Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Texas Tempest  (Read 1356 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16592
Re: Texas Tempest
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2017, 07:48:36 AM »

Good work, Ray - considering the low resolution of the original image.   
The next step is to colorize the picture.

True, and then adding a handy little outboard would make it a much more racy image all round. So now, you know.

:-)

Rob

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1647
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Texas Tempest
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2017, 08:07:30 AM »

Since the Netherlands are for a large part below sea level we have to deal with the thread of flooding every day.
Still some years ago we had some flooding because the river Rhine gave too much water. Since then we reserved more land for flooding in future.
In cities we have built some extra borders.
However we have a very temperate climate that makes these adjustments possible and economic.
Question is who has to pay for the damage; That person or institute or government has to calculate what is more cost effective.
In this particular case of Houston i think there is no easy solution. Like there is no easy solution in the delta of Bangladesh.
You can only built houses in a way that are flood resistant and that also comes with a price.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 599
Re: Texas Tempest
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2017, 10:39:37 AM »

The key is what risk level do you design to - 1:100, 1:1000, for both protection systems and new construction ?  The added cost to build up 3-4 meters new may add 5-10% to the cost.
Lifting and retrofitting (which has been done in limited numbers in Houston) is terribly expensive when lifting slab on grade construction and not always possible.
So the choices come down to what flood elevation  risk is tolerable, what is required if you build in a higher risk zone (if even allowed), and do you allow rebuilding for those that are already in high risk zones - 1:10, 1:100, etc or force convert to green space over time.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9763
Re: Texas Tempest
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2017, 12:19:52 PM »

The key is what risk level do you design to - 1:100, 1:1000, for both protection systems and new construction ?  The added cost to build up 3-4 meters new may add 5-10% to the cost.
Lifting and retrofitting (which has been done in limited numbers in Houston) is terribly expensive when lifting slab on grade construction and not always possible.
So the choices come down to what flood elevation  risk is tolerable, what is required if you build in a higher risk zone (if even allowed), and do you allow rebuilding for those that are already in high risk zones - 1:10, 1:100, etc or force convert to green space over time.

The past record of severe weather events is known by the Bureaus of Meteorology (in all countries), therefore the local councils and building authorities should also know.

The choices are simple. You spend an extra hundred thousand dollars or so, to build a house that can resist the forces of previous cyclones or hurricanes in the area, or a house that is elevated above previous flood levels in the area, or you build a standard house which will be destroyed in 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years time when the next devastating storm occurs.
Logged

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 599
Re: Texas Tempest
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2017, 08:24:12 PM »

yes.
Getting politicians and people to make a rational choice rather than a minimum cost, no government interference choice is the issue to solve.
Otherwise we will keep funding expensive replacements.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Logged

OmerV

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
    • Photographs
Re: Texas Tempest
« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2017, 06:28:23 PM »


That was partly where the France24 programme tried to go, but obviously, before the resolution of the current crisis there will be nothing further to say on that topic. What happened in the Crescent City after the event? Were lessons learned (as governments love to say, feigning surprise), and if so, that new knowledge applied?

In fact, within flood zones, should repair even be contemplated rather than abandonment to nature?

Rob

The question of feasible living in those low lying areas is unfair. I guess being from the South, specifically New Orleans, I get a bit uppity about it especially since I now live in the Southwest where water has to be pumped hundreds of miles from the Colorado River to keep Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas and other cities from drying out. We are draining the Colorado River, and the water table around Tucson is so low that folks living on the outskirts who depended on wells are now having to truck water to their homes. Their wells have gone dry.

Much of California is built on the San Andreas Fault. What's down with that? The midwest gets deadly tornados, Washington D.C. has politicians and lobbyists. Yeah, the rush to develop any open space without thought must be stopped, unfortunately it may take a true apocalypse for us to understand that Mars isn't a hospitable option.

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 975
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Texas Tempest
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2017, 08:54:23 AM »

The question of feasible living in those low lying areas is unfair. I guess being from the South, specifically New Orleans, I get a bit uppity about it especially since I now live in the Southwest where water has to be pumped hundreds of miles from the Colorado River to keep Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas and other cities from drying out. We are draining the Colorado River, and the water table around Tucson is so low that folks living on the outskirts who depended on wells are now having to truck water to their homes. Their wells have gone dry.

You nailed it, i think. We may choose to inhabit inhospitable places for a variety of reasons and devise technologies to enable it, like levees, etc. We cost out the options, pick the one we want, built the infrastructure. But the thing about infrastructure is that you're supposed to maintain it. Unlike corporations who can externalize costs they don't want, because we let them (e.g., leave oil wells just sitting there: http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/05/18/news/massive-taxpayer-loan-fund-cleanup-albertas-dirty-abandoned-oil-wells), governments have to fix broken highways and bridges. And for some reason, we now choose to call this government spending instead of what it really is, investment in the economy. We even now call the taxes collected for this purpose a bad thing, self-delusion at best. I've read a few media stories where new highways are built and named after some politician or other, complete with ribbon-cutting propaganda on the evening news, but a couple of miles away an abandoned highway just sits there. Building new stuff produces good publicity, repairing old things gets no headlines. No media photographers show up when a water main pipe is fixed or upgraded. We all know this is bs and we all put up with it. Why? What's the upside?
Logged
--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1409
  • guest
    • working
Re: Texas Tempest
« Reply #27 on: September 06, 2017, 09:06:40 AM »

Yes, weíre fine Rob, thanks for asking.   

We were in California then London during the floods, but our studio is in Dallas a long way from the coast so it got little rain.   I deeply feel for the people of Houston, though about 4 blocks from our D studio they're housing tens of thousands of people that evacuated.  Most are truly in need and do need help, but like Katrina some take advantage of a tragedy and after Katrina the crime rate in Dallas went up drastically and housing became scarce, so it will be a bumpy ride for a while and Iím not minimizing the extent of the damage in human and property terms.

But Texas will rebound quickly because building/rebuilding in Texas is fast and the state prepared pretty well.   

Iím not making light of a tragedy, but unlike a lot of less prepared and under funded areas and countries, they didnít lose 18,000 people and never recover and unless you live in a cave in Montana there is always risk.

Bottom line is you canít prepare for every act of nature.   Hindsight is 20/20 and the Houston area will learn and hopefully adapt and like every instance when this happens some municipalities will rebuild, some will be minimized or people will relocate and Texas is somewhat unique in that it has a lot of resource,  less government restrictions, plus itís big place with a lot of land*.

*Itís interesting that in our Santa Monica neighborhood they are building two new houses, but it goes slow, where in the same time period in our Dallas Neighborhood they built around 900 condominiums.

I do feel for those affected and will find some way to help.


IMO

BC


Good wishes and sympathy to all LuLanders affected by the weather and floods in Texas.

Cooter - hope you're in Lodon or LA instead, with no problems across the pond!

Best wishes

Rob C
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up