I have friends with a house in the keys that appears to have survived rather well. Wind was severe, but the house is seriously well built (of concrete) and the ground floor is only storage, for a car, a couple of kayaks, windsurfers, etc.
The car, water toys, etc. are gone - disappeared. The house suffered only minor damage. There are some reports of looting in the area, but they were apparently spared.
This house seems like an example of a sensible way to build in a hurricane-prone area.
Then possibly you should be castigating Johnny L.A. for his useless comment, rather than John Mace, whose post was sensible.
It’s not just “can you build a home to withstand a hurricane.” It’s all the infrastructure that goes along with a modern life. And it’s the cost of repairs, loss of business, evacuations, etc etc etc.
In other words, the question is not one of engineering, but of economy.
I think there’s a contradiction of terms in your OP … IF an area was being hit with a major hurricane every year, THEN it wouldn’t be “heavily populated” …
We also have to consider that just one per year it would still take twenty thirty years to completely wipe the Florida peninsula clear of buildings and infrastructure … even major hurricanes only cause catastrophic damage in a narrow band … as I said above, my friend on the Space Coast has been side-swiped by Cat 4 hurricanes now two years running and his damage is no more than a couple hundred dollars …
Maybe let’s confine our hypothetical to the island of Barbuda, effectively wiped out by Irma … we know that it will be hit again next year, and the year after, and forever more … there’s no point rebuilding there so for the most part we won’t … perhaps throw up some dirt cheap huts, rent them out during the winter for big profits and then just not care if the huts get blown all the way to Puerto Rico next fall … the people will still come …
I admit I had both posts on my mind and probably replied to the wrong one.
Ok similar, we build roads and infrastructure in inhospitable areas also.
Think about roads on top of mountains.
Think Switzerland where they have roads and bridges around and thru the alps.
I know up in the Dakotas and Canada infrastructure is DESIGNED for heavy snowfall. Cities operate just fine even if roads resemble snow caverns with 20 foot sides. In some area also houses have 2nd floor doors so when the snow covers the front.
Annual hurricanes?
Isnt that kind of what the monsoon season is down in southeast Asia?
One long-term possibility is using technology to control hurricanes. This 2004 SciAm article(pdf) by a climate scientist discusses some of the possibilities. In 15-20 years it could be possible and certainly if hurricanes become more frequent and intense it will be looked at seriously. Aside from the technology, the geopolitical issues are fascinating. If this technology is at all feasible, I suspect that Florida’s clout in the electoral college will increase the chances of it being implemented.
Back in the 1980s, long before anyone was talking about climate change, a professor of mine made a simple, obvious but brilliant observation: from now on, EVERY natural disaster will be the most expensive ever. Why? Because today, we tend to ignore Nature and erect expensive developments in places where devastating storms are common.
There’s a reason Florida was nearly uninhabited for so long. There’s a reason rich people didn’t build mansions in the beach in Hilton Head in the 19th century.
Today, danger zones are filled with large, elaborate buildings. So, even IF hurricanes are no more common and no more devastating than ever, the damage they cause is bound to get more and more expensive.
Monsoonal flow is different from hurricanes … in late summer, the land mass is warmer than the ocean surface, which creates a bit of a low pressure system over the land and that sucks moist marine air on-shore … and in late winter the ocean surface is warmer than the land and the monsoonal flow is reversed … and this forms a general weather pattern for the areas involved …
This is a potent steering mechanism for hurricanes and does drive these storms on-shore … however they are different phenomena that can interact with each other … the point being is we can have monsoonal rains without an associated hurricane …
It wouldn’t have to happen every year, either; if a major hurricane on the scale of Irma or Harvey strikes South and Central Florida every three or four years, that’s an extraordinary problem. People would still live in South Florida, but insurance companies would find it much less attractive to do business there, and that’s when the real problems would start, economically speaking.
That’s right. As has been mentioned, year-round living in Florida depends on the availability of air-conditioning. Without electricity (for a start), Florida could be (as has also been mentioned) a seasonal camping ground for RVs, but not much more.
Some parts of Florida will cease being developed–the parts that will be underwater in a couple of decades (much of Miami and, further north, much of the St. Johns River area). Developers will want to develop, but fulfilling their wishes will be politically less possible–taxpayers will hold office-holders accountable if they see infrastructure having to be rebuilt again and again and again.
Parts of Florida that are on slightly higher ground will continue to be developed; a push to require that utilities be installed underground will gain political popularity. Taxes will rise to pay for this–it wouldn’t be surprising if the Governor and Legislature float the idea of a state income tax, soon. (One hopeful note: with each storm, the factors that menace above-ground utilities become lessened–the trees get cut down. Of course, keeping them trimmed becomes more of a priority–and that will be one of the justifications for raising taxes.)
One major problem for Florida is that if big storms hit each year or every other year, it won’t matter how massive are the subsidies the state government offers: companies are not going to be interested in building large facilities here, outside of minimum-wage centers such as Amazon. The Florida economy will be increasingly dependent on tourism (with agriculture limping along due to periodic destruction of the citrus groves, etc.).
Florida could wind up looking a lot like the Yucatan peninsula: little in the way of industry, and grinding poverty for many who live in the state full-time, with a lucky few cleaned up to serve the relatively-wealthy First World visitors who arrive in the winter months.
Ummm … 22 major hurricanes have made landfall in Florida in the past 100 years … or about every 4-1/2 years …
Have you read John D. McDonald?
Sure, on average, but they have also gone stretches without them. In any case, if climate change science is correct, then the storms of the future will have massive rain dumps (and more frequent ones) that could make living in Florida less attractive to inhabit.
That’s why climatologist use averages over long periods … This recent 12-year gap between major hurricane landfalls on USA territory is well within expectations … we won’t know for another 100 years whether it’s a trend or not …
There’s more about climate we don’t know than what we do … and for every question we do manage to answer, twenty or more questions are raised …
With this in mind, it’s very difficult to attach reliable values to your claims … will we see 24 major hurricanes per century in Florida releasing 22" of rain instead of 20" … or will we see 100 per century releasing 80" … we really don’t know yet …
Here’s an interesting quote from last night’s NPR broadcast: “Federal Government Steps Up Disaster Response Efforts Since Hurricane Katrina”
It’s all about cost/benefit ratios … is it worth building better homes where the weather the other 51 weeks a year is splendid and sub-tropical? … even with Category 4 hurricanes landing every year, any specific home will only see damaging winds and flooding every three or four years … or perhaps longer …
I think the better OP would have been “Hurricane Harvey; What if this happened every year?” … a fairly sizable portion of our oil refining facilities are built along the Texas Gulf Coast … maybe it’s prohibitively expensive to rebuild these on higher ground? …
It’s been a while; were you referring to the ‘living on a boat’ aspect of his novels? If so: sure, some people would live on boats. But you can’t have a thriving state economy based on a state-full of Travis McGees.
(But maybe you meant something else.)
Hawaii might be the best example of a state economy heavily dependent on tourism (which is what I’m guessing would be the case for Florida, if most private enterprise decided that Florida is too risky a base for any of their operations). Hawaii does fine, but then again they aren’t hit by Cat 5 storms every year, as we are positing for Florida. Also, Hawaii is, well, more special than Florida, and correspondingly, tourists spend more there, for the specialness. Florida visitors, I’m guessing, spend a lot less per head.
Scientifically speaking: yes. But in practical terms, if a Category 5 storm hits Florida every year for the next five years, people won’t say ‘well, we can’t draw any conclusions for another 95 years.’ They will make decisions based on those five years. And that’s the potential problem for Florida as a going economic concern–attracting major employers would become impossible.
I suspect we’ll just adapt.
Those of us that sustained little damage will repair what got broke and probably make some upgrades, and be in a slightly better position to survive the next one.
Those who sustained a lot of damage will rebuild to modern codes and therefore be better positioned to survive the next one, or they’ll move somewhere else to rebuild their lives.
I don’t know what happens to the poorest. We do need to do a better job of providing shelters and life-sustaining materials for them, but like with most issues in society, I suspect they will be largely forgotten and not incorporated into future planning.
I do think that governments need to keep a closer eye on the infrastructure and in particular make sure that utility providers are spending their “Hurricane Fund Fees” (or whatever they choose to call them) on actually creating more robust and quickly-repairable infrastructure.
Insurance prices will go up, and will eventually get so expensive that either the state will have to take an active role in hurricane insurance (oops…already happened), or the population will simply decrease to those who can afford the insurance, or those who can figure out a way to get by without it.