On the show last night, we talked about the ongoing misery of the Rockaways, a peninsula of New York City that was wrecked by Sandy. But there is one part of the Rockaways where the homes were not inundated and the power is back earlier. The New York Times reports that a relatively new development, Arverne by the Sea, partly from luck and partly because it built to handle a storm surge:
The system — which features underground chambers, wide street mains and storm drains on each house property — connects to large sewer mains that the developer installed in public streets that they rebuilt around the project site, as part of an agreement with the city, Mr. Romski said. Also helpful was a natural buffer of sand and beach grass that was maintained near the boardwalk. It also helped that much of the boardwalk in front of the project stayed intact to break the roaring surf, unlike the long stretch west of 88th Street that was obliterated.
"Even back in the planning phases, there was talk of global warming and rising sea levels and all that," Mr. Romski said. "We knew we'd have to engineer it specifically, and go above and beyond the building requirements, to make it hurricane-proof."
Instead of overhead power lines, the developer put in underground utility lines, and installed submersible transformers, Mr. Romski said. Homes in the development got power back sooner than much of the rest of the Rockaways, parts of which still remain in the dark. Water never rose to the electrical meters, and the developer hired electricians to inspect the homes, to make sure they were able to receive power.
You can see Arverne by the Sea in the developer's file photos above (the low buildings surrounded by vacant land) and below. People have made fun of the project over the years for tinker-toy design and construction, as the Times points out, but when the water rose, homes in Arverne mostly stayed dry.
Leave a Comment:
Hurricane proof is a misnomer.
It reminds me of a couple who bought their dream home on the top of a ridge overlooking Malibu, many of those living there are not of great wealth, just want to be in the mountains, rural etc.
In the 80's, a fire took out that house and so they rebuilt it, with concrete and steel, fire shutters etc. so called fireproof.
In the 90's another fire came through and baked everything once again, the heat caused combustion regardless. They now live in Nashville.
The development in discussion, seems to be well planned, underground, submersible, buffer are all great and helped the complex endure, but as fickle as things can be, if the storm track had hit there instead of southern NJ, its a safe assumption that the words hurricane proof would have been dropped as an adage.
I used to live in Cal. If you are there long enough you start recognizing the same faces in Malibu, crying about storms or fires after every disaster.
Robman,
While no structure can be fire-proof or hurricane-proof, they can be resistant. The development in discussion would probably suffer less damage than those nearby in any serious storm, and that is the point.
For example, buildings in areas with periodic wildfires are far more likely to survive a fire if the building has a stone or ceramic exterior AND the landscaping around the building is selected to keep the fuel supply low. Typically, people in places like Malibu ignore the fire marshal and let the trees and brush grow thick to create privacy screens and then lose their homes during the next fire.
To prepare for hurricanes, how about municipalities and states work to put power lines below ground? Is it really cost-effective to string power lines on poles when we consider the damage caused by mass power outages? Isn't this the 21st century?
Its a shame that so many people want to live in places where they are far more likely to suffer "natural disasters." If only we could make those people pay their fair share of insurance premiums. Unfortunately, these people tend to "go light" on insurance and rely on federal bailouts, which are our tax dollars in action. Why should my taxes go to subsidize those who choose to live in dangerous places?
OK, name a non-dangerous place. Yeah, didn't think so...
rambeaux, Some places are more obviously dangerous than others.
For example, along the California coastline, building houses on bluffs overlooking the ocean is simply a bet that you will move out before the bluff is eroded out from under your house and the house ends up on the beach (literally). I have seen this happen in Pacifica. Anyone who builds a house in such an area should not be able to get insurance, and when the house is destroyed by natural erosion, should not get any public subsidy for re-building.
Similarly, anyone who builds right on a river and depends upon a levee for flood protection is a fool who should not get any public assistance to re-build when (not if) they are flooded out.
He said "more likely," rambeaux. Nowhere is free of potential natural disaster, but the degree of risk varies quite a lot.
Joan- you might add people living in an area below sea level on the coast.
It takes a lot of cement to build this type of infrastructure. Power lines should be below ground.
I agree, Rusty. I simply listed the two that I have the most experience with.
Planning? PLANNING?? How totally un-American! Next you'll be telling us there were also Government Regulations!
Yeah, That planning ahead stuff costs money. Also look at all the jobs that would cost, there will be a mini-boom to rebuild all that destroyed stuff.
Planned obsolescence by Mother Nature, building in the downspout.
Seriously, I was impressed that FEMA had brought in some Solar Powered generator stations.
Also there are now plug and play solar panels you can hang where ever and plug them into your house. You can charge your phone or batteries at least.
I would think insurance companies would be absolutely ecstatic over any efforts to improve infrastructure to deal with climate change. A major German insurance company recently released a report showing North America has seen a significant increase in extreme, (hence, costly), weather events over the last 40 years. Insurance companies don't want to pay out huge sums after each big storm, so maybe in their own self interest, they should be adding their voices to the people talking about climate change.
Insurance companies are apolitical; the bottom line is their only party affiliation!
Some utility companies are installing energy star appliances- for FREE!-in customers homes, because it is cheaper than building another power plant.
If insurance companies were truly apolitical, we'd have single-payer healthcare right now.
The National Flood Insurance Program is essentially bankrupt, so you'd think they at least would be jumping on this bandwagon.
Boy those are butt ugly buildings.
Just had to post that.
.
That's the thing -- they look like something from the Truman Show, at least to me. But some people love them, and they did stay dry.
They did not have to be "but ugly" boxes. If they were shaped like some tropical seashells they would have looked like a relative of the Sidney Opera House and be more hurricane resistance by deflecting the wind not resisting it.