30 costliest hurricanes in U.S. history-stunning fact

[JTD]

I just went to the NHC website and looked at their most expensive hurricane list last updated in 2004 and what is startling is that the top 10 list the next time it is updated will probably consist entirely of 2003-2005 storms.

That's incredible.

[cheezyWXguy]

except for andrew

[Derek Ortt]

That is why one must normalize by inflation and by wealth increases

When one does that, Due mainly to Katrina and Wilma, the 2000s will be the highest decade, but the next highest is the 1920s. Its the only way to accurately show hurricane damage in a modern sense

[Audrey2Katrina]

When they adjust for inflation, I'm sure a few of those will still be on the list....

Andrew,
Charley
Possibly Ivan and Hugo...

[HurricaneBill]

That is why one must normalize by inflation and by wealth increases

When one does that, Due mainly to Katrina and Wilma, the 2000s will be the highest decade, but the next highest is the 1920s. Its the only way to accurately show hurricane damage in a modern sense

When adjusted, wouldn't the 1926 Miami Hurricane be over $100 billion or very close to it?

[DoctorHurricane2003]

I completely disagree with the wealth increases as a way to measure storm damage. If the high priced buildings aren't there, they can't be destroyed, period.

The one thing it IS good for is to give a since of what the same type of storm could do today.

The inflation I will agree with, however.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

That is mainly because there is A LOT MORE TO DESTROY than there was from the 1960s back through the late 1800s (when the last two active cycles occurred).

[southerngale]

I completely disagree with the wealth increases as a way to measure storm damage. If the high priced buildings aren't there, they can't be destroyed, period.

The one thing it IS good for is to give a since of what the same type of storm could do today.

The inflation I will agree with, however.

I agree with what you're saying. The cost of buildings in one area can be dramatically higher than the cost in another area, thus making that storm look more damaging, just because it's costlier.

Here's a post I made a few months ago when someone asked this question, "If a hurricane hit Boca Raton, would the damages be twice as much as if an identical hurricane destroyed an equal amount of homes and property that was built in a city with half the land value of Boca Raton?"

Look at Wilma damages compared to Rita's. Rita completely destroyed several towns, yet Wilma's damage costs were a little higher. Look at the median home price in Florida where Wilma hit and compare that to SW La. and SE Tx. where Rita hit. Not even in the same ballpark! Then look where each of them tracked inland. SW La. and SE Tx. differ vastly from South Florida.

For example, median house values where Rita hit:
Cameron, La. $52,600
Lake Charles, La. $72,100
Vinton, La. $55,500
Port Arthur, Tx. $35,900
Port Neches, Tx. $79,600
Nederland, Tx. $68,200
Beaumont, Tx. $62,500
Orange, Tx. $53,300
Sabine Pass, Tx. $44,600
Lumberton, Tx. $94,500
Kirbyville, Tx $45,300
Jasper, Tx $60,800
Sour Lake, Tx. $48,400
I couldn't find Johnson's Bayou and Holly Beach, but I would assume they're similar to Cameron or Sabine Pass. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

Compare that to places Wilma hit:
Marco Island, Fl. $291,100
Naples, Fl. $416,000
Everglades, Fl. $121,200
Coral Springs, Fl. $175,500
Pompano Beach, Fl. $135,700
Weston, Fl. $202,000
Miami, Fl. $120,100
Wellington, Fl. $164,800
Boca Raton, Fl. $230,200
Fort Lauderdale, Fl. $150,100
Plantation, Fl. $158,000
I'm sure there are more that are higher and lower, but I'm not as familiar with that area as I am here.


The median home price in Collier County, Fl. before Wilma was a whopping $466,000!
The median home price in Jefferson County, Tx before Rita was $80,480
and in Cameron Parish was $59,600.

Wow. Thanks for bringing this up. I didn't really realize how dramatically higher in value most places in South Florida were. I knew they were higher, just didn't realize this much. I guess it shows how much damage Rita really did when you consider how much cheaper most of the property is and Rita's damages were still about $10 billion while Wilma's were about $12 billion. Just wow.

[wxman57]

Here's a graphic I made earlier this year with costs normalized to 2003 dollars. Keep in mind that damage produced by a hurricane is HIGHLY dependent upon where the hurricane hits. Many big, powerful hurricanes of the past may have hit a sparsely-populated region that's still not too populated, so they rank lower on the list. So we shouldn't necessarily use the list below to deduce which hurricane was stronger. Also, I think that Wilma's damage estimate is now closer to $18 billion.

