I think if it essentially occupied the top of a height of
land decently above even exaggerated storm-surge predictions, that might take care of the storm surge issues.
I think that as long as that is taken care of, a low-profile, earth-integrated structure like that, with rammed-earth walls, whether or not they also contain tires, might do very well. Rammed earth, stabilised with 5-10% portland cement, will not be affected by wind, except in the long term. I would want some kind of outer facing to protect against mechanical damage and
water, at least, where the rammed earth wasn't backfilled with earth and topped with growing things.
I like the idea of integrated storm shutters. With all the space available between the backfill and the rammed earth, why not have sliding storm shutters on tracks, top and bottom, that store like pocket doors to either side of the windows? Actually, as long as a storage cupboard was installed in the appropriate place on either side of the windows, one could build panels on casters, for a trackless system, that would be rolled into place and then lowered into position. I would have holes sunk for pins corresponding to the panels, like hitch pins, secured by colter pins on their ends, so as to secure them to the frame, and the structure as a whole.
As to the design of the panels, I wonder if there would be a point in sandwiching something like gypsum board or drywall between sheets of plywood (my original idea was loose sand poured into a two-inch-thick plywood box). The point would be to try and distribute the
energy of impacts across the entire panel. The ultimate measure, of
course, should it be possible to design a panel to distribute impact energy out of readily-available materials, would be to not only weather-seal the panels, but also to add a mechanically-superior outer cladding, and design the window framework to properly distribute impact forces through the frame to the house structure and into the earth itself.
I think there are worse choices. But the crux of the matter is that earthships don't move, so if the water decides to go higher than you had originally planned your plans might be a washout. Against that, though, I think the only thing we can do is design buildings like large boats, designed to be buoyant and stable, that sit in socket foundations. When the water rises, so does the building, perhaps tethered in place to keep from being swept somewhere it could be knocked over.
Humidity is an issue, but it would be an issue in any structure in a high-humidity environment, which is what you're building for. I think that you could moderate the humidity and temperature levels of the air entering the structure if there were air intake ducts on the north side of the structure, down low and passing under the wall, underground, such that the forced cooling of the air condenses the water out in the duct, which would have to angle slightly upward leading into the house. I think this effect could be enhanced, and the condensor stage moved outside, if the intake to the air duct terminated in the middle of a stacked stone airwell, preferably shaded, itself, such that humid air condenses out in the inner layers of the stack, and also cooling the stack as it evaporates, should it prove breezy enough a day. Open upper-level windows could increase draught at need, or it might be possible to get the type of temperature-controlled vents employed by greenhouses, such that if the temperature
rose above a comfortable point, the vent window would open, increasing draught, and pulling cold air out of the air tubes and into the structure.
This might not apply to areas that aren't turning into the new floodplains, but honestly, I think that the oft-flooded cities need to take a look at Venice. It's not really crazy. People move buildings all the time.
We'd start in areas that are either already abandoned, but have structures with historical or cultural significance that could be saved. The foundations could be excavated, wrapped with structural reinforcement and shot-creted, and prepared for a buoyant sub-structure. There they'd wait, until water levels were high enough to breach levees where applicable, and a new, floating community would rise. The idea of glass-bottom historical tourism could be incorporated into the community itself at first, and any applicable area would need to be converted to reed system and sand and biomass fungal filter beds/booms.
I am thinking of post-Katrina abandoned neighbourhoods, but honestly, it could apply to a variety of places, most of them coastal. This type of thinking, I think, could ease transitions for inundated communities.
Imagine a tourism industry built around the idea of popularising climate adaptation and remediation of anthropogenic ills, rebuilding ecosystems, and eventually enough system surplus to
feed people again.
Imagine new mangrove swamps and salt marshes where now you see abandoned, oft-flooded neighbourhoods, and perhaps beds of sea grasses encouraged where the salinity is appropriate.
Can you imagine a floating Miami or Big Easy? I could.
-CK
2
