Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just not understanding the point if it doesn't cover the floor that would flood. What else would there be to cover? Maybe I'm missing something.
It depends entirely on the home design, but many of the newer homes built along the shoreline and in places like Key West, or Key Largo, etc... they are specifically designed in a way that the first floor is not really a floor... that the home itself is actually suspended on stilts. This doesn't stop people from putting up walls on the bottom floors, and even the builder will do this as well, but they are meant to be "break-away" walls.
The break-away walls are usually concrete walls too, they might be concrete block construction, but are not filled with concrete after the fact, and they are tenuously tied to the beams at maybe one or two points. The intent is that if there was a huge rush of water in a massive flood that would be 3 or 4 feet (or more) higher... a wall would generally not be able to withstand that kind of pressure. So these break-away walls are there to fail so the water can more easily pass through the bottom of the house. Imagine if you had a solid concrete wall tied to the studs, and no break-away walls. The pressure from the water would cause the entire home to be knocked down.
Again though, that doesn't stop home owners from building down there. The bottom floors are usually only meant for garage and storage space... and occasionally some of them might have a bathroom. But that doesn't stop home owners from building entire workshops or even putting in a family room down there.
Maybe you need to look at the report and not spread misinformation - nothing it it says anything about embers being blown 20 miles - your source does not really back your claims. The report talks mostly about the fire travelling along the ground, that is not close to the same thing. Also I am talking urban where many more are impacted than a rural area in the forests. Fires need fuel to travel and a forest fire is not the same as an urban environment.
The big fires I have dealt with are the 1991 Oakland fire - $1.5B, 1,520 acres with 3280 homes destroyed. The 2003 Cedar fire - $1.3B damage, 273,246 acres and 2820 buildings destroyed. And the 2007 Witch fire - $1.3B, 247,800 acres and 1265 homes burned. We were about 5 miles from the Oakland fire so not really much of an issue. The 2003 got to about a mile away, so close but we were in a voluntary evacuation area - got ready but stayed because we are not in a very high fire risk area according to the county maps. The 2007 fire was headed our way so we were under mandatory evacuation - got to about 1/4 mile away but ended up going past our area.
The experts do say that it is unrealistic to worry about embers much beyond about a mile away - while embers may blow farther, they rarely have enough heat after they travel to cause a new fire. From Colorado state fire experts "Most spot fires happen less than 1/2 mile away from the parent fire, but it is not uncommon for them to jump up to 1 mile away. Anything beyond 1 mile is very rare." From MSU firewise site - "Once airborne, these burning embers or firebrands can travel from one-quarter to one mile in the wind. If these embers land on a combustible source of fuel, new fires will be started."
Yeah, I was on a channel helping people decide if, when and where to evacuate their homes. So, it left quite an impression on me. I studied in detail and I know what happened.
You believe what you want. I lived in the East Bay Area during the Oakland fires. Not the same thing (at all).
Flood insurance is much less if you have 2 levels because less to get damaged. But I am guessing that the lower level in their house was not meant to be living space. Many homes near the beach are built on stilts and the area underneath is not permitted for living space even though many build it out. It also would likely be insured as an elevated house and not a 2 story. I am guessing that is the case here which is why it is not covered - technically it is not a legal area covered by the insurance they purchased.
Perhaps. It looked like a traditional two-story house, but you may be right.
Yeah, I was on a channel helping people decide if, when and where to evacuate their homes. So, it left quite an impression on me. I studied in detail and I know what happened.
You believe what you want. I lived in the East Bay Area during the Oakland fires. Not the same thing (at all).
I will go with the experts - I had college classes in fire behavior and fire suppression, was trained in fire fighting and have fought forest and industrial fires so have a bit of knowledge of fire behavior and fire fighting. I have also been impacted by a few fires. The stress is from the fire getting close and having to prepare and evacuate - not talking to others or reading a report.
As far as Oakland fires - depends on where you were - I was much closer than the East Bay, in an area that was under alert if the fire shifted or grew but it never came our way. My brother and SIL had to evacuate early as they were in the Berkeley Hills, very near the fires origin - their house never burned but the fire got really close - they had no idea when they evacuated how big it would get.
No doubt that a Cat 5 is a lot worse than a Cat 3.
Charley was a category one when it came over Orlando in 2004 and it was a quick moving storm so not that much rain associated with it. But the wind damage along its path was extensive; the eye came over my house and we had gusts around 100 mph.
Frances was a Cat 2 and Jeanne was a Cat 3 when they came ashore later that year. Indian River County (were my family was) is about 40 miles from where they came ashore. The Indian River county building department reported approximately 49,000 buildings damaged or destroyed by the two storms.
I guess my point is that I would consider a Cat 3 as a major hurricane even if you would not. And the reality is that the majority of homes in Florida were build many years ago and are not up to the current hurricane building codes
The National Hurricane Center considers Cat. 3 hurricanes as major.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
