![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
अनित्य —impermanence
Nov. 1st, 2012 10:03 amThe tragedy of Sandy's devastation highlights how quickly we forget that things are not permanent. Also, the expense of constructing things to withstand infrequent, strong trauma. We make calculated risks, and then are bankrupted when the bet goes the wrong way.
Here in DC and NYC, we don't have earthquakes. So we don't build our structures to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, because that would be prohibitively expensive. We make a calculated choice to not spend so much money on something that "probably" won't happen. Hurricanes "usually" don't hit new york city. Their homes aren't built on stilts, to allow the ocean to wash under them. No. NYC is a crowded island full of people, and so people build down, they build out to the edges; they fill in more river and build on that. Devastating enough in a flood; utterly ruinous if an earthquake ever hits.
We refuse to leave because it's too much effort and a hurricane "never" happens, and then whine and complain that the storm didn't do enough damage to warrant us leaving. So much for being grateful.
100 homes burned out of control in the middle of a *flood*- because there was no way for the fire crews to get to the burning homes.
I was thinking that it would probably be pretty doable to make all of the subway stations flood-resistant. Not that they wouldn't flood, but that once the water was pumped out, everything would work properly. The question is, do you spend that massive amount of money on something that rarely happens? No. You go with the "we'll replace it" option-- slowly forgetting to budget money for it, slowly forgetting the cost of lost time to replace everything.
I suspect most insurance statisticians don't live on the beach or beneath the second floor of buildings on an island.
Here in DC and NYC, we don't have earthquakes. So we don't build our structures to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, because that would be prohibitively expensive. We make a calculated choice to not spend so much money on something that "probably" won't happen. Hurricanes "usually" don't hit new york city. Their homes aren't built on stilts, to allow the ocean to wash under them. No. NYC is a crowded island full of people, and so people build down, they build out to the edges; they fill in more river and build on that. Devastating enough in a flood; utterly ruinous if an earthquake ever hits.
We refuse to leave because it's too much effort and a hurricane "never" happens, and then whine and complain that the storm didn't do enough damage to warrant us leaving. So much for being grateful.
100 homes burned out of control in the middle of a *flood*- because there was no way for the fire crews to get to the burning homes.
I was thinking that it would probably be pretty doable to make all of the subway stations flood-resistant. Not that they wouldn't flood, but that once the water was pumped out, everything would work properly. The question is, do you spend that massive amount of money on something that rarely happens? No. You go with the "we'll replace it" option-- slowly forgetting to budget money for it, slowly forgetting the cost of lost time to replace everything.
I suspect most insurance statisticians don't live on the beach or beneath the second floor of buildings on an island.
