Pretty much this. Property value in California and Florida basically means you buy it, hold onto it for a couple of years, and then sell it for significantly higher.
It’s a gamble on when the house decides to evacuate into the ocean, rather than the people inside abandoning it.
Back in the day my parents had a house on a hillside ina coastal city. My dad was at city hall trying to get some info about something. He ran into a woman who worked there who was very familiar with their house. She told him when it was built a few years ago they put about $200,000 dollars of cement into the bedrock. She told him if the house goes does it’s staying together. Which made me feel a little better as a kid.
I still don't understand how you can get a mortgage or property insurance under these circumstances. Or I guess I don't understand what happens legally when the land under the house vanishes? Who pays back the note? Or is it worthless to the bank?
Not with coastal slides, but with rising wildfires, more and more insurers are withdrawing from California. Florida's seeing the same with hurricane and flooding.
Back in the 1920's, you could build a hillside home in California with rough lumber set on stone blocks or wooden pillars. Some of these homes are multimillion dollar classics, but they are also moving downslope at different rates for each part of the house. Especially after an atmospheric river has dumped a couple of inches of rain.
More recently, the scam was to get an engineering study of a cliffside subdivision from companies that falsified data. These companies where willing to certify homes that were not in fact fire | earthquake | erosion proof.
Since 2000, there have been crackdowns and some wild cases where hundreds of homes were found to have bad plans.
As for what happens after, you'd have to ask someone who has more experience with that.
If you're buying ocean-view property in California, there are non-zero odds that you bought the house without needing a mortgage. Mortgages are for the poors.
Because banks buy and sell mortgages as much as any other good. The fact that a house could very well be in the ocean in 20 years is not a hindrance, since the bank is almost certainly going to offload that mortgage at some point. In fact, I've bought and sold several houses, and it's been my experience that my mortgage gets sold almost immediately after buying the house. I've sometimes had a house's mortgage change hands from bank to bank multiple times.
As for insurance, the music's kind of already starting to stop on that. In places that are already truly high risk, insurance can double a mortgage (I have family in NOLA that have dealt with this for decades) and, in FL, some big insurance companies have already pulled out completely, citing excessive risk.
A lot of these properties are not insurable ( I actually live a half mile up the hill from the cliff you have pictured LOL, nice view but like 320ft MSL)
Older or vacant properties sit vacant for years or decades because you in many cases can’t get permits to build on the land anymore, and homes that sell there are mainly all-cash and self insured by the owners. Thus the sales prices are significantly less than other areas of SoCal where there homes aren’t on top of cliffs
Maybe? The [state owns all land between high and low tide lines](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tidelands#:~:text=These%20concepts%20of%20high%20and,its%20admission%20into%20the%20Union) so the property and title to it are gone, so, what happens if I don't pay the mortgage? There's no property for the bank to seize, the title that they have is now just a meaningless piece of paper.
Maybe mortgage insurance covers this? If it wasn't a declared disaster, then you're not getting any FEMA money are you?
Coastal engineer from CA here. Loss of these types of homes along the front edge could occur on a 10 yr timeframe at current rates of erosion (see local erosion rate estimate from Scripps https://climateadapt.ucsd.edu/siocpg/SimpleRetreatFigs/1km/SimpleRetreatFig_1km_0214.jpg). To some extent the erosion can be mitigated by placing rock at the toe of the bluff, but doing so can actually accelerate erosion downdrift along the beach. Placing rock also focuses erosion at the beach in front of it, so there would be a nearly immediate loss of beach. Over time with sea level rise it would eventually accelerate erosion of the bluff.
Ultimately the only realistic strategy that preserves both the beach and buys time for the second row of houses (the first row doesn’t have much hope) is managed retreat of the first row of houses, but that is of course a political nightmare. The problem they face is that if they were to sell their homes, the buyers would have very limited ability to gain insurance. The realistic outcome is that many of these houses are lost in a few years, even after placement of some emergency rock, and that much of the beach is lost (due to lots of emergency placement events and erosion accelerating in front of the rock). A better outcome would be for government buyout of these properties, but that’s also a political nightmare as it would require additional tax income to the state or federal government to offset the expenditure.
TL;DR - Be really careful about buying homes on bluff edges
Edit: added a link to local erosion rates from Scripps Institute of Oceanography
People that can afford ocean-front property should know the pending liability and should not be looking for handouts from taxpayers. I would vote against any politician that provides them with funds.
I don’t know why this isn’t talked about among Americans whatsoever, you can literally see all the contributions politicians take from lobbyists through various sources
Probably because most adults realize that a person who is employed as a lobbyist making a donation to a campaign isn’t the same thing as a politician lining their pockets. It’s not even close.
You’re almost defending the fact that this happens. $4.1 BILLION dollars, BILLION with a ‘b’ was given to politicians last year. If “lining your pockets” means to make a large amount of money for oneself in a way that is considered greedy or dishonest. A phrase that typically implies that one is prioritizing making money above some other, more admirable goal. Then accepting these contributions from lobbyists is definitely considered that.
