I often feel like with a lot of building (big and small) there is insufficient evaluation of site factors. For example:
Is there a hill above the site? THAT needs to be evaluated (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't).
Is the site on a traditional floodplain? If so what actions have been taken to redirect the water flow? Does the system have the capacity to move the water away?
Is the site itself earthquake proof (e.g. subject to severe liquefaction)? Just because the property is built to code, doesn't mean the land it is built on is safe.
Is the site subject to wildfire risk? Can we mitigate that?
Humans make the same mistakes again and again. We build fast and we don't consider the land's natural problems. INstead we just build and hope it happens far enough in the future for it to be someone else's problem.
Water in particular we're TERRIBLE at managing. We build property on floodplains and are then "surprised" when it floods. We place homes on downward elevations and don't redirect the water around the property (e.g. using french drains).
I did a lot of things to reduce risk. None were expensive. I watch other houses go up in the neighborhood, and they do none of them.
My most expensive mistake was not having a geothermal heading system installed when the yard was all dug up anyway. I could have had it essentially for free, and save 30% on the heating bill.
What type of system were you evaluating? I'm not sure why this isn't a common feature in homes, as I've only seen it done on more industrial scales (e.g. mid-sized condos).
I have only installed one, and I can't comment on how effective it is at reducing cooling costs as it's a new home (though I lived there for a couple of weeks before I got the heat pump units). But I can comment on the "why not".
Generally it's very expensive to install because it requires several thousand feet of underground pipe to normalize the temperature of the water going through the system. Many homes don't really have enough land to support this horizontally. You can install the loop vertically (like a drilled well), which is again, pretty expensive up front. Few take the long view.
I happen to have plenty of land and a backhoe so I just dug a ditch.
Watching videos of the aftermath of the floods in Maryland the other day was telling - the main street had been entirely washed away, exposing the foundations of the buildings. The modern constructions essentially had none and were hanging in mid-air over voids. The older buildings were all sat upon massive and well dressed masonry.
In short, people account only for risks they have experienced firsthand. When you don't see flash floods or earthquakes for generations, you get lax. Sadly we tend to wait until after disasters to learn, and yet we still forget.
I often feel like with a lot of building (big and small) there is insufficient evaluation of site factors. For example:
Is there a hill above the site? THAT needs to be evaluated (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't).
Is the site on a traditional floodplain? If so what actions have been taken to redirect the water flow? Does the system have the capacity to move the water away?
Is the site itself earthquake proof (e.g. subject to severe liquefaction)? Just because the property is built to code, doesn't mean the land it is built on is safe.
Is the site subject to wildfire risk? Can we mitigate that?
Humans make the same mistakes again and again. We build fast and we don't consider the land's natural problems. INstead we just build and hope it happens far enough in the future for it to be someone else's problem.
Water in particular we're TERRIBLE at managing. We build property on floodplains and are then "surprised" when it floods. We place homes on downward elevations and don't redirect the water around the property (e.g. using french drains).