[greeng13]

From Southerngale

I agree with what you're saying. The cost of buildings in one area can be dramatically higher than the cost in another area, thus making that storm look more damaging, just because it's costlier.

Here's a post I made a few months ago when someone asked this question, "If a hurricane hit Boca Raton, would the damages be twice as much as if an identical hurricane destroyed an equal amount of homes and property that was built in a city with half the land value of Boca Raton?"

Yes but a lot of that $$$ is from the lot/land and not the structure...

Wood and materials generally have the same cost no matter where you are for a similar sized house....the LAND/property itself is where most of the $$ is....(or a lot of it at least)

For instance....

If a 1000 sq. foot home is destroyed in Miami Beach that sits on an acre (I know it probably doesn't exist)

And a 1000 sq. foot home is destroyed in Summerville, SC that also sits on an acre

The cost to replace the HOME should be relatively equal (barring a rise in cost of lumber/building materials)

after edit: there should be nothing to replace on the land but the value of the property to begin with might be $125,000 for the house in SC but $1.25 million for the house on Miami Beach

[greeng13]

CRAP...I just realized I did bring up nearly the exact same point and in a somewhat "disagreeing" tone....sorry for any confusion...but i think i maybe clarified it some....


maybe?

[Pearl River]

greeng13 wrote

From Southerngale

Quote:
I agree with what you're saying. The cost of buildings in one area can be dramatically higher than the cost in another area, thus making that storm look more damaging, just because it's costlier.

Here's a post I made a few months ago when someone asked this question, "If a hurricane hit Boca Raton, would the damages be twice as much as if an identical hurricane destroyed an equal amount of homes and property that was built in a city with half the land value of Boca Raton?"


Yes but a lot of that $$$ is from the lot/land and not the structure...

Wood and materials generally have the same cost no matter where you are for a similar sized house....the LAND/property itself is where most of the $$ is....(or a lot of it at least)

For instance....

If a 1000 sq. foot home is destroyed in Miami Beach that sits on an acre (I know it probably doesn't exist)

And a 1000 sq. foot home is destroyed in Summerville, SC that also sits on an acre

The cost to replace the HOME should be relatively equal (barring a rise in cost of lumber/building materials)

after edit: there should be nothing to replace on the land but the value of the property to begin with might be $125,000 for the house in SC but $1.25 million for the house on Miami Beach

What you have said is not necessarily true. Lumber cost wise maybe, but you also have to figure in the cost per square foot to build the house and that does vary from area to area. The value of the property is figured in when buying or selling a house, not when building it, unless you mortgage the property to build the house.

[docjoe]

Does the damage estimate for the1926 Miami storm indicate just teh Miami damage or does it include damage in the Pensacola area as well???

docjoe

[greeng13]

Pearl River.

I maybe didn't make myself clear a bit....I realize the property (Land is how I have termed it) is only figured in when buying, selling, etc.

How much does cost/sq foot differ to BUILD?

In my opinion the cost/sq foot is also a factor of where the house is...cost/sq foot is usually mentioned when buying or selling the property as a whole....and therefore includes the LAND.

I do realize there might be some differences due to cost of living pay scales, etc. but material wise it should be relatively the same...

My point was that the overall property values is what was mentioned in the article above (or post above) my post which also include the LAND.

Not trying to get into a match here but I am not entirely sure/enlightened upon what you are speaking of...

[Derek Ortt]

I believe it indicates both.

About 80 billion in MIA and the rest in the Panhandle, Alabama, and Mississippi

[Pearl River]

Green, you wrote:

Yes but a lot of that $$$ is from the lot/land and not the structure

That is not entirely true. 99% of the time, the structure is going to cost more than the land itself. Zoning ordinances, cost sq/ft, which could be anywhere from $45 to $200, material costs and they do vary from area to area, plus other costs. When rebuilding, the cost does not include the land because the land is not lost, only the structure.