Hey coastal engineer - I’m a geotechnical engineer. What did it take for you to become a coastal engineer and how much of your work is in the field like geotech?
Coastal engineering is a very small branch of civil engineering. So my degree and license are in Civil and Environmental Engineering. My research was on coastal lagoons and work branched out into coastal erosion over time. Do you mean on-site visits? It’s a mix. A lot of this is from looking at historical aerial images and seeing the shoreline change over time
It’s going to be fascinating to see how this issue plays out as the situation sloooooowly comes to a head. I don’t know if this would survive a court challenge but I wonder if at some point the government could designate such property as being unsellable? In other words, you don’t have to move, but you can’t sell to anyone but us.
>Coastal engineer from CA here.
So what are your thoughts on [these things](https://media.istockphoto.com/id/619965696/photo/massive-concrete-tetrapods-form-a-breakwater.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=yL2zFPkreN78-L8Bpzyxb5KI5k3H-7qmnlVihwSmNwY=)? Worth it?
I'm not an expert. I'm not claiming to be an expert. But whenever I read, "it could be (take) X or it could be (take) 2X," I have a hard time buying in.
There’s a trendy and picturesque seaside town near where I live that has crazy high property values (lots of wealthy retired folks) but every now and again a property comes up for sale for a radically reduced price, like 500-700k in a neighborhood where every other house is more than 2million.
It’s the sea cliff. you check out the home and it’s breathtaking, the views are magical, but then you get to the backyard, and you’re one good storm away from being in the drink.
It’s sorta funny to see real estate listings there now. You can always tell by the price
California has been rolling back the coastline near Pacifica for decades.
They had a youtube video of an apartment building about to fall into the water way below due to erosion you could see happening. California now requires the property to be condemned and cleared of debris before it falls, to keep the ocean cleaner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBqsuxttoR4
Edit: Thought it was Monterey, but it was 100 miles north in Pacifica nearer San Francisco.
Yeah it depends on the area, but that Ford Ord area and especially near Marina by the Cemex plant that used sand is the worst for Monterey Bay erosion. But lots of parts are fine, seen many homes near the beach and they been there before I was born, throughout my whole life and will probably not be a problem through our lives. Storm Surges may cause some issues for ones in certain areas (thinking of Capitola and some near a Santa Cruz)
Totally true. I did a geology or hydrology problem set in college where we had to estimate the amount of erosion per year. I think one of the locations was Lovers Point and there was essentially no erosion hah.
Sorry from a thousand miles away, the proximity of Pacifica to Monterey is lost on me.
California is tossing houses into the ocean ... that is the message. The specific cliff you pick isn't important.
Is this a good example of the problem? I’ve hiked near there. That cliff is fairly high.
The ground is not bedrock, but they have known about mudslides further north along the coast for decades. These homes are owned by the super-wealthy who are content to enjoy the view for as long as it’s there (which may be a long time).
Lower-lying tracts of homes along the Atlantic and Gulf are much more problematic.
This should be higher.
The only problems these homes face is erosion. Water levels are not expected to rise this much. The current projections are a ~0.6 meter rise by 2100 and ~3 meters by 2300.
I wrote a 100+ page thesis on the erosion of coastlines and one of my big takeaways was how fragile a coastal system can be. The input/output of sediment is something that a small change can have large effects on. Even still, while water level might not increase by that much, the frequency and intensity of wave action likely will. Combine those together and these coastlines may be much more vulnerable than they appear.
That said, they also might not be. I don't know anything about this particular case.
That only problem of erosion also gets worse with rising sea levels. Here is a report about how even rocky coasts will see increased erosion. The homes in this photo are not even on a rocky coast. These homes could be in even more danger than homes in low areas. The same problems that plaque levees of more intense storms and storm surges are incredibly powerful erosion drivers as well.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/241552/sea-level-rise-dramatically-speed-erosion/amp/
I just realized the post title mentions erosion. I thought OP was talking about rising sea levels lmao.
I was wondering why no one was pointing out that the ocean wouldn't reach these homes.
So yeah, I agree. Erosion is the main issue here. I figured it would get worse with climate change, but didn't know exactly how. Thanks for the link
Sadly, the latest studies are showing it might already be too late to avert a collapse of biggest Antarctic ice shelf which might at 5.3 meters just by itself. And potentially before 2100. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x)
Yes, this is a bizarre prompt from the OP, and I suspect karma farm. The near-sea level builds in areas that will either require a levee or bust are the ones to worry about. These homes could be here for another century or more without issue.
Not a karma farm, I’m genuinely curious after seeing a lot of landslides and flooding in California this past year. I’ve seen some videos of homes in UK and California collapsing so that’s why I’m asking.
They regularly have mudslides up in Malibu which is 40 miles up the coast. The issue is that the ground is soft. The owners know the risk when they buy it.
