Honestly, every year we hear about houses getting destroyed by tornados (and people getting buried under). They seem to be mostly wooden houses. So, why not build concrete houses, atleast in the high risk disaster prone areas?
In: 1750
-Concrete is strong, but it’s brittle. A good tornado will obliterate it, and then you have rocks flying at the speed of bullets and many tons of collapsing debris and a more expensive cleanup to add to the mix. The ideal material for resisting tornados is actually steel as it is capable of flexing a bit safely. But most people shelter in basements or storm shelters anyways so the lighter the house on top, the safer.
-Being struck by a tornado is absurdly rare. It’s not like a hurricane in the south or an earthquake in the west –a midwesterner can go their entire life without being close enough to one to see a tornado with their own eyes.
-House insurance typically covers tornados in danger zones, so you have some financial respite if by a freak act of nature your home is destroyed.
-Because midwesterners have tornado safety drilled into their heads from birth, and there are extensive alarm systems, being killed by a tornado is even rarer. Actually one of the largest components of tornado fatality rates is availability of underground shelters. People living in mobile homes or in areas where digging basements is not possible are at highest risk. This is why tornado deaths per year are highest in the Deep South, not up in Kansas.
-Cultural and environmental reasons. Wood is plentiful and cheap here. Hot summer temperatures in many regions make efficient cooling systems a necessity for comfort, and concrete and brick buildings hold in heat. The US has a culture that doesn’t really value old buildings, unless they have historical relevance. A lot of folks romanticize the idea of building your own house so lifespan beyond two or three future owners isn’t considered.
Latest Answers