Building in Active Lava Zone

[Kapohocat]

I have often though that the building codes should be as strict as building on the shoreline - such as height of foundation, restrictions on propane placement, etc.

Shoreline or residences located in Fema flood zone are required to be 15 ft off sea level. I would say that something of this same type of thing should be applied to building within x miles of the current flow.

or maybe we need to break down Lava zone 1 into sub categories such Lava Zone 1A (active within 3 miles), lava zone 1B (not quite as active - flow +3 miles away), and etc.

There was a house that was built on 12 ft cinderblock columns (near Verna's) that survived - the lava went underneath it and amazingly did not burn the house. The columns ended up about 5 ft off lava but house survived.

Any ideas?

[EightFingers]

I wondered about the same thing, long time ago I thought there should only be two lava zones: one north and one south. One earthquake in just the right spot could drastically change Pele's plumbing.

Wonder how a steel house would fair with lava going under it......

[Kapohocat]

I would agree that maybe steel or something similar to Rob's castleblock with a higher/longer burn rating on it.

[TonyB]

Aloha,

Problem is you never know how thick the flow will be.
Maybe building a home that can be moved or taken apart.

[JerryCarr]

The art and science of predicting where eruptions will occur and where flows will go are not well enough developed to truly satisfy actuaries and insurance underwriters, or so I'm told. IMHO, the current zone system (if you want to call it a system) is so broad that is seems designed more to give the insurance companies cover for price gouging than to accurately assess risk. The likelihood of real damage in some of the high risk zones is far less than would seem to merit the cost. Getting zoning regulations that accurately assess risk would be just as tricky. Some areas in the maximum risk zones have been covered twice in less than 20 years while others haven't seen lava in a century or more. Talk about all over the map! (Pun intended.)

Slightly off topic, but didn't the house recently lost to lava appear to have been of a type that is relatively simple to move? Anyone know why it wasn't moved?

[Kapohocat]

And there is another issue - if the bldg code or the COH "parking codes" allowed trailers - then having a mobile home on the lava would be less of an issue. This county has always been against the mobile home concept.

I am working with some one who is developing that exact thing right now - trailer-able homes. Not like the trailer park homes but well built little cottages on trailers. The person who did the Katrina Cottages mentioned in another thread by someone built his for $300 a SF - it is beautiful - he said $300/SF was alot but the SF is so small it wasnt bad!

[TonyB]

I've seen some very nice modular/trailer homes. I remember when I was a kid my uncle Darryl had a mobile home sales company. I went along for a few deliveries..it was a lot of fun.LOL. His motto was "With Darryl's trailers you can't tell which way the wind is blowing by which way the trailer is leaning" or something like that. He would build a deck around them, add a sun room or screen porch, or a nice entry with additional roofing, you couldn't even tell it was a trailer.
There is a community in Calif. that has these pretty high end trailer homes with million dollar views...and at the time I think it cost a million to be in that exclusive community.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kapohocat

And there is another issue - if the bldg code or the COH "parking codes" allowed trailers - then having a mobile home on the lava would be less of an issue. This county has always been against the mobile home concept.

---

What about getting some company to apply for economic development assistance (grant) to meet HUD Code for these homes? That would remove the COH from the equation. Once it is HUD Code, the County has no say.

1. There is a need for affordable housing.
2. There are no HUD Code manufacturing facilities on Hawaii at all.
3. It will create jobs.
4. It will improve the economic conditions of a community.
5. It will have an economic return to the State.
6. It will address environmental issues of building waste.
7. There are no cultural sensitivity issues involved.
8. There are no offset of employment involved.
9. It meets the "keep it local" requirement.
10. It can tie into beneficial governmental affordable housing programs.
11. There are no current government obstacles once HUD Code labeled.
12. It conforms to already acceptable community standards.
13. It provides the ability for education/vocational training programs.
14. It addresses a natural disaster issue currently unmet
15. The State of Hawaii has previosuly supported a HUD Code manufacture.

I have seen eco-dev programs approved on a whole lot less. Other than the economic viability of the venture, all the main criteria is met and surpassed. Solve the question of viability and you may have a winner on your hands. Maybe a local builder or a lumber yard would be interested.

[hooligal]

If you built a narrow little cabin on 5' post & pier, you should be able to back a tractor trailer under it, jack up the house, remove the P&P, then jack it down onto the trailer. That would be my hair-brained plan anyway! Strapping it down would be a bear though, but worth the trouble versus loosing all your hard work to Pele.

* I'd rather fail at happiness than succeed at misery *