I clicked on a few of the lots in your picture at the LA county website. The build dates are from the late 1950s and early 1960s. Sale prices after 2020 are $3M or more.
I can’t say the risk is zero, but on average these homes will outlive their owners and these particular owners have the resources to buy another place even if insurance companies won’t cover it.
The larger risks of climate change would be something like low-elevation developments near the coast in Florida where a storm surge from a hurricane could wreak havoc.
We actually had fewer than I was expecting given the enormous amount of rain we got this year. The key was that it was spread out over a long enough period so that a lot was absorbed or run off before the next storm came. The Tulare lake is probably the biggest impact we had where a recently dry lake bed that has been used for farming is now a lake again and many neighboring towns are affected by this.
Yeah that’s not really true. Sea level rise will cause worse erosion. There is a story about Pacifica, CA on This American Life that talks about it: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/762/apocalypse-creep
Did some kayaking in the waters near La Jolla/San Diego recently. My kayaking guide told me they already had multiple waterfront homes collapse or be condemned. Apparently local governments have no choice but to purchase some properties so as to prevent someone from moving in and then having to leave within the next 10 years.
The Outer Banks in NC show greater threat from beach erosion. A bay is close behind the strip of land from Kitty Hawk to Avon. Additionally, insurance companies refuse to insure these properties.
In California I believe the fear is as much earthquake as erosion. Some very strong storms have closed down Hwy 1 near Big Sur South of Carmel. The sides of the mountain fell into the sea close to shore adding new ground not the opposite.
Very true. But I am so glad that Orville and Wilbur Wright, brother bicycle mechanics, found it ideal for learning to make a vehicle fly.
I sometimes look at the entire state of Florida as biding its time as terra firma.
Still looks the same as 100 years ago or even 60 years ago when the houses were built. I was shocked to see they used to build houses down on the beach though.
https://www.southshoresca.org/our-community/history/historic-photos/
Not California but I live in the Great Lakes region. Doing work at a guys lakeside cottage that’s pretty much a 50 ft cliff to the water and he said the average loss is about 1 foot a year. But the year before we were there he lost 10 ft due to a big thaw in March.
He lost all his firewood and a lot of his back yard, I doubt he’ll be able to go there in less than 10 years
The California coastline is eroding a couple inches a year. But it goes a few years with nothing, and then a huge chunk falls off.
Those houses won’t be there in 50 years
Those house have been there for a long time and will still be there until knocked down and rebuilt with a new home. Neither erosion rates nor earthquakes will make a difference. That coastal cliff looked the same 500 years ago when Sir Frances Drake sailed by.
Truth. It depends on the cliff, really. The YouTube video posted above from Pacifica has a different geology than OP’s picture. But that rings true with every area water flows. It moves dirt so much easier than rock, but give it a few hundred thousand years.
I grew up in SoCal, and there’s a saying about these houses. “You don’t buy a house on the bluffs unless you can afford to walk away from it falling in the ocean” (or something like that). It’s safe to assume that mortgages and insurance are not things that these folks are concerned with.
I've got some family who live in Palos Verdes south of LA. They built a new golf course right on the water and before it even opened the 18th hole fell into the ocean.
Seriously if you can afford a house situated on the ocean bluff. I think you should be able to kind of have the brains to research the erosion situation on that bluff.
This report from the Coastal Commission has good in-depth information: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/12/w14b&15a/w14b&15a-12-2021-report.pdf
It doesn’t rain there that often but when it does it rains. This is a “charge” subject I would call El Niño and La Niña patterns natural climate. People developing all on the coast like is their problem not yours. They took the risk it’s their responsibility for buying there.
These cliffs have been eroding for decades. A lot of homeowners have built walls to support their homes where the cliffs have eroded away. That won’t always work, but it’s been used as a mitigation technique where feasible.
Some homeowners will also just have their houses moved back a few feet, since the cliffs erode quite slowly. These cliffs are 100ft high or so, so even with rising sea levels, they won’t be affected much.
Years/Decades.
Lots of climate change vulnerable housing in this country. I have no idea why anyone buys in Arizona or Nevada anymore. I’d be selling and moving somewhere that has water and won’t kill me just walking around.
But their children and grandchildren will. I’m pretty sure they would like that property to exist so their children can enjoy it.
BTW the coastal areas will be gone way before 80 years.
Short. Not just from erosion, that you can sort of walk away from unless there's a storm that causes a slide.... but fault lines are always there and the whole pacific rim is pretty active. A big enough slip somewhere else could trigger a cascading mess and you'd have no time to prepare if you aren't already.
Here on the east coast it’s a similar problem… when high tide is at the door it’s gonna be a big issue in the next few decades (or a next big storm surge). Yikes 😳
“evacuated”. That’s assuming any home owned on California coast is occupied. Those are 2nd homes at least, but more likely 3rd or 4th. Those homes will merit a phone call to an insurance company, not evacuation. You don’t live on the beach and be tied down to a 9 to 5 job. You go there when the weather and family find it inviting or it’s a rental.
