Community Storm Shelters

[ou48A]

Let's get some hard information into the discussion. Does anyone know how many Oklahoma structures - residential and commercial - exist in Oklahoma, and how many of those sustain structural damage or are destroyed in a year? Multiply by 40 or 50 to get the useful life of a "typical" structure and you'll determine the lifetime chances that a building is significantly affected. I'm not talking about a roof totalled by hail (property damage), this discussion is about constructing to a level above what we currently have in order to safely protect the occupants. My hunch is less than one percent.

Do we want to increase costs for everyone when only __ percent of the structures will be affected during their lifetimes?

Your idea of a 40 or 50 year “useful life of a typical structure” is way off base. Most occupied structures will easily last twice that amount if not much more. As we continue our growth in central Oklahoma the impact from tornadoes will only grow bigger and more costly.
When we are only talking about a few thousand dollars to make an average home significantly stronger its silly to even think we don’t need stronger building codes that have been proven to work in other states.
Shelters are a different topic.

[ou48A]

[CuatrodeMayo]

Your idea of a 40 or 50 year “useful life of a typical structure” is way off base. Most occupied structures will easily last twice that amount if not much more.

He is pretty close when you consider "Useful life" not ultimate life. 30-50 years is about the expected function lifespan of the average building constructed today without significant upgrades along the way.

[ou48A]

He is pretty close when you consider "Useful life" not ultimate life. 30-50 years is about the expected function lifespan of the average building constructed today without significant upgrades along the way.

There is a big difference. What is most common is that most home owners will maintain their homes well enough for them to last for one hundred years or more….. Go to other older cities and there are all kinds of examples of very old structures that have been well maintained….
Are you trying to say that we would be any different here in Oklahoma?

[ljbab728]

Let's get some hard information into the discussion. Does anyone know how many Oklahoma structures - residential and commercial - exist in Oklahoma, and how many of those sustain structural damage or are destroyed in a year? Multiply by 40 or 50 to get the useful life of a "typical" structure and you'll determine the lifetime chances that a building is significantly affected. I'm not talking about a roof totalled by hail (property damage), this discussion is about constructing to a level above what we currently have in order to safely protect the occupants. My hunch is less than one percent.

Do we want to increase costs for everyone when only __ percent of the structures will be affected during their lifetimes?

While it only applies to commercial buildings, you might make that same argument about requirements for sprinkler systems.

[bluedogok]

While it only applies to commercial buildings, you might make that same argument about requirements for sprinkler systems.

The newer codes are pushing for residential sprinklers, I fully expect them to be implemented in the next set of codes issued in 2015. When cities adopt that code is another thing entirely, some cities are still under codes from the 90's. Many states have already mandated them, Maryland required them as of late last year. Most state fire marshals are pushing for adoption, of course home builders associations oppose any mandate.

When we build a house it is not going to be built like your typical builder standard stick frame construction, more than likely ICF with fire resistive materials and a sprinkler system especially since we are planning to build in the Foothills where the fire danger is higher.

When we did the Catholic youth camp up hear Luther we changed the restroom design to incorporate safe room principles, this was right after the May 3, 1999 tornado (and others that hit closer to the camp like Mulhall). We had to tear out three cabin slabs that were already poured to rebuild them to accommodate the safe rooms.

[OKCTalker]

Trying to estimate the percentage of houses damaged/destroyed in Moore using the revised estimate of 1,200 homes released by authorities earlier today.

I didn't quickly find the number of housing units in the 2010 census, but in 2000 the number was 15,801. Between 2000 and 2010 the population increased by 33.9% (from 41,138 to 55,081), so an equal increase in housing units would take it to 21,158 in 2010, three years ago.

If 1,200 structures were damaged/destroyed out of 21,158 total housing units, then 5.7% were affected.

I'm not saying whether or not that's a large percentage for an extraordinary weather event, but just trying to bring some math into the discussion.

[jerrywall]

The thought of a sprinkler system inside my house makes me nervous. I don't know much about them. Is there a chance of them getting set off prematurely (like, with a grease fire on the stove that could be handled easily with a small extinguisher)?

[ou48A]

I recent days I have seen national commentary saying that people shouldn’t be allow to rebuild in tornado prone areas such as Moore…..

But if the experts are correct we could greatly minimize damage with better new construction and do it at reasonable cost.
I think we owe it to future generations of Sooners to do what other states have already done and strengthen our building codes….. In the long run minimizing the damage is less costly and this doesn’t even address the emotional and physical trauma.

