We can design new buildings to survive disasters. But we don’t.

In December, 2021, a tornado cut a 270-kilometre path through Kentucky, killing 58 people. It led University of Florida’s David Prevatt to write a Washington Post article reminding Americans that new buildings in tornado country are not tornado proof but could have been.

We could learn similar things from Canadian tornadoes, such as the twister that struck Barrie, Ont., in July, 2021, or the September, 2018, tornadoes in the National Capital Region. Or fires, such as in Fort McMurray, Alta., in May, 2016, or Lytton, B.C., in June, 2021. Or historic floods like in British Columbia last November.

Engineers know how to make new buildings resist tornadoes without making them resemble bunkers. The community of Moore, Okla., proved that. After three fatal tornadoes in 15 years, city officials decided that national building codes did not protect them so they opted to protect themselves. They enacted an ordinance making new buildings resist all but the most severe tornadoes. It added about 1 per cent to the construction cost of new houses. Despite dire warnings, researchers found no impact on home prices or development.

We could also design earthquake-resilient buildings but do not. Why? Because of a false choice between two extreme design philosophies: either build impossibly expensive earthquake-proof buildings, or accept inexpensive ones and damage short of collapse. The choice ignores the resilient middle road balancing upfront cost with long-term risk reduction.

Keep reading in The Globe and Mail