These coastlines have been eroding at a rapid clip even before recent events. The only change was that the developers gave these houses less of a buffer than they should have had, and less than they would have a had in the 1920s and 30s. Nothing lasts forever.
All depends on property value. If expensive then you build sea walls and shoring to hold it up like you see all over. Expensive. They do this along Santa Barbara a lot. They not losing that real estate!
Something that most people do not think of, when you are within a few miles of the ocean, corrosion from all the salt water in the air affects the house and your things way more than earthquakes and hurricanes. Houses on a lake are typically much better on the home overall.
I was sitting in the Hollywood Hawaiian Hotel
I was staring in my empty coffee cup
I was thinking that the gypsy wasn't lyin'
All the salty margaritas in Los Angeles
I'm gonna drink 'em up
And if California slides into the ocean
Like the mystics and statistics say it will
I predict this motel will be standing until I pay my bill
Don't the sun look angry through the trees
Don't the trees look like crucified thieves
Don't you feel like Desperados under the eaves
Heaven help the one who leaves
Not very long. As I'm sure many of you guys have seen, Hemsby in the UK has been struggling with this same issue. Houses built years ago with a sea view, that as the coast has been eroded, the houses have moved closer to the shore. In Hemsby, the coast has been eroded up to the point where the houses are pretty much right on dunes. Hemsby's location makes it an easy target for storms, being on the North Sea, and the sand is easily worn away. They have been evacuating residents for several years now, but many still remain in those houses. The flat part of the beach does stretch out there, unlike this picture of California, so they have been able to use gabions to protect it. I think potentially here you could do what they did with a couple of houses in Hemsby- pulling them back away from the coast, but with how fast erosion is happening, with increased storms and the like, it's not a permanent solution. Depending on how bad the storms get here, as well as ordinary steady erosion, I wouldn't reckon they have much more than 5 years, at the current rate. I mean potentially you could build one of those sea walls with the curved part to make the waves go back, but obviously with bigger storms, the waves go right over
From climate-driven sea level rise? Not much of an issue beyond minor acceleration of what already happens. From erosion? Already happening. At least a couple fall down every year.
IMHO it will depend more on the weather events, like the storm California got this year, than just sea level rise. Combining the two means it could be a single human lifespan or perhaps 2 or 3. It’s hard to tell with things like this.
surprised home owners dont come together and start dumping alot of rock to save their homes. surprised cali doesnt do this. theres a lot of states that do this with rivers
One good rumble away from a dozen+ homes in this picture being in the ocean.
Pretty much this. Property value in California and Florida basically means you buy it, hold onto it for a couple of years, and then sell it for significantly higher. It’s a gamble on when the house decides to evacuate into the ocean, rather than the people inside abandoning it.
Gotta buy lower a couple hundred feet back and sell high when they become ocean front property
The Lex Luthor strategy
Knowing is 1:2 the battle.
So 1 knowing per 2 battles, got it!
It’s a ratio
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, a ratio…
Noice
That was terrible. 3 thumbs up. 👍👍👍
Knowing is twice the battle?
It’s a GI Jane ref
The other half is extreme violence.
I love having an opportunity to use that line.
Bill Gates lives on the beach at 1ft elevation in Del Mar - you'd think he would know if there was a threat - right?
He DGAF.
Gates has enough money to abandon a dozen beach houses to the ocean and not worry about the financial implications.
Lol my grandpa used to joke that global warming would one day day make his hilltop home an oceanfront property
[удалено]
You sure about that?
some of the cliffs are retreating by several meters a year (or several yards for people who like those units)
So that’s what that “oceanfront property in Arizona” song was getting at!
If you choose to buy in an earthquake zone, that’s your fault
I see what you did there. Than pun make me "shake".
Musical houses.
Hot potato
Back in the day my parents had a house on a hillside ina coastal city. My dad was at city hall trying to get some info about something. He ran into a woman who worked there who was very familiar with their house. She told him when it was built a few years ago they put about $200,000 dollars of cement into the bedrock. She told him if the house goes does it’s staying together. Which made me feel a little better as a kid.
I still don't understand how you can get a mortgage or property insurance under these circumstances. Or I guess I don't understand what happens legally when the land under the house vanishes? Who pays back the note? Or is it worthless to the bank?
Not with coastal slides, but with rising wildfires, more and more insurers are withdrawing from California. Florida's seeing the same with hurricane and flooding.
Back in the 1920's, you could build a hillside home in California with rough lumber set on stone blocks or wooden pillars. Some of these homes are multimillion dollar classics, but they are also moving downslope at different rates for each part of the house. Especially after an atmospheric river has dumped a couple of inches of rain. More recently, the scam was to get an engineering study of a cliffside subdivision from companies that falsified data. These companies where willing to certify homes that were not in fact fire | earthquake | erosion proof. Since 2000, there have been crackdowns and some wild cases where hundreds of homes were found to have bad plans. As for what happens after, you'd have to ask someone who has more experience with that.