[CuatrodeMayo]

The thought of a sprinkler system inside my house makes me nervous. I don't know much about them. Is there a chance of them getting set off prematurely (like, with a grease fire on the stove that could be handled easily with a small extinguisher)?

If it makes you feel better, when the temperature reaches high enough and for long enough to pop a sprinkler head (130 degress or so), only the sprinkler head nearest the fire will activate. It's not like in the movies when the entire building's system activates over one head being set off. This is a common misconception.

[oki]

The fallacy of human supremacy tends to arise after moments like these.

All the technology in the world is not going to save you from a direct hit from an F5 tornado. New building standards are not going to help your home withstand 300+ mph winds.

Wind speeds at that level bend rebar. And I'm pretty sure I heard stories of safe rooms failing. Unless you plan on making everyone live underground, there really is little way to protect yourself in a tornado that size outside of a good ol storm cellar or, at the very lest, a certain level of weather awareness.

I wouldn't mind if the state brought back credits for building storm shelters.

Agree.

Fortunately EF5s are not very common here.

I don't support a mandate of all new homes having to be steel structure or otherwise storm-ready behind the standard 90 mph wind withstanding.

Most homes just aren't hit by tornadoes. There's only a slight probability that your home will be directly hit by a tornado.

"For any given year, the chances of your house being hit by a violent tornado are about 10-5 X 0.01, or about one in 10 million (10-7). In 30 years of living in that house, there are roughly 3 chances in 1,000,000 of having that home flattened by the F4-F5 winds in a violent tornado." (Source: Violent Tornado Probability)

I would imagine that fire, flood, car accident, falling down stairs, cancer, and other risks are a greater risk to your safety than your home being directly hit by a tornado.

We can't prepare for everything, and have to be reasonable with costs vs. risk.

A backyard underground storm shelter for a few thousand dollars yields a good return on investment for a relatively low risk threat.

With that said, people really should be weather conscious and seek the best shelter available when there is the risk. Mobile home residents must, must seek alternative shelter. People should take the best available shelter they can find, not watch the storm outside, not stay in a mobile home, not drive around, not ignore the storm, not stay by windows, etc. The odds of your house being completely leveled by a direct hit from a tornado are very, very low--- but trees falling, windows breaking, etc. are a real threat. Low risks of danger isn't an excuse to ignore tornado warnings. It's like wearing a car seatbeat. Usually you'll be ok without one, but the "cost" of wearing a car seat belt is low. The "cost" of getting under a mattress in the bathtub during a tornado warning, or getting in your backyard underground storm shelter, during a tornado warning is low. It's a worthwhile effort to protect yourself. Like I said, I think people should pay attention to the weather, seek shelter during warnings, and even consider an underground storm shelter in their backyard if they can easily afford it. I don't think it's necessary to build a new home that can withstand 300 mph winds with the very low odds of your house being completely wiped out by a tornado. Plus, the odds of an EF5 hitting are low. If you go stand outside or stay in a mobile home during even a weaker tornado, your odds of getting hurt are much greater. Cost vs. risk.

[ljbab728]

Oklahoma City metro-area cities oppose public storm shelters, say residents need to make their own storm plans | News OK

[Questor]

What a horrible reality that article depicts.

The city has got to address what people who live in apartments, or are just passing through on the highway are to do when something like this hits. They have some liability in it in my opinion since they won't force apartment owners/builders to address the issue.

[ljbab728]

What a horrible reality that article depicts.

The city has got to address what people who live in apartments, or are just passing through on the highway are to do when something like this hits. They have some liability in it in my opinion since they won't force apartment owners/builders to address the issue.

But that is a reality, Questor. The city just can't protect everyone within it's city limits from everything.

Some rural towns have public shelters. With low populations and no traffic concerns, public shelters can be a viable solution, Moore Emergency Management Director Gayland Kitch said.
But that simply isn't the case with larger cities.
“We don't have anything that has got a big basement,” Kitch said. “We certainly don't have a basement that can hold 55,000 people.”

And people passing through would have little clue where to find public shelters even if they were available. They certainly couldn't force all existing homes or apartment complexes to build shelters.

[Questor]

The city needs to address it. Many people are relocating here because of growth in various business sectors... We don't want them terrified and second guessing their decision to come here. That is bad for business.

[ljbab728]

The city needs to address it. Many people are relocating here because of growth in various business sectors... We don't want them terrified and second guessing their decision to come here. That is bad for business.

I don't have a clue what you mean by addressing it. The city can only do so much and they obviously are not ignoring the issue. As mentioned in other threads, the storms are not going to be a serious deterrent to growth in business sectors just as it hasn't been in the past in the wake of serious storms. Moore has undergone the most explosive growth in businesses in it's history since the last devastating storm hit that city. They have had no changes in policies or regulations.

[venture]

Yeah, I'm not sure what cities can really do. The big problem with May 31st and why the death toll was so high is that we had too many people out on the roads. NWS Norman was warning people continuously that morning, do not drive between 4 and 8PM. They got ODOT to put it on the signs across town. It's one of those things, if you are working until 5 or 6 and couldn't get out earlier, then you have a plan in place. Know where the storms are, what your route is - how congested it is, and decide if you should stay or go.

Community shelters only encourage people to leave their homes and get out in the weather which is worse than staying put. The only shelter mandates that should come down are for protecting those at highest risk - mobile home parks, camping sites, and apartment complexes. Those are really the only places where people aren't going to have an option to install a storm shelter. With apartments I'm also lumping in developments like lofts downtown and such for those buildings to at least have a saferoom of some sort on site.

May 31st 8 of 9 people killed were in their cars. Consider that when thinking about the homes that were hit by the EF3 (as it is rated right now) and other tornadoes. Let's also look back to May 20th. The ONLY EF5 damage was at Briarwood Elementary. It was not an EF5 back in Newcastle, the bulk of Moore, OKC, etc. So you are not going to see, in most cases, a wide swath of EF5 damage. I'm also pretty sure no one was killed at Briarwood.

We need to do better in getting people, who are ALREADY on the roads, out of the way of storms as they come through. Those that are in the path need to stay where they are in a safe spot. Perhaps the best investment going forward would be highway information signs every 20 miles on all the states major interstates/highways that carry significant amounts of traffic. That would be roughly 26 signs on I-35, 34 on I-44, and 34 on I-40 to start. The cost, from what I've found, is roughly around $140K per installation, but will vary on the sign obviously. So we are looking at a cost of roughly $13 million to do an initial install. The signs then are used to alert drivers to weather conditions (as well as your typical road advisories) in the county they are are in and also those in front of them.

We also need to see a better traffic management system put in place to divert people earlier and close on-ramps so we aren't further packing highways that are being used to evacuate those already on the road.

[ou48A]

Better state traffic management would help but reducing traffic bottle necks would help too.
The proposed east side metro I-35 by pass and more bridges over the river in the south metro are both already needed.
There are many stick framed hotels that are no safer than apartments. We might need to look at those too.

[venture]

Better state traffic management would help but reducing traffic bottle necks would help too.
The proposed east side metro I-35 by pass and more bridges over the river in the south metro are both already needed.
There are many stick framed hotels that are no safer than apartments. We might need to look at those too.

Pretty much any new highway is going to have to be a turnpike, but let's not pull that discussion in here. There are already 4 threads, give or take, that have been hitting on it. That's plenty cross pollination of the subject.

I agree hotels should also be looked at as well for requiring some form of storm shelter. We saw what can happen with these lower end 2-3 story hotels after May 3rd tore through a couple at Shields and 35.

[kevinpate]

Community shelters are a bad idea purely from the get there standpoint.

If govt. ever decides to require shelter protection, any mandate ought to be directed to the individual property owner level only, residential or commercial. If the owner is leasing the property out, the required compliance costs, like most all costs, would be factored into lease rates and passed along to the tenants over an appropriate period.

[mmonroe]

Can we turn this over to some engineer grad students to design concepts for cost effective publicly accessible storm shelters that can be added to many areas around the metro...

[venture]

Can we turn this over to some engineer grad students to design concepts for cost effective publicly accessible storm shelters that can be added to many areas around the metro...

Again this would go against the "stay put and take shelter" that people need to be following. Now if we put in community shelters at the places we've discussed above (apartments, hotels, mobile home parks)...that's different.

[Questor]

The government already has the right to regulate business in the interest of public safety. It has every right to require apartment complex builders to build to higher standards or require tornado shelters on site. The only question is if the public will is there to support it.

We have snow route signs on all city roads. In the south there are hurricane evacuation route signs. If there were public shelters, it would be a no brainer to put up signs pointing travelers to them.

I don't see how any grad student is going to come up with a solution cheaper than digging a ditch and filling it with concrete. That probably sounds like I'm trying to be smart, but I'm being serious.

There are always possibilities.

I have to think that the illusion of safety is something the government would also be interested in. In the 50's fallout shelters wouldn't have helped much if the Russians had decided to nuke us. But the thought of them being there kept people from losing it like they did last Friday....

[CuatrodeMayo]

Here ya go...https://jcbunkerbeds.com/