Most residents don't want more hotels

[Miulang]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

I think high rises are actually much much safer than a low rise in a large earthquake. Look at all the big ones to hit places like LA or Japan. It's always the low to mid-rises that aren't up to code that collapse. High rises by default require a stricter building code.

Depends on what you mean by "safer". A study of damage caused by an earthquake on Guam in 1993 showed that low rise buildings suffered relatively little damage compared to mid- and high rise buildings on the islands. Most of the buildings were newer and were built to withstand the frequent typhoons that Guam encounters. Most of the damage to low rise buildings (mostly occupied by businesses) was to open storefronts with glass panes in them.

And here is a somewhat interesting article about a joint US-India symposium on construction techniques that were used a long time ago that can still be employed to create safer residential buildings that will sustain less damage in an earthquake.

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

I read your Guam article, it appears here is the culprit to the taller buildings sustaining damage.

The reasons for this poor record worldwide include investment in architectural features at the expense of structural elements, poor compliance with building codes, designs by engineers unfamiliar with seismic issues, and lack of adequate inspection.

So it's not the design of the high rises that's the problem, it's how people make modifications to them that is the undoing and cutting corners.

[timkona]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

It should be obvious to just about everybody that the High Rises in San Francisco did not fall down in 1989. But the older, shorter structures in the Marina District were destroyed due to liquifaction.

The earthquake argument about taller buildings being dangerous is false. Why is it that so many ignorant people cling to make believe??

Hawaii has very few large earthquakes anyway. The October temblor was merely a tremor to anybody who has felt the power of a REAL earthquake.

Some of you people need to adjust your thinker.

[sinjin]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

P.S. I suppose there are people who would be opposed to such a plan on moral grounds. But these are also probably the same people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, too.

Are drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes forms of immorality? What about thong underwear?

[Miulang]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

Are drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes forms of immorality? What about thong underwear?

When "sin taxes" are tacked on to alcohol and cigarette sales, the answer would be "yes". If people aren't making a moral judgement, why don't they call these taxes "excessive consumption" or "tax 'em until they quit" taxes? And in certain religions, all of the above would be considered immoral.

Miulang

[sinjin]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

When "sin taxes" are tacked on to alcohol and cigarette sales, the answer would be "yes". If people aren't making a moral judgement, why don't they call these taxes "excessive consumption" or "tax 'em until they quit" taxes? And in certain religions, all of the above would be considered immoral.

Miulang

The people smoking and drinking don't call it a sin. Those that do and make such moral judgements will never be satisfied until we all go to the same church.

[Miulang]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

So it's not the design of the high rises that's the problem, it's how people make modifications to them that is the undoing and cutting corners.

Precisely. It doesn't happen very often in this country, but some builders have been known to cut corners on the structural integrity of a building so they could focus more on the asthetics of it (I think this happens more in hotels than in condos, though). If I was even considering moving into a brand new high rise, I'd want to know how the thing was built, from the skeleton outward.

Just because a high rise building is supposed to be earthquake resistant, I wouldn't trust the word of the developer who's trying to sell me a unit. For one thing, building inspectors can be bought off. And for sure, I'd want to check the geographical features of the neighborhood (i.e., is the building constructed on landfill or sand which can liquefy? Is the building made out of masonry instead of just its facade?) Nowadays, physical phenomena like "100 year floods" are occurring with more frequency, so better to be aware and proactive, especially if you're going to be paying a wad of money to live someplace.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

The people smoking and drinking don't call it a sin. Those that do and make such moral judgements will never be satisfied until we all go to the same church.

Of course not, but some religious people who are against such things do consider them immoral! They would call those who drink and smoke and go dancing sinners.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

It should be obvious to just about everybody that the High Rises in San Francisco did not fall down in 1989. But the older, shorter structures in the Marina District were destroyed due to liquifaction.
.

But you also have to remember that those brick and mortar structures in the Marina District also withstood the serious earthquakes in the past without major damage, too. So it could very well be that the 1989 quakes were the "straw that broke the camel's back."

The Marina District, I believe, is built on landfill (like parts of downtown Seattle). When the ground liquefies, it doesn't matter what kind of structure it is; it will sustain damage. Why don't they build high rises in the Marina District? Because they know that the ground could turn to oatmeal.

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

Precisely. It doesn't happen very often in this country, but some builders have been known to cut corners on the structural integrity of a building so they could focus more on the asthetics of it (I think this happens more in hotels than in condos, though). If I was even considering moving into a brand new high rise, I'd want to know how the thing was built, from the skeleton outward.

Just because a high rise building is supposed to be earthquake resistant, I wouldn't trust the word of the developer who's trying to sell me a unit. For one thing, building inspectors can be bought off. And for sure, I'd want to check the geographical features of the neighborhood (i.e., is the building constructed on landfill or sand which can liquefy? Is the building made out of masonry instead of just its facade?) Nowadays, physical phenomena like "100 year floods" are occurring with more frequency, so better to be aware and proactive, especially if you're going to be paying a wad of money to live someplace.

Miulang

But all this reaffirms my statement that high rises are pretty safe in large earthquakes unless not up to code. Why would you feel better in a one story house if it's not built to code either? All it takes is one brick or beam to nail you on the head and you're history. People tend to react with a lot of emotion when it comes to earthquakes, thinking they will be safer in a low rise vs a high rise.

As for checking on how the building is constructed and sitting on what land, most people don't even bother these days. How many checks out if the land the building they want to purchase is in a flood zone, sitting on any faults, ancient indian burial ground, former landfill, etc? I bet you hardly any since everyone is so caught up in the ridiculous real estate hype.

[Miulang]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

But all this reaffirms my statement that high rises are pretty safe in large earthquakes unless not up to code. Why would you feel better in a one story house if it's not built to code either? All it takes is one brick or beam to nail you on the head and you're history. People tend to react with a lot of emotion when it comes to earthquakes, thinking they will be safer in a low rise vs a high rise.

As for checking on how the building is constructed and sitting on what land, most people don't even bother these days. How many checks out if the land the building they want to purchase is in a flood zone, sitting on any faults, ancient indian burial ground, former landfill, etc? I bet you hardly any since everyone is so caught up in the ridiculous real estate hype.

The reason why I personally wouldn't want to live in a building that had more than 4 or 5 stories is because it's easier to evacuate from a low building than a high rise. I'm not just thinking about earthquakes...what about fires? What about planes crashing into your building? Remember "Towering Inferno"? The possibility of a fire is far greater than the possibility of an earthquake. I think the tallest fire ladder would only reach up to about the 8th story of a building, so you'd be SOL if you were trapped above a fire on the 12th floor, for instance (for this reason, whenever I stay at a hotel, I request a room on one of the lower floors if possible...I don't know if you remember the fire at the MGM Hotel in LV where so many people died because they were trapped in their rooms, but that is a good reminder).

I purposely chose where I live in 1991 because 1) the building is only 4 stories high (44 units), built on bedrock, not in a flood plain (although we do overlook a former peat bog) and has ample water runoff (no risk of flooding). It has plastic siding rather than masonry walls. Because of the type of construction used, I was able to get relatively inexpensive earthquake insurance. I bought a unit with a northern exposure so I wouldn't have to bake in the afternoons as the sun was going down and it stays a whole lot cooler in the summertime, too. I live on the second floor, which means if necessary I could jump out of a window or off my lanai without doing serious injury to myself if I was trapped by a fire. but I'm high enough off the ground that I don't worry about people breaking in easily. I'm a block away from a bus stop and the nearest supermarket is about 150 steps away from me. Everybody has to make choices, and mine was to be as prudent as possible because of the money involved and my own safety.

Miulang

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

Due to the abundance of UXO, I'm not sure Kahoolawe is a viable or smart location to open a casino.

Actually I think with the presence of UXO's that would keep people directed to sanctioned casino's and not try to sneak in or onto Kahoolawe via other methods of entry: Caution: trespassers will be blown up!

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

Caution: trespassers will be blown up!

That's not quite the housing boom we were expecting to discuss here, was it?

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

That's not quite the housing boom we were expecting to discuss here, was it?

Okay let me put it in perspective: there will be no housing boom on Kahoolawe anytime soon for fear of being blown up. But then again that would be a great deterrant to would be burglers who attempt fate by walking across your lawn to get to your house.

[joshuatree]

Re: Most residents don't want more hotels

The reason why I personally wouldn't want to live in a building that had more than 4 or 5 stories is because it's easier to evacuate from a low building than a high rise. I'm not just thinking about earthquakes...what about fires? What about planes crashing into your building? Remember "Towering Inferno"? The possibility of a fire is far greater than the possibility of an earthquake. I think the tallest fire ladder would only reach up to about the 8th story of a building, so you'd be SOL if you were trapped above a fire on the 12th floor, for instance (for this reason, whenever I stay at a hotel, I request a room on one of the lower floors if possible...I don't know if you remember the fire at the MGM Hotel in LV where so many people died because they were trapped in their rooms, but that is a good reminder).

Miulang

Well, if you want to evaluate a high rise for a fire situation, then of course, you have a whole different set of criteria.

I always wondered in a high rise scenario, would it be safe if you chose to live at the highest floor, let's say 40. Always keep a hang glider ready in the balcony for the fire.