←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.307s | source
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.42734092[source]
Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher.

It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly.

The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement.

I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his personal residence in 1950. The walls look like a commercial building. The outside is just painted cinder block. Works fine, survived the 1989 earthquake without damage, low maintenance. It's not what most people want today in the US.

replies(18): >>42734105 #>>42734140 #>>42734173 #>>42734290 #>>42734511 #>>42734544 #>>42734644 #>>42734673 #>>42734722 #>>42734995 #>>42735134 #>>42735677 #>>42736159 #>>42736211 #>>42736562 #>>42736923 #>>42741822 #>>42744129 #
scarab92 ◴[] No.42734673[source]
Wood for earthquake resistance vs masonry for fire resistance seems like a false dichotomy.

Australia has a lot of experience with building fire resistant homes, and they didn’t do it with masonry, they did it with timber and steel framed homes, plus fireproof cladding and roofing materials, keeping a perimeter free of vegetation and protecting against ember ingress.

It is possible to have both earthquake and fire resistance in a stick framed home, without the expense of resorting to reinforced concrete.

replies(2): >>42734693 #>>42735347 #
1. nejsjsjsbsb ◴[] No.42735347[source]
Australia is surprisingly urban, especially in terms of I would guess 90%+ of people live in relatively safe places fire wise (putting inhalation of particles aside).

People in built up areas almost don't think at all about wildfire safety, cladding an so on.