I've just read the two articles in the Chron about how they're securing the roof of the Minute Maid and are locking Reliant and the Dome to keep people from using them as shelters during Rita. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/3364627 http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/3364624 In the articles it noted that all three of these stadiums were designed for hurricanes but not for anything stronger than 100 MPH winds. Given the value of using the Astrodome as a shelter and that the Superdome performed very poorly as a shelter during Katrina should we design stadiums in areas prone to natural disasters stronger with the consideration that they will be used as shelters? Obviously this would greatly push up the costs of building covered stadiums but if they are going to fulfill a civic function as primary shelters should they then be designed to be able to stand up during a disaster and then who should bear the added costs?
As a Reliability Engineer, I would say yes. However, when public funds are involved, initial purchase/build price is really all that matters.
Objection. Stadium is a luxury, not a necessity. I am all for higher standard of building codes for stronger residential homes. They are the ultimate sanctity for citizens. Stadium can kiss my ass.
Stadiums are generally considered a luxury but as the Superdome and Astrodome show they can also can become a valuable benefit in a disaster. As we know now the Superdome had officially been considered as an emergency shelter in the event of a disaster so for New Orleans disaster planning it was essential. I don't know for sure but I suspect that many cities have considered their stadiums also as a resource for disaster planning. I agree that houses should be built stronger but its asking a lot of a 1,200 sq. ft. house to be designed to withstand hurricane strength winds and even with tougher codes we would have to consider all of the houses built prior to the code change that don't meet the new code. Also given the rise in housing costs it would be up to individuals and the market to absorb the added costs of tougher codes. That would make already a tight housing market even tighter and likely leave more people homeless or living in substandard housing. OTOH a stadium is largely a one time expense where the costs can be borne by the municipality and when it is used as a shelter is open to all in the municipality. From a planning standpoint it is far easier to build a stronger stadium as a shelter than to expect to build new housing and upgrade existing housing.
I wonder what the cost difference is between 100 mph wind resistance and 150 mph wind resistance (or whatever a high threshold should be)?
then again, a stadium can be our biggest necessity in times of a hurricane or something (see superdome, and astrodome)
I'm guessing its a lot and I think this is a loser on most cost benefit analysis. OTOH though if we're going to use stadiums as emergency shelters they need to be able to weather the emergency. I don't have a solid position either way but think its an important subject for debate.
Sorry Sishir and adeel, the examples of Superdome and Astrodome don't ring a bell with me. It was a total chaos in Superdome. Stadiums are NOT designed to house people. At best, they can only hold people temporaily. Yes, "temporaily" is the keyword. We all see what happened in New Orleans: without electricity and running water, after a short period of time, **** (literally and figuratively) is bound to explode in people's faces. As for Astrodome hosting evacuees from New Orleans, it was all done in "peace time", not a in real-life situation.
Stadiums built in areas where major disasters may occur should be built to withstand those catastrophes so they may serve as shelters for people with no other option.
But I think the question is - if the Superdome had been built better, and had not blown a hole in the roof and had flooding inside and such, would it have been as chaotic, or would it have functioned as a feasible shelter? And if so, should stadiums be built with that in mind? As someone mentioned earlier, I think the cost/benefit thing is the key. How much more expensive is it to withstand a Cat 5 hurricane?
My answer is it would have still been as chaotic, due to the lack of electricity and running water. Hence, unless the stadium is specially designed and supplied with extra-protected utility lines, the answer to the following question is no. As I said earlier, it takes more than just a strong stadium to accommodate evacuees.
But you're missing the point though that the Superdome and Astrodome were planned for being shelters in emergency plans. The Superdome failed because it wasn't designed to deal with the disaster and we're seeing that the Astrodome isn't designed to deal with it either yet that hasn't changed the fact that emergency officials consider both of them to be shelters. The idea isn't to keep people in them for long periods but to allow them to shelter people who can't evacuate or are without housing for short periods. So you're right it "temporarily" is the keyword but it must still be able to last long enough to make it through the crisis. As for providing power and water that's part of the point of designing them to withstand a disaster. They can have generators and plenty of port a johns standing by.