Let me put it this way. Where I live I paid $15,000.00 for 1.12 acres of land. I have a $70,000.00 home on it. Let's say my property appraises for $100,000.00. If my home were a total loss from Katrina, my loss would be $70,000.00 for the home, it would not include the land cost.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Green, you wrote:

Yes but a lot of that $$$ is from the lot/land and not the structure

That is not entirely true. 99% of the time, the structure is going to cost more than the land itself. Zoning ordinances, cost sq/ft, which could be anywhere from $45 to $200, material costs and they do vary from area to area, plus other costs. When rebuilding, the cost does not include the land because the land is not lost, only the structure.

Let me put it this way. Where I live I paid $15,000.00 for 1.12 acres of land. I have a $70,000.00 home on it. Let's say my property appraises for $100,000.00. If my home were a total loss from Katrina, my loss would be $70,000.00 for the home, it would not include the land cost.

Out of curiosity, because you two are confusing the heck out'a me.. I'm not sure you're both saying the same thing--differently. Are you saying that if your $70,000 home were located in, say, West Palm Beach, it would still cost $70,000 to build it/replace it? Just want to clear the air on this, as I think WHERE a storm hits has a LOT to do with the damage figures. To put it another way, I feel that had Andrew made its original hit in Mobile Bay, or, SE La. (God Forbid--and since we're discussing strictly a hypothetical, REMOVE water/flood damage)... I doubt seriously there would have been $26 Billion in damages. I'm not taking sides in any argument here... just reiterating something I've said before, and that is that a storm's damage figures has a lot to do with the property values of where it hits. Playing devil's advocate with myself, admittedly the folks who build in areas like S. Florida, build MUCH larger, opulent, and consequently "expensive" homes to replace/repair--on the AVERAGE.


A2K

[Pearl River]

A2K wrote:

Out of curiosity, because you two are confusing the heck out'a me.. I'm not sure you're both saying the same thing--differently. Are you saying that if your $70,000 home were located in, say, West Palm Beach, it would still cost $70,000 to build it/replace it? Just want to clear the air on this, as I think WHERE a storm hits has a LOT to do with the damage figures. To put it another way, I feel that had Andrew made its original hit in Mobile Bay, or, SE La. (God Forbid--and since we're discussing strictly a hypothetical, REMOVE water/flood damage)... I doubt seriously there would have been $26 Billion in damages. I'm not taking sides in any argument here... just reiterating something I've said before, and that is that a storm's damage figures has a lot to do with the property values of where it hits. Playing devil's advocate with myself, admittedly the folks who build in areas like S. Florida, build MUCH larger, opulent, and consequently "expensive" homes to replace/repair--on the AVERAGE.


A2K

What I'm saying is, yes, the cost of a home varies depending on the area you live in. Living in Pearl River, I paid $70,000.00 for a 2,000 sq.ft. house. In south Florida I may pay two or three times that much, just as an example, I don't know exactly. A statement was made thatthe Lot/Land is the greater $$$ cost than the structure itself, is not always 100% true and replacing a home on the same size lot in Miami Beach, Fl and Summerville, S.C should cost about the same because lumber/building materials are relatively equal in cost barring a rise in material cost, is not necessarily true.

Let me give another example. Before Katrina, to replace a roof around Pearl River/Slidell was about $50 to $60 a sq.ft. Since Katrina, the replacement cost of that same roof has been running from $90 to $175 a sq.ft. It has nothing to do with cost of living or the lot/land.
I'm not trying to argue.

[Audrey2Katrina]

What I'm saying is, yes, the cost of a home varies depending on the area you live in. Living in Pearl River, I paid $70,000.00 for a 2,000 sq.ft. house. In south Florida I may pay two or three times that much, just as an example, I don't know exactly. A statement was made thatthe Lot/Land is the greater $$$ cost than the structure itself, is not always 100% true and replacing a home on the same size lot in Miami Beach, Fl and Summerville, S.C should cost about the same because lumber/building materials are relatively equal in cost barring a rise in material cost, is not necessarily true.

Okay, I just wanted to clear up my own doubtless self-imposed cobwebs... and I agree with you completely. No argument here either--just wanted clarification

A2K

[BUD]

I was talking to a guy that builds homes and me and him talked about the same thing.Houses here have there value hit the roof!!Hugo was a cat 4 storm and if you add value to what was damage it would be today.No telling how much it would be But the guy told me that some of the homes that were selling in 1989 would been like $55,000 then,NOW would be $167,000 if not more!!!