Today's discussion about the news

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

...utterly uninsuerable...

Check out the FloodRe scheme that's been around for 5 or so years.

wallace_and_gromit

orraloon said:

Or, as in case of what used to be a bank and is now The Bank restaurant, build higher so your ground floor is 2m+ above the rest.

There's a pub in York that always hits the news when the Ouse floods as the ground floor is right in the firing line. It looks good on telly, but the ground floor has only been used as a store room for years, and the pub part of the pub is above the water line.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

...utterly uninsuerable...

Check out the FloodRe scheme that's been around for 5 or so years.

I found their chief underwriting officer I know lol

rick_chasey

Large swathes of America are currently uninsurable - partly because of local regs around price raises but also because the rising cost of insuring against increasing disasters as a result of climate change.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/09/21/parts-of-america-are-becoming-uninsurable

Pross

pangolin said:

Pross said:

People in Scotland now having to be evacuated by boat as they wouldn’t leave their homes when requested. No doubt there’ll be complaints that they weren’t warned despite the red warning.

Would you leave your home? I'd have to think pretty hard about it.

If the option was staying there and going to sleep to find myself trapped then yes. It's not like the authorities are advising you to leave for the sake of it.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

If people had built their houses on sticks they wouldn't need to move everything upstairs. I know the resident architect strongly disagrees with this approach to mitigation.

Not quite what I said. It's a solution but not one that is suitable for every location nor does it solve all the problems caused by flooding.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Just letting houses flood...is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

Flood defences can only do so much. Water finds its own level and if there's enough of it, flood defences simply deflect the problem elsewhere.

This just sounds like poor flood defences. Holland manages fine.

Not many steep-sided valleys in Holland.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Just letting houses flood...is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

Flood defences can only do so much. Water finds its own level and if there's enough of it, flood defences simply deflect the problem elsewhere.

This just sounds like poor flood defences. Holland manages fine.

Not many steep-sided valleys in Holland.

I'd be surprised if problem can't be overcome by enough money and will.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Just letting houses flood...is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

Flood defences can only do so much. Water finds its own level and if there's enough of it, flood defences simply deflect the problem elsewhere.

This just sounds like poor flood defences. Holland manages fine.

Not many steep-sided valleys in Holland.

I'd be surprised if problem can't be overcome by enough money and will.

Everything is fixable if you throw enough money at it. It's just a question of how much.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

...utterly uninsuerable...

Check out the FloodRe scheme that's been around for 5 or so years.

I found their chief underwriting officer I know lol

So did you do any research on what Flood Re actually exists for? It is to minimise the number of houses that are "uninsurable" due to flood risk, so your comment about uninsurable houses is a bit strange.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Just letting houses flood...is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

Flood defences can only do so much. Water finds its own level and if there's enough of it, flood defences simply deflect the problem elsewhere.

This just sounds like poor flood defences. Holland manages fine.

Not many steep-sided valleys in Holland.

I'd be surprised if problem can't be overcome by enough money and will.

Everything is fixable if you throw enough money at it. It's just a question of how much.

If the alternative is places are basically uninhabitable, I think "how much" is quite a lot.

This is the cost of climate change and why it makes sense to get emissions under control sooner.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.

I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.

DeVlaeminck

Yes they took a risk and lost. I'd still be sympathetic though - we all take risks in life.

Eldest has just bought a house in Hillsborough and a couple she liked were rejected because they eitner flooded or were very close to flooding in the past.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.

I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.

This forum suffers from demographic blindness.

Most people on here seem to be male, professional, middle aged and affluent.

Most other people aren't.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Just letting houses flood...is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

Flood defences can only do so much. Water finds its own level and if there's enough of it, flood defences simply deflect the problem elsewhere.

This just sounds like poor flood defences. Holland manages fine.

Not many steep-sided valleys in Holland.

I'd be surprised if problem can't be overcome by enough money and will.

Everything is fixable if you throw enough money at it. It's just a question of how much.

If the alternative is places are basically uninhabitable, I think "how much" is quite a lot.

This is the cost of climate change and why it makes sense to get emissions under control sooner.

Generally speaking, mitigation upstream is more effective and cheaper than river walls and adding semi-redundant storeys to buildings.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.

I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.

This forum suffers from demographic blindness.

Most people on here seem to be male, professional, middle aged and affluent.

Most other people aren't.

Still struggling with the relevance of that to buying a house with a flood history but I'm sure Rick will appreciate the demographic blindness reference. Are you saying non-male, non-professionals don't understand the concept of a house that floods not being a good thing? Was there anything in the original post by W&G that suggested the people have bought the house in question were of a different demographic?

If you have the finances to buy a house it is probably better to buy one that hasn't flooded several times in the previous few years. Buying one that does because it is affordable would appear to be a false economy.

First.Aspect

Just watch the news. And then put yourself notionally in the same room shaking your head and saying, well I told you so.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Just watch the news. And then put yourself notionally in the same room shaking your head and saying, well I told you so.

Again, you seem to be missing the point that the comment was made about people choosing to move into a house that had flooded several times in the previous few years and not about all people living in areas prone to flooding. If you are already there when flooding starts to become a regular issue then it is obviously going to be difficult to get out.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Just watch the news. And then put yourself notionally in the same room shaking your head and saying, well I told you so.