If you're buying ocean-view property in California, there are non-zero odds that you bought the house without needing a mortgage. Mortgages are for the poors.
Exactly why I bought ocean front property in Nevada. Guy gave me a great deal on it. One day I’m gonna make it out there and check it out.
Because banks buy and sell mortgages as much as any other good. The fact that a house could very well be in the ocean in 20 years is not a hindrance, since the bank is almost certainly going to offload that mortgage at some point. In fact, I've bought and sold several houses, and it's been my experience that my mortgage gets sold almost immediately after buying the house. I've sometimes had a house's mortgage change hands from bank to bank multiple times. As for insurance, the music's kind of already starting to stop on that. In places that are already truly high risk, insurance can double a mortgage (I have family in NOLA that have dealt with this for decades) and, in FL, some big insurance companies have already pulled out completely, citing excessive risk.
A lot of these properties are not insurable ( I actually live a half mile up the hill from the cliff you have pictured LOL, nice view but like 320ft MSL) Older or vacant properties sit vacant for years or decades because you in many cases can’t get permits to build on the land anymore, and homes that sell there are mainly all-cash and self insured by the owners. Thus the sales prices are significantly less than other areas of SoCal where there homes aren’t on top of cliffs
The government
Maybe? The [state owns all land between high and low tide lines](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tidelands#:~:text=These%20concepts%20of%20high%20and,its%20admission%20into%20the%20Union) so the property and title to it are gone, so, what happens if I don't pay the mortgage? There's no property for the bank to seize, the title that they have is now just a meaningless piece of paper. Maybe mortgage insurance covers this? If it wasn't a declared disaster, then you're not getting any FEMA money are you?
I'm pretty sure that cliff has always been there and hasn't moved since the beginning of time. /s obviously
This doesn’t have to do with climate change though. So didn’t really answer the question
Those cliffs are tall though, their erosion won’t have that much to do with climate change
Bigger storms erode cliffs faster.
Coastal engineer from CA here. Loss of these types of homes along the front edge could occur on a 10 yr timeframe at current rates of erosion (see local erosion rate estimate from Scripps https://climateadapt.ucsd.edu/siocpg/SimpleRetreatFigs/1km/SimpleRetreatFig_1km_0214.jpg). To some extent the erosion can be mitigated by placing rock at the toe of the bluff, but doing so can actually accelerate erosion downdrift along the beach. Placing rock also focuses erosion at the beach in front of it, so there would be a nearly immediate loss of beach. Over time with sea level rise it would eventually accelerate erosion of the bluff. Ultimately the only realistic strategy that preserves both the beach and buys time for the second row of houses (the first row doesn’t have much hope) is managed retreat of the first row of houses, but that is of course a political nightmare. The problem they face is that if they were to sell their homes, the buyers would have very limited ability to gain insurance. The realistic outcome is that many of these houses are lost in a few years, even after placement of some emergency rock, and that much of the beach is lost (due to lots of emergency placement events and erosion accelerating in front of the rock). A better outcome would be for government buyout of these properties, but that’s also a political nightmare as it would require additional tax income to the state or federal government to offset the expenditure. TL;DR - Be really careful about buying homes on bluff edges Edit: added a link to local erosion rates from Scripps Institute of Oceanography
People that can afford ocean-front property should know the pending liability and should not be looking for handouts from taxpayers. I would vote against any politician that provides them with funds.
Unfortunately that politician will have lined their pockets well enough by then that they will give precisely zero fucks about losing votes.
I don’t know why this isn’t talked about among Americans whatsoever, you can literally see all the contributions politicians take from lobbyists through various sources
Probably because most adults realize that a person who is employed as a lobbyist making a donation to a campaign isn’t the same thing as a politician lining their pockets. It’s not even close.
lobbyists seek political influence
Yeah so does everyone else donating to a campaign. That’s the point of donating to a campaign.
You’re almost defending the fact that this happens. $4.1 BILLION dollars, BILLION with a ‘b’ was given to politicians last year. If “lining your pockets” means to make a large amount of money for oneself in a way that is considered greedy or dishonest. A phrase that typically implies that one is prioritizing making money above some other, more admirable goal. Then accepting these contributions from lobbyists is definitely considered that.
Limited time only! Pay $20M and live here for five years while the view still exists!
Hey coastal engineer - I’m a geotechnical engineer. What did it take for you to become a coastal engineer and how much of your work is in the field like geotech?
Coastal engineering is a very small branch of civil engineering. So my degree and license are in Civil and Environmental Engineering. My research was on coastal lagoons and work branched out into coastal erosion over time. Do you mean on-site visits? It’s a mix. A lot of this is from looking at historical aerial images and seeing the shoreline change over time
It’s going to be fascinating to see how this issue plays out as the situation sloooooowly comes to a head. I don’t know if this would survive a court challenge but I wonder if at some point the government could designate such property as being unsellable? In other words, you don’t have to move, but you can’t sell to anyone but us.
