I live in New Orleans and my house is made of brick. That fact did not keep me from evacuating for hurricane Ivan. If New Orleans had been hit the damage would have been much worse ( if possible ) than Florida.

but it doesn't prevent the fact that if you get hit by a hurricane, better be in a home in bricks than one in wood...

NO would be hit more badly because it's much bigger. had Miami been hit at full strength by Ivan, the destruction would have been terrible

One simple reason. Cost.

By far, Europeans build their houses very well. Having been to German, France, and Switzerland I've been able to see houses that are smaller than the typical US house, but built like a fortress. Those same building practices in the USA would more than double the cost of housing.

It's just a difference in mentalities.

it would increase the cost at first, but on the long run,
that would save a lot of money...let's face it, if insurance companies have a bill of 20 billion dollars, they eventually pay it with our money...

why not build more solid and lower in exposed areas?

Americans live as a very mobile society. Forever moving even within the same city. There is no reason from an insurance standpoint to build a stronger house due to the federal programs in place that will virtually repay for rebuilding should a hurricane or tornado rip through an area. You generally do not receive a discount for how well a house is built. Mine is brick and mortar throughout with stucco walls and I don't receive a break in price. As long as it meets local building codes it doesn't matter.

ah, the moving thing in the US...that I buy...indeed, that's a good reason not to build anything stronger.

Brian is right, it's cost. There are scads of lower/fixed income people living in Florida in mobile homes and cheaply built homes. The problem with building on the shore is another matter altogether...it seems foolish to me to do so...Mother Nature can be a REAL Mother and wipe out the best-built building, or at least remove all the land around the building! Insurance companies certainly have no interest in building better houses so their are no claims when a disaster strikes...it's much more profitable to pay for the cheap junk when it is wiped out and otherwise invest the money it would have cost them to build the better quality buildings.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Where do "they" get the 20 billion dollar estimate anyways? How do they estimate something like that? Does it include missed profits because of businesses shutting down or is it all damage related? Seriously, unless you are in a mobile home or right on the beach, you're not usually going to lose your home. Leaky roofs, yes, but not full on condemning of the place (well, also unless a tree falls on your house).

---

Bri Gaal
One Step Beyond
http://www.osbmultisport.com

The building codes for new construction in the post-Andrew era in Florida have actually gotten significantly tougher. If more than 50% of a structure is damaged in a storm, the house has to be totally rebuilt to comply to the new hurricane codes. And those codes do work- the new construction houses even in areas where the winds were high generally did very well, even the houses from builders who otherwise have a reputation for cheap crappy homes. The old style cement block homes in Florida also generally go through storms well.

The problem is that the building codes were pretty lax from about 1960-90 when there weren't many storms going through the state, so you've got a huge amount of Florida housing stock built under the lax codes era.

Same goes for the mobile homes- lots of them got in before the codes got stricter. The new ones that are rated to 120mph winds generally do well if they're properly anchored so the wind can't get under the structure. As for why they're there, Florida has never been a terribly rich state, and the manufactured homes provide a place to live for retirees and working class families. Lots of working class service industry families can't afford the $120K a two bedroom condo seems to be going for in my area these days, but they can afford the $60K house and land package from the local manufactured home dealer.

Most of the houses in Florida are built of concrete blocks. This doesn't prevent the roof from coming off old houses or the storm surge from leaving several feet of water in your house. New houses are built to withstand 140mph winds. My brother-in-law and father-in-law both live 200yds from the beach in Vero beach and they took a direct hit from Jeanne. My brother-in-law stayed in his house and it wasn't damaged. There is a palm tree in his pool though.

Most of the homes that were severely damaged in my area were (a) on the water and not on stilts/pilings, or (b) built prior to the new building codes. If you were not in category (a) or (b), unless you took a tree across the roof, you probably did okay.

There was probably no significant damage difference between brick veneer or wood frame type construction. The main thing if you are not in a flood zone is keeping the roof on. Once the roof goes, the building lacks structural integrity enough to withstand the winds and the walls go down. Newer homes are required to have hurricane clips holding down the roof and better bracing of roof joists.

In CA, we make homes out of wood not because it "hurts less", but because it is a natural resource that we have a lot of. Another advantage of wood in an earthquake is it's ability to flex when the earth moves. Because they flex, they really don't fall. The brick buildings in San Francisco all have been retrofitted with steel skeletons because brick structures just crumble when the earth moves.

Steel was a pretty popular framing material, but when the costs went up, the builders went back to wood.

Stucco is used because of our mexican heritage. It cracks like crazy in big earthquakes, but it looks like painted adobe...