Why do people In Tornado/Hurricane zones still build the same destroyable houses?
 

I understand that is not easy to move to another state...but why on earth do people who live in these disaster-prone areas continue to build houses which are easily destroyed in natural disasters? This may be a dumb question from someone who has never lived in an earthquake/hurricane/tornado zone, but I've been wondering for years...

In the U.S., the taxpayers subsidize the rebuilding, so it actually makes a lot of sense from the homeowner perspective.

People build what they can afford so they can put the rest of their money to good use feeding and clothing themselves. The taxpayer subsidizes rebuilding, and they’ll STILL build the cheapest possible alternative.

If you wanna know what’s to blame—it’s local zoning laws.

Some municipalities HAVE upped their standards. See: Moore, Oklahoma’s post-tornado building requirements with respect to withstanding wind.

I see, but why not build houses that are more resistant to natural disasters?
Year after year, decade after decade, all you hear about is how these homes are being destroyed by disasters.

WHY!?

It seems so wasteful to keep rebuilding these houses which are not well suited to their environment.

I can at least understand energy inefficiency, but I can't understand this.

They know the disasters are coming, so why do they just keep doing the same thing over and over again? Subject to death, loss of family members, simply losing everything.

Surely they must think when their houses are destroyed the first time, "Hmm, I should research alternative home designs to see if there's a better option for when I rebuild".

I live in a hurricane zone. No, the taxpayers do not subsidize rebuilding. I believe they do with flood insurance (FEMA) but at least with hurricanes, you're on the hook as far as your insurance is concerned and the deductible for tropical storm damage is often quite a bit higher than a typical claim. For example, ours was $15,000 for Beryl back in 2024. Also, our insurance premiums are expensive and you often need flood insurance on top of that. There might be government programs available to people in certain income brackets who sustained damage and for whatever reason, their insurance wouldn't pay or they didn't have it.

Tornadoes are extremely destructive, but they are also extremely limited in the scope of their destruction.

And they can strike pretty much anywhere in the US east of the rocky mountains (80% of the US population).

Building tornado-proof houses for so many people over such a vast geography would be extremely expensive.

Our society decided long ago that plentiful housing was more important than tornado proof housing.

Tornados have such a narrow path that the actual statistical likelihood of any given building getting hit by one in it's lifetime is incredibly low.

Some regions where hurricanes are a problem do have specific building codes for them. I think Florida and Miami in particular.

The adoption of hurricane hinges has made the loss of roofs a lot less prevalent in hurricanes. It has made wind less of a problem but hasn't really dealt with the real killer: flooding and landslides.

Tornados are subject of more study. There have been tornados which have sucked people out of tornado shelters, and stripped well-built buildings down to their foundation. Defining the requirements of a tornado-proof building is a lot trickier than you might imagine.

Also, context is important.

On average, tornadoes kill about 80 americans each year.

No doubt very sad and tragic for those involved.

BUT.......

Car wrecks kill about 40,000 americans each year.

Tornadoes aren't even a rounding error by comparison.

Unless you want to live in a windowless reinforced concrete box, then a tornado is going to do what it's going to do.

St. Louis' solid brick homes from the turn of the 20th century weren't a match for the 2025 tornado that tore through the city as it intensified to an EF3, for example.

And if you really want to guarantee that a EF-5 won't destroy that box, then you should really bury it 30 feet underground.

Tornadoes are no joke.

They are monumentally destructive, and monumentally hyper-localized in their destruction.

Tornado-proofing all of the housing for hundreds of millions of people across a continetal-sized nation would be a fools errand.

Tornadoes sometimes happen, and they sometimes destroy the buildings in their way. And we live with it as one of the facts of life.

GoogleAI says that 75% - 93% of global tornadoes occur in north america, so it's mainly our cross to bear.

This is a really really stupid question.

Do you suggest they build no houses in the red zone on this map? :rolleyes:

https://redzonestormshelters.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/tornado-risk-map.jpg

If you're referring to the type of construction, since tornadoes can be quite destructive there's only so much you can do construction-wise to tornado-proof a house.

Here is the question that nobody ever asks: What kind of construction is easiest to tear down?

As many have mentioned, a direct hit from a EF 3+ tornado or cat 4+ hurricane will compromise basically any type of construction. So with that in mind, which of the following is easier to deal with after a storm: a totally destroyed wood-and-drywall house, or a concrete or brick house that is still standing but is severely cracked, and thus has to be torn down anyway?

Case in point: St Louis. After the May 2025 tornado, there are hundreds of brick houses which are still standing, but are structurally compromised and have been deemed unsafe for occupation. They need to come down. From the insurance company's perspective, it would have been cheaper if those homeowners had had their houses totally leveled.

Tornadoes don't/won't alter land development patterns because they have low societal risk (potential to affect a large number of people), and lower catastrophic risk (potential to inflict widespread damage) compared to other natural disasters. The risk of encountering a tornado is extremely low, even in the most high risk areas, and there will likely never be a tornado outbreak capable of wiping out a major city. Hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, and floods all have much greater societal risks and probably similar levels of catastrophic risk.

Tornado risk DOES affect building codes and housing design, though. Housing in high risk areas are much more likely to have basements or storm cellars. In the Detroit area tornado sirens are tested once a month during the spring and summer, even though strong tornadoes are rare in that area.

more reason to retire to Upstate NY and then vacation during the winter :D

Where did I suggest that?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241010-these-domed-homes-in-florida-survived-hurricanes


Yes, they aren't pretty. But if I lived in an area prone to natural disasters, I'd find a way to build one for my family, even if I had to go into debt... that would be my priority, but of course everyone has their own.

I would say the one exception to this rule is Moore, Oklahoma.......

I can't post an image of past tornado tracks, but that foresaken suburb of OKC has been hit by multiple EF4/EF5 tornadoes:

https://www.weather.gov/oun/tornadodata-city-ok-moore

Come to think about it.... They are a bit overdue *looks at weather models for next Monday*........

I don't live in Lisbon, Lisbon is the south, I live in the north. The areas of Portugal most prone to earthquakes are located in the south of the mainland and in the Azores archipelago.