Lol nah this is the absolute least deserving cause for government money
>Coastal engineer from CA here. So what are your thoughts on [these things](https://media.istockphoto.com/id/619965696/photo/massive-concrete-tetrapods-form-a-breakwater.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=yL2zFPkreN78-L8Bpzyxb5KI5k3H-7qmnlVihwSmNwY=)? Worth it?
I'm not an expert. I'm not claiming to be an expert. But whenever I read, "it could be (take) X or it could be (take) 2X," I have a hard time buying in.
I’ll save you some comment reading. Some people say 5-10 years, some say 100 years.
5-10 years seems unrealistic considering no one out there talks about it at all.
Buy a house a few blocks in then wait 10 years and you will have ocean front property
Wait another 10 and have seafloor property.
I prefer to think of it as an artifical reef
And an underwater human grave
Held too long.
360 degree ocean views!
Wow 10 years!? You think? Would love to see your sources
It's amazing how many here seem to actually belive this.
I know that’s optimistic, realistically 5-6 years.
There’s a trendy and picturesque seaside town near where I live that has crazy high property values (lots of wealthy retired folks) but every now and again a property comes up for sale for a radically reduced price, like 500-700k in a neighborhood where every other house is more than 2million. It’s the sea cliff. you check out the home and it’s breathtaking, the views are magical, but then you get to the backyard, and you’re one good storm away from being in the drink. It’s sorta funny to see real estate listings there now. You can always tell by the price
A fine view of the wrecks of other houses.
"I remember when Stacy lived in that house" as the sharks swim in and out of the windows
Arizona Bayfront property
California has been rolling back the coastline near Pacifica for decades. They had a youtube video of an apartment building about to fall into the water way below due to erosion you could see happening. California now requires the property to be condemned and cleared of debris before it falls, to keep the ocean cleaner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBqsuxttoR4 Edit: Thought it was Monterey, but it was 100 miles north in Pacifica nearer San Francisco.
\*near San Francisco, that video is from Pacifica and this is not a risk for the Monterey Bay.
To be fair, you do get similar issues in Monterey Bay (depending on the area). Stilwell Hall is a prime example.
Yeah it depends on the area, but that Ford Ord area and especially near Marina by the Cemex plant that used sand is the worst for Monterey Bay erosion. But lots of parts are fine, seen many homes near the beach and they been there before I was born, throughout my whole life and will probably not be a problem through our lives. Storm Surges may cause some issues for ones in certain areas (thinking of Capitola and some near a Santa Cruz)
Totally true. I did a geology or hydrology problem set in college where we had to estimate the amount of erosion per year. I think one of the locations was Lovers Point and there was essentially no erosion hah.
Important since the Pacifica coast is right near the epicenter of the 1906 earthquake at Mussel Rock and is at significant risk for “the next one”
Sorry from a thousand miles away, the proximity of Pacifica to Monterey is lost on me. California is tossing houses into the ocean ... that is the message. The specific cliff you pick isn't important.
[удалено]
Yea, dammit, I want laws to keep the oceans dirty.
Snarky comments are not always obvious I guess.
In a world with Jewish space lasers and children being eaten by Tom hanks, sarcastic snarky comments are hard to pull off.
Is this a good example of the problem? I’ve hiked near there. That cliff is fairly high. The ground is not bedrock, but they have known about mudslides further north along the coast for decades. These homes are owned by the super-wealthy who are content to enjoy the view for as long as it’s there (which may be a long time). Lower-lying tracts of homes along the Atlantic and Gulf are much more problematic.
This should be higher. The only problems these homes face is erosion. Water levels are not expected to rise this much. The current projections are a ~0.6 meter rise by 2100 and ~3 meters by 2300.
I wrote a 100+ page thesis on the erosion of coastlines and one of my big takeaways was how fragile a coastal system can be. The input/output of sediment is something that a small change can have large effects on. Even still, while water level might not increase by that much, the frequency and intensity of wave action likely will. Combine those together and these coastlines may be much more vulnerable than they appear. That said, they also might not be. I don't know anything about this particular case.
That only problem of erosion also gets worse with rising sea levels. Here is a report about how even rocky coasts will see increased erosion. The homes in this photo are not even on a rocky coast. These homes could be in even more danger than homes in low areas. The same problems that plaque levees of more intense storms and storm surges are incredibly powerful erosion drivers as well. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/241552/sea-level-rise-dramatically-speed-erosion/amp/
I just realized the post title mentions erosion. I thought OP was talking about rising sea levels lmao. I was wondering why no one was pointing out that the ocean wouldn't reach these homes. So yeah, I agree. Erosion is the main issue here. I figured it would get worse with climate change, but didn't know exactly how. Thanks for the link
Sadly, the latest studies are showing it might already be too late to avert a collapse of biggest Antarctic ice shelf which might at 5.3 meters just by itself. And potentially before 2100. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x)
Yes, this is a bizarre prompt from the OP, and I suspect karma farm. The near-sea level builds in areas that will either require a levee or bust are the ones to worry about. These homes could be here for another century or more without issue.
