| ▲ | Panzer04 6 months ago |
| Why bother building a better home when it's cheaper to buy insurance and rebuild later? This is why prices are important - sometimes it's sensible to build cheaper houses without these safeties if the risk isn't there, but if the risk does exist then it needs to be priced right to provide that incentive. |
|
| ▲ | vasco 6 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| The key thing to understand is that you don't get to choose when the house gets destroyed or get advanced notice. Which means you might be in there, or your kids, or all your belongings. But yes, after you're dead in the rubble someone else can rebuild your house and it might be cheaper. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Almondsetat 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How about the cost of your life? If the house resists the earthquake and you are inside it, you don't die. |
| |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Building to protect occupants and building to make the structure salvageable afterwards may be two different goals. Think crumple zones in cars. | | |
| ▲ | Almondsetat 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not a good analogy. Crumple zones in cars exist under the assumption that they will not be occupied by humans. In a house, on the other hand, any place could have a person inside of it during an earthquake, meaning that basically the entire house would need to stand to avoid any human being hurt. | | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not an architect and don't live in an earthquake zone, but I was under the impression that wooden homes flex in earthquakes and if and when they do fall on you, do less damage than concrete homes which are stiff up until a point and then crack and fall. So the human surviving may come at the cost of more houses collapsing. | |
| ▲ | wiredfool 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | It absolutely happens in steel and concrete construction in earthquake loading, when loading past the smaller earthquakes. Plastic/non-linear deformation is intended in shear panels of steel connections and the core of well confined concrete beams/columns. The idea is to provide a lot of energy damping due to the nonlinear nature of the f*D hysteresis curve. This works long enough for the earthquake to go away and the people to get out of the building, at which point, you need a new building but hopefully no one has died. |
| |
| ▲ | earnestinger 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nice point. Still, in wast majority of cases, house keeps standing -> habitant survival chance goes up. Cars being on the move, makes that distinction much much more relevant | | |
| ▲ | hnaccount_rng 6 months ago | parent [-] | | For inhabitant survival a sifficient goal is something like “remains structurally intact for ~30 minutes after the end of the earthquake”. Which is significantly leas than is required for staying habitable |
| |
| ▲ | llm_trw 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Where is the crumple zone in the burned out buildings in California? | | |
| |
| ▲ | Panzer04 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We were speaking in the context of fires previously - in which case it's usually more about preserving the neighbourhood and land than anything else, you have to evacuate regardless. Earthquakes are different and you'd need a house that stood anyway (though I'd guess most houses don't have a problem with earthquakes insofar as not collapsing on inhabitants, though they'd probably be damaged) | | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Loss of life from fire and earthquake isnt really high enough to be a concern. This is primarily a cost and inconvenience question. |
|
|
| ▲ | miohtama 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe be there is no longer "cheap" and that's the issue |
| |
| ▲ | fishstock25 6 months ago | parent [-] | | I don't understand the downvote. I think this hit the nail on its head. People whine about insurances pulling out. All they want is for somebody else to pay for their risk. It's their choice to live in that area, they should bear the consequences. It's not like it is or has ever been a secret. Climate change is known for decades now. Many people just chose not to "believe" in it. Well, their choice, but now that sh* hits the fan, they shouldn't come whine that everything gets sprayed with poo. | | |
| ▲ | pestaa 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | But this cuts both ways. The insurers chose to provide their services in the area for the amount of money agreed upon. If anyone was more aware of the risks and probabilities, it's them. Why do they get to pull out now when it's time to hold their end of the contract? | |
| ▲ | mvc 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Please do let me know where I can live that is guaranteed to be safe from unexpected natural disaster. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | poisonborz 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe people don't like to restart their lives like that if it's avoidable, even if it costs more. |
|
| ▲ | consp 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Only you also take into account your cheap home will likely accelerate the problem. Which never happens. |
|
| ▲ | bgnn 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| in case of earthquakes: to not to die. |
|
| ▲ | thisoneworks 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Hah financialization strikes again. Try explaining this to a person from a third world country, they would say "what are you talking about". Also they would have better health care than your average American. |