Again, you seem to be missing the point that the comment was made about people choosing to move into a house that had flooded several times in the previous few years and not about all people living in areas prone to flooding. If you are already there when flooding starts to become a regular issue then it is obviously going to be difficult to get out.

No, I'm not missing that point.

focuszing723

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Just watch the news. And then put yourself notionally in the same room shaking your head and saying, well I told you so.

Again, you seem to be missing the point that the comment was made about people choosing to move into a house that had flooded several times in the previous few years and not about all people living in areas prone to flooding. If you are already there when flooding starts to become a regular issue then it is obviously going to be difficult to get out.

No, I'm not missing that point.

Yeah you are, the point at which a house floods.

wallace_and_gromit

Pross said:

Was there anything in the original post by W&G that suggested the people have bought the house in question were of a different demographic?

If it helps:

Purchasers #1 were an all female professional couple, but otherwise fit the demographic.

Purchasers #2 were a traditional professional couple, fitting the demographic, each with a nice Beemer.

rjsterry

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.

I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.

The EA notes that 2.4million dwellings are at risk of flooding from river or sea, and a further 2.8million dwellings susceptible to surface water flooding. That's roughly 1 in 5 dwellings.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.

I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.

The EA notes that 2.4million dwellings are at risk of flooding from river or sea, and a further 2.8million dwellings susceptible to surface water flooding. That's roughly 1 in 5 dwellings.

Not many of them flood 3 or 4 times in a decade as in the case being discussed though.

webboo

I know this isn’t the same as flooding but currently we have water coming in to the garage through the ceiling where the door from the house is. This has never happened in 3 years and there are no stains on the plaster to indicate it happened before. I guess this is because we don’t normally get 50 mph winds from the NE and torrential rain all at the same time.
Some times you don’t know you are at risk till it happens.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.

I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.

The EA notes that 2.4million dwellings are at risk of flooding from river or sea, and a further 2.8million dwellings susceptible to surface water flooding. That's roughly 1 in 5 dwellings.

Not many of them flood 3 or 4 times in a decade as in the case being discussed though.

The people saying there was regular flooding stayed because it regularly isn't that big a deal. This was unusually severe.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.

You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!

And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.

I think this is the wrong approach.

With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.

We need proper investment in flood defences.

If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.

There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.

I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.

The EA notes that 2.4million dwellings are at risk of flooding from river or sea, and a further 2.8million dwellings susceptible to surface water flooding. That's roughly 1 in 5 dwellings.

Not many of them flood 3 or 4 times in a decade as in the case being discussed though.

The people saying there was regular flooding stayed because it regularly isn't that big a deal. This was unusually severe.

Again, I was talking about the house W&G mentioned earlier that has sold twice since flooding 3 times in a 7 year period.

As for this time around, the weather forecast were saying it was extreme and forecasting 250mm of rain in 24 hours so they were being told it was unusually severe for several days in advance. I suppose you could argue there have been a few incidences of cry wolf with red weather warnings though. The last few I can recall in my area have ended up not being that bad so it can probably cause complacency.

First.Aspect

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Just watch the news. And then put yourself notionally in the same room shaking your head and saying, well I told you so.

Again, you seem to be missing the point that the comment was made about people choosing to move into a house that had flooded several times in the previous few years and not about all people living in areas prone to flooding. If you are already there when flooding starts to become a regular issue then it is obviously going to be difficult to get out.

No, I'm not missing that point.

Yeah you are, the point at which a house floods.

No, I just don't agree with you or Pross.

I wouldn't stay I don't think. But then who knows? These people were about to lose a lot of belongings and possibly their homes entirely. I am not sure how I'd react when faced with that reality to be honest. Perhaps I would be outside with a bilge pump, or a large sponge.

A bit of sympathy and empathy wouldn't go amiss.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Just watch the news. And then put yourself notionally in the same room shaking your head and saying, well I told you so.

Again, you seem to be missing the point that the comment was made about people choosing to move into a house that had flooded several times in the previous few years and not about all people living in areas prone to flooding. If you are already there when flooding starts to become a regular issue then it is obviously going to be difficult to get out.

No, I'm not missing that point.

Yeah you are, the point at which a house floods.

No, I just don't agree with you or Pross.

I wouldn't stay I don't think. But then who knows? These people were about to lose a lot of belongings and possibly their homes entirely. I am not sure how I'd react when faced with that reality to be honest. Perhaps I would be outside with a bilge pump, or a large sponge.

A bit of sympathy and empathy wouldn't go amiss.

We're definitely talking cross purposes here. I haven't said I don't have sympathy with people affected by the floods in Scotland. I do think staying when advised to leave is irresponsible and serves no purpose - get your valuables up as high as possible and get out rather than making others have to get through flood waters to rescue you later - but I still have sympathy for them (as long as they don't then moan that no-one told them etc.). My lack of sympathy was in relation to people choosing to buy a home with several recent incidents of flooding in the event that they then got flooded again. Completely separate conversations that came out of the subject.