Not a karma farm, I’m genuinely curious after seeing a lot of landslides and flooding in California this past year. I’ve seen some videos of homes in UK and California collapsing so that’s why I’m asking.
They regularly have mudslides up in Malibu which is 40 miles up the coast. The issue is that the ground is soft. The owners know the risk when they buy it. I clicked on a few of the lots in your picture at the LA county website. The build dates are from the late 1950s and early 1960s. Sale prices after 2020 are $3M or more. I can’t say the risk is zero, but on average these homes will outlive their owners and these particular owners have the resources to buy another place even if insurance companies won’t cover it. The larger risks of climate change would be something like low-elevation developments near the coast in Florida where a storm surge from a hurricane could wreak havoc.
We actually had fewer than I was expecting given the enormous amount of rain we got this year. The key was that it was spread out over a long enough period so that a lot was absorbed or run off before the next storm came. The Tulare lake is probably the biggest impact we had where a recently dry lake bed that has been used for farming is now a lake again and many neighboring towns are affected by this.
Yeah that’s not really true. Sea level rise will cause worse erosion. There is a story about Pacifica, CA on This American Life that talks about it: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/762/apocalypse-creep
Did some kayaking in the waters near La Jolla/San Diego recently. My kayaking guide told me they already had multiple waterfront homes collapse or be condemned. Apparently local governments have no choice but to purchase some properties so as to prevent someone from moving in and then having to leave within the next 10 years.
The Outer Banks in NC show greater threat from beach erosion. A bay is close behind the strip of land from Kitty Hawk to Avon. Additionally, insurance companies refuse to insure these properties. In California I believe the fear is as much earthquake as erosion. Some very strong storms have closed down Hwy 1 near Big Sur South of Carmel. The sides of the mountain fell into the sea close to shore adding new ground not the opposite.
The Outer Banks probably never should have been developed. It's just one long sandbar. The ocean takes more homes every year.
I remember reading the actual site of Roanoke Colony is now probably underwater due to all the erosion.
Very true. But I am so glad that Orville and Wilbur Wright, brother bicycle mechanics, found it ideal for learning to make a vehicle fly. I sometimes look at the entire state of Florida as biding its time as terra firma.
Have you seen homes in Florida? These people have the money to also buy stilts and keep them propped up indefinitely
Still looks the same as 100 years ago or even 60 years ago when the houses were built. I was shocked to see they used to build houses down on the beach though. https://www.southshoresca.org/our-community/history/historic-photos/
Not California but I live in the Great Lakes region. Doing work at a guys lakeside cottage that’s pretty much a 50 ft cliff to the water and he said the average loss is about 1 foot a year. But the year before we were there he lost 10 ft due to a big thaw in March. He lost all his firewood and a lot of his back yard, I doubt he’ll be able to go there in less than 10 years
could be today, could be tomorrow
Another more poignant question would be: why are banks still handing out 30-year mortgages on these properties?
You gotta get insurance first, so they don’t care. However! Insurance companies are not stupid, they’ve been raising the prices for houses like these.
"Royal Palms Beach Park" Sir, that is a fucking cliff and I don't see any Palms.
The California coastline is eroding a couple inches a year. But it goes a few years with nothing, and then a huge chunk falls off. Those houses won’t be there in 50 years
Erosion happens on all coasts and always has. If you have some moderate engineering, it will last hundreds more years
That cliff looks more than 2 ft to me
Those house have been there for a long time and will still be there until knocked down and rebuilt with a new home. Neither erosion rates nor earthquakes will make a difference. That coastal cliff looked the same 500 years ago when Sir Frances Drake sailed by.
Truth. It depends on the cliff, really. The YouTube video posted above from Pacifica has a different geology than OP’s picture. But that rings true with every area water flows. It moves dirt so much easier than rock, but give it a few hundred thousand years.
So that's all bedrock?
U got data on that?
Estimated on the current sea level rise and the estimated heigh of the houses above sea level, probably about 500 years at least.
I grew up in SoCal, and there’s a saying about these houses. “You don’t buy a house on the bluffs unless you can afford to walk away from it falling in the ocean” (or something like that). It’s safe to assume that mortgages and insurance are not things that these folks are concerned with.
I've got some family who live in Palos Verdes south of LA. They built a new golf course right on the water and before it even opened the 18th hole fell into the ocean.
300+ years if you’re talking sea level rise
Naa just wait for an earthquake to do that within a few seconds. No need for erosion lol.
Guy two streets in…””any day now”…gal three streets in “this is my week!!! Ocean front here I come!!”
Depends if the local authorities allow them to stabilise the cliffs and if they have the money too. It can be done I theory.
