In Grist's November roundup of post-Katrina bills and plans, the Other Sarah mentioned October's Mississippi Renewal Forum, organized by Gov. Haley Barbour (R) and the Congress for a New Urbanism. As we (and when I say "we," I mean "we have the same name so I can refer to us in first-person plural") said then, "A comprehensive plan was produced; we're holding our breath for full follow-through."
Can you see where this is going already?
One of the outcomes of the forum was the Katrina Cottage, a compact, sturdy alternative to FEMA trailers. A two-bedroom cottage prototype was unveiled in Louisiana this week, joining the one-bedroom cottage being displayed in Mississippi. Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco joined Barbour and other high state officials in asking FEMA to order Katrina Cottages instead of unstable trailers. Why, why would they want to do that?
- Cottages: "cottages." Trailers: "trailers."
- Cottages: have no sheetrock, so can get wet without permanent damage. Trailers: sure, they're waterproof-ish, but ...
- Cottages: built to withstand winds up to 200 mph. Trailers: likely to buckle under any gust over 50 mph.
- Cottages: come in 400- and 750-square-foot versions. Trailers: 23 to 28 feet.
- Cottages: $60,000 to deliver and assemble. Trailers: $75,000 to deliver and assemble.
- Cottages: designed with an eye to local Creole-style architecture, and cute. Trailers: ew.
- Cottages: able to be eventually adapted into permanent housing.
And therein lies the rub. You knew it was coming.
Despite the fact that production bottlenecks have allowed FEMA to provide only 37 percent of the 90,000 displaced Louisiana families with housing, an obscure law is preventing them from funding the cottages: The 1974 Stafford Act, which disallows FEMA from spending money on permanent residential construction. (Presumably the Florida residents of 1992's Hurricane Andrew, who just moved out of their trailers this month, spent 13 years in "temporary" housing.) So, since the cottages can be converted into permanent housing, FEMA is restricted from funding them.
CNU board member Andres Duany feels confident that the act will be amended to allow FEMA to fund the cottages. Well, they'd be doing a heckuva job then, wouldn't they?
So ... we're still holding our breath for full follow-through. I look forward to giving you an update if the law is amended ... but the requisite environmentalist pessimism makes me say, keep a respirator handy.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 8:10 am
28 Mar 2006
Designing a home specifically so that it can be flooded has a few snags. Everything inside will still be ruined and it will still fill up with sewage and flood silt:
Duany said dozens of Katrina Cottage designs have been developed. Most call for construction on concrete pilings, meaning they can be built in any flood plain. After a flood, cottage owners could dry them out rather than gut them.
I suppose you could use waterbeds and indoor/outdoor carpet, but I digress...
"It's a flood'n again kids, put on your life jackets and get in the boat..."
Homes should not be built in floodplains; septic systems, water supplies and power are all disrupted by flooding, not to mention you might drown. Replacing the sheet rock is a small part of the total problem.
What you need is a fully submersible home that you could ride the flood out in, with a snorkel. You would also need a TV dish on top of the snorkel. Making the home mobile would be a good idea, should you get bored waiting for the waters to recede. Wait a minute, that sounds like a submarine, which, I suppose is a boat version of a house trailer, er manufactured home.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:28 pm
28 Mar 2006
And they have solved the storm barrier problem too.
Go figure huh? A nation with half it's land below sea level might have solutions that the administration might find useful?
But when a nation has a shaved chimp appointed president,that appoints fellow simian cronies like Chertoff, well then just saying "duuuh" becomes a constant national catch phrase.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:39 am
29 Mar 2006
Still uncertain is whether floating homes could withstand hurricane-force winds. The Netherlands never gets winds above 60 mph, but the Canadian homes have withstood stronger gales. At 46 mph, though, they start to sway enough that "people who suffer from seasickness have a problem," van de Woerdt says.
In Amsterdam, the floating houses were bought by companies that used them as temporary offices while the reclamation project was under way. When the companies set up shop on dry land, squatters moved in, turning the complex into a hippie haven thick with marijuana smoke.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:47 am
29 Mar 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:26 am
29 Mar 2006
I think the key is that inexpensive ferro/fiber cement base. Very inexpensive in mass production.
The high cost of the homes in the article was due to the part of the building on top. Of course they would not do well in waves or storm driven current. But that wasn't a problem in most of the New Orleans flood zone.
I actually called hagin's office a couple weeks afo with this idea and a real person took the message, hehey. Not that I think it will make any difference.
I pointed out that government funds could be used to build the base units of a standard size, then homeowners could build on them, with local builders or do it yourself. It would cut down on the destruction and costs from the upcoming Katrinas.
Check out the dutch storm surge barriers, with wave power/water current generators built in they would even provide huge amounts of renewable electric power.
http://landrieu.senate.gov/hurricanes/dutchtrip.cfm
Sen. Landrieu did.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:33 am
29 Mar 2006
I would imagine the primates in the administration would have heard from these folks had they the inclination to listen and the ability to understand.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Palaces Posted 4:46 pm
02 Apr 2006
20,000 divided by 120 families = 167 PALACES.
$35,000 x 120 families is $4,200,000.
$60,000 x 120 families is $7,200,000.
167 x $4.2m = $701,400,000.
167 x $7.2m = $1,202,400,000.
This is what the little boxes they are going to put those people in look like: http://www.cusatocottages.com/index_content.html
NOW, go compare PALACES:
http://ecosyn.us/Welcome/02/index.html
Here's what people get in a PALACE:
1,100 sq.ft. private suite. 900 sq.ft. outdoors terrace-patio. Hurricane-proof, fireproof construction. 2.5 acres of indoor commercial space (restaurants, boutiques, shopping center, theaters, health clubs, etc. steps from thir door. Large community facilities (2.5 acres under roof), employment and business locations steps away. Zero-environmental emissions. 75% reduction in energy consumption. Possibly free, else very low cost utilities for life -- water, sewer, electricity, heating/cooling, cooking gas.
Look at renderings of a grid of eight with a central park.
http://www.ecosyn.us/Ecovillage/
http:ecosyn.us PALACES for the People, H2-PV, PV-Breeders acres of PV, tons of Hydrogen
Permalink