishes to ride out the storm and so door wasn't taped up and water got in. 

If you have to do that kind of stuff, its not livable land. (stilts, okay, maybe)

 

 

We are fairly new to FL but researched the heck out of flood zones, evac areas, and even drove around 'eyeballing' the streets before finally settling on a place. Some things just don't show up in topo or flood maps... like lots of concrete/paved areas, a gently slope of an area, an aged and dying treeline close to a house, etc.

We also made sure to buy a house with impact windows, shutters on the lanai, extra ties for the roof, a reinforced garage door (exceeds the min. code), and well away from the storm drain. We are much closer to the coast than you are (Gulf side), so some of those things were non-negotiable at the time of purchase (the window situation). I would not buy where I am without impact windows or a full set of shutters.

I completely agree with you about Mother Nature rezoning. It's happening in lots of places but people (and the gov) aren't listening and continue to allow people to rebuild time and time again, which pushes the insurance costs up for the rest of us. It's not just in FL, but in other states, too, with natural disasters. I don't get it.

 

[Lady Florida.]

21 hours ago, ScoutTN said:

We never considered moving to another region as our jobs, family, and community are here. We love where we live! 

We did carefully choose to avoid homes in the flood plain, even the 500+ year one.

It's the same for us. We both grew up in the area. Our kids and grandkids are here. We have siblings and their children as well as cousins all within a 2 hour radius. This is home. When we moved to a new house 2 years ago we looked at the flood plain and chose the 500+ year one. We were also in a 500+ area before this move.

24 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

 

That said, I would NOT choose to live in a place that floods regularly. There are parts of St. Augustine that flood every time a big storm comes anywhere NEAR that part of the coast. I don't mean a direct hit, but anything anywhere near there. 

Yes it easily floods there. On more than one occasion they had parts of the main coastal highway, A1A, just wash away. I wouldn't live there.

Florida environmentalists have been railing against building up the coasts for years to no avail. That genie is not going back in the bottle. With very few exceptions our barrier islands are so built up that they're no longer the barriers nature intended.

[Wildcat]

32 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Also if any of you know folks who will struggle to pay electric bills this year. If you want to help, save a few milk jugs, rinse, fill with dirt, and insert an inexpensive outdoor solar light into each pot. They can be charged outside during the day, and moved inside at night. I know some college kids who do this, and they are able to have enough light to get buy. They stick a couple of pots on their tables or desks when they need light to do homework or study. As a general rule, they do not use their overhead light fixtures or electric lamps, and it has made a significant dent in their bill. That said, converting from incandescent or fluorescent to LED warm light bulbs can make a big change too.

These work great. Depending on how large/small they are, a simple vase or mason jar would work, too, and the dirt wouldn't be necessary.

[Wildcat]

8 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Florida environmentalists have been railing against building up the coasts for years to no avail. That genie is not going back in the bottle. With very few exceptions our barrier islands are so built up that they're no longer the barriers nature intended.

To add to this, native plants are being stripped out and replaced with non-native ones. There is a reason the Palmetto and Cabbage palms are hard to kill. This is their stomping grounds. 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Wildcat

[Faith-manor]

29 minutes ago, Wildcat said:

To add to this, native plants are being stripped out and replaced with non-native ones. There is a reason the Palmetto and Cabbage palms are hard to kill. This is their stomping grounds. 

 

We have the same thing here on Lake Michigan. It isn't a flood issue but a, 'Your house is going to slide down the dune and fall into the lake because you insist on ripping out and poisoning native grasses which hold the dune together" problem. And the homeowners repeatedly warned by the DNR to STOP IT are having exactly that happen, and now think the rest of us, the tax payers, should buy them new homes. Sigh. I really am a compassionate person, and pro-safety nets, BUT maybe not this. Sure, help with relocation in terms of getting into a rental away from the dune or something, just not what they want which is "y'all build me a new house on the lake".

Native vegetation exists for a reason. I wish more property owners would read that memo!

My big deal at the moment is I do not want to mow anymore. Short grass does nothing for the environment, and mowing adds emissions. I don't want to buy rec gas for the mower. I want to go sailing and kayaking don't the weekends not lawn maintenance! But there township rules, so I cane let it go bananas. I would like moss or a low ground cover (one that won't grow higher than the township ordinance), but cultivating anything like that on this property as NOT been easy. I told Mark I was going to cover the yard in tarps, cardboard, and agricultural fabric, anchor it down with a cord of firewood, and that would be " the yard", installing some more raised beds on top of it if we don't come up with a solution soon! 😁 Really not sure what the neighbors will think, but I cannot see anything in the ordinance that prohibits this, no decree that I must maintain grass for the neighbors to look at. I would throw up a corral, run in shelter, and fencing for two sheep and two goats which would take care of it, but ordinance prohibits the livestock on less than 3 acres. Plus, that is pretty darn expensive. I do love those critters though!

 

[GailV]

21 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I missed that. That's definitely an oversight but I think all of those cities have less risk than average in that area except for San Francisco. 

 

I thought of it when I saw they listed Denver.  One of my relatives who lives in Colorado digs wells for a living, and comments that the water levels aren't great for long term. 

 

I guess San Francisco could use reverse osmosis, maybe.

Edited October 6, 2022 by GailV

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Wildcat said:

To add to this, native plants are being stripped out and replaced with non-native ones. There is a reason the Palmetto and Cabbage palms are hard to kill. This is their stomping grounds. 

 

Yup. 

[ktgrok]

To the person that mentioned tearing out native grasses on dunes, WHAT THE HECK! Pretty sure that would be a HUGE fine here. Florida considerst the sea oats and such protected. It is very illegal to mess with them. 

[Lady Florida.]

19 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

To the person that mentioned tearing out native grasses on dunes, WHAT THE HECK! Pretty sure that would be a HUGE fine here. Florida considerst the sea oats and such protected. It is very illegal to mess with them. 

Yep. You can't even walk on the dunes because it interferes with the sea oats.

[Faith-manor]

29 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Yep. You can't even walk on the dunes because it interferes with the sea oats.

Oh, there are times now! There is a crack down now. But years too late. On top of that a lot of snarky landowners, still sneak out and spray at night to kill the grass and baby trees trying to make a come back because A. View. B. Bad things always happen to other people but not them. Sigh.

Every couple of years, somebody's house slides into the lake. 😠

There are efforts to replant. But bringing back a devastated habitat takes many years if not decades.

[shawthorne44]

4 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

You can absolutely safely build skyscrapers in earthquake country. They already do, especially in Japan and Taiwan which regularly have serious earthquakes. You use seismic stabilizing building techniques such as isolators and dampeners, and you use steel framing to even out some of the stresses on the structure.

Why in the world would we ban skyscrapers in earthquake country? It actually makes sense to build a bit more densely in safer areas with better subsoil, and to put more resilience into the infrastructure. You preserve the areas more prone to liquefaction as green space but can still support the same (or more) population numbers.

Many towns/cities have bans.   San Jose, for example, has a two or three story max.    When you have people that commute two hours each way, that is insane.    I just mentioned earthquake risk factors as a reason it was slightly less insane.   

Edited October 6, 2022 by shawthorne44

[shawthorne44]

2 hours ago, GailV said:

I thought of it when I saw they listed Denver.  One of my relatives who lives in Colorado digs wells for a living, and comments that the water levels aren't great for long term. 

 

I guess San Francisco could use reverse osmosis, maybe.

California needs nuclear plants to power desalination plants.  

[Faith-manor]

8 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I guess this board has changed because no climate change deniers have popped into the discussion. Perhaps there aren't that many climate change deniers left? Some climate change deniers I know have switched to eco-fascism, basically climate change is real and it justifies kicking out non-white people. 

Ya. I am not seeing it on the hive these days. Definite discussion about what paths to take to mitigate the horror, but not out and out denial.

[ktgrok]

Adding to general building rants that we COULD build homes that are SO MUCH MORE efficient, but don't. The science is there. And so much electricity is lost via inefficiency. If governments created regulations that required homes built after a certain time to meet much higher efficiency standards the builders would start making those changes and if everyone was doing it, and it was standard, costs would be lower. 

I also heard a story on NPR about how the most climate friendly way to build is to create 3 story townhouses, out of either wood or brick, depending on climate/etc. Wood is a carbon sink, and brick isn't too bad carbon wise. 3 stories because you don't need the same kind of steel reinforcements as you do with taller buildings, and steel is worse for the environment. Plus, solar panels on the roof can create enough energy for 3 stories. If you go taller, solar panels can't keep up with the volume of space and the number of people. But 3 story apartments or town homes can be 100 percent powered by solar, and even have excess. Also, building codes do not require elevator acesss for 3 stories or less, so although obviously SOME should have elevator access (so say in a complex with multiple buildings some would have elevators, some would not) they don't all have to have it - and elevator shafts again use building materials that are less climate friendly. Finally, townhomes/apartments would create enough density for public transport like light rail to be economically feasible. It was really a fascinating story!

[prairiewindmomma]

1 hour ago, shawthorne44 said:

Many towns/cities have bans.   San Jose, for example, has a two or three story max.    When you have people that commute two hours each way, that is insane.    I just mentioned earthquake risk factors as a reason it was slightly less insane.   

Wait, what?

San Jose has building height restrictions only in the flight pathway areas around the San Jose airport. That has nothing to do with earthquakes.

https://www.siliconvalley.com/2022/05/27/new-housing-tower-gets-under-construction-in-downtown-san-jose/  23 story building going in downtown. Other prominent buildings in San Jose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Jose,_California