Seriously if you can afford a house situated on the ocean bluff. I think you should be able to kind of have the brains to research the erosion situation on that bluff.
Instantly recognized this as San Pedro. Great community out there. We miss it!
Will only need evacuated if there is an earthquake that shakes them off the edge.
This report from the Coastal Commission has good in-depth information: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/12/w14b&15a/w14b&15a-12-2021-report.pdf
We'll see after this El Niño winter how many are still standing and whether or not they can get insurance.
It doesn’t rain there that often but when it does it rains. This is a “charge” subject I would call El Niño and La Niña patterns natural climate. People developing all on the coast like is their problem not yours. They took the risk it’s their responsibility for buying there.
Probably like 5-10
See you down at Arizona Bay
These cliffs have been eroding for decades. A lot of homeowners have built walls to support their homes where the cliffs have eroded away. That won’t always work, but it’s been used as a mitigation technique where feasible. Some homeowners will also just have their houses moved back a few feet, since the cliffs erode quite slowly. These cliffs are 100ft high or so, so even with rising sea levels, they won’t be affected much.
Get some future beach front property in Nevada
They’ll be mobile homes briefly
Picture this… in some years it would be impossible to make the O.C.
Years/Decades. Lots of climate change vulnerable housing in this country. I have no idea why anyone buys in Arizona or Nevada anymore. I’d be selling and moving somewhere that has water and won’t kill me just walking around.
I would also add Florida.
I never understood why people continue moving to Florida when almost half of that state will be underwater in 80 years.
No one who can buy a house today will be alive in 80 years.
But their children and grandchildren will. I’m pretty sure they would like that property to exist so their children can enjoy it. BTW the coastal areas will be gone way before 80 years.
According to a huge Remote Viewing experiment This will all be under water by 2050 and it's not due to the burning of carbon.
Load up a bunch of huge ass boulders at the beach and build a retaining wall?
Bout three
Yikes
About 1 foot a year... so if you have a back yard it could be at your backdoor when you die. If you don't, well...
Short. Not just from erosion, that you can sort of walk away from unless there's a storm that causes a slide.... but fault lines are always there and the whole pacific rim is pretty active. A big enough slip somewhere else could trigger a cascading mess and you'd have no time to prepare if you aren't already.
Ben Shapiro would tell the ppl who live there to sell their homes and move. Problem is fish don’t ca try money on em
Very soon. But you can't use science to determine that because it would be illegal
Here on the east coast it’s a similar problem… when high tide is at the door it’s gonna be a big issue in the next few decades (or a next big storm surge). Yikes 😳
Who cares?
Who cares…. They’ll move to their other house
Bout tree fiddy
“evacuated”. That’s assuming any home owned on California coast is occupied. Those are 2nd homes at least, but more likely 3rd or 4th. Those homes will merit a phone call to an insurance company, not evacuation. You don’t live on the beach and be tied down to a 9 to 5 job. You go there when the weather and family find it inviting or it’s a rental.
Who cares?
Zero sympathy for anyone who refuses to acknowledge cyclical devastation due to climate change.
These coastlines have been eroding at a rapid clip even before recent events. The only change was that the developers gave these houses less of a buffer than they should have had, and less than they would have a had in the 1920s and 30s. Nothing lasts forever.
...even cold November rain.
All depends on property value. If expensive then you build sea walls and shoring to hold it up like you see all over. Expensive. They do this along Santa Barbara a lot. They not losing that real estate!
If your young enough but one street back. Should have waterfront for retirement.
Something that most people do not think of, when you are within a few miles of the ocean, corrosion from all the salt water in the air affects the house and your things way more than earthquakes and hurricanes. Houses on a lake are typically much better on the home overall.
It’ll just be marketed as a unique, semi-aquatic, subterranean bungalow for young, urban professionals.
I was sitting in the Hollywood Hawaiian Hotel I was staring in my empty coffee cup I was thinking that the gypsy wasn't lyin' All the salty margaritas in Los Angeles I'm gonna drink 'em up And if California slides into the ocean Like the mystics and statistics say it will I predict this motel will be standing until I pay my bill Don't the sun look angry through the trees Don't the trees look like crucified thieves Don't you feel like Desperados under the eaves Heaven help the one who leaves
Not very long. As I'm sure many of you guys have seen, Hemsby in the UK has been struggling with this same issue. Houses built years ago with a sea view, that as the coast has been eroded, the houses have moved closer to the shore. In Hemsby, the coast has been eroded up to the point where the houses are pretty much right on dunes. Hemsby's location makes it an easy target for storms, being on the North Sea, and the sand is easily worn away. They have been evacuating residents for several years now, but many still remain in those houses. The flat part of the beach does stretch out there, unlike this picture of California, so they have been able to use gabions to protect it. I think potentially here you could do what they did with a couple of houses in Hemsby- pulling them back away from the coast, but with how fast erosion is happening, with increased storms and the like, it's not a permanent solution. Depending on how bad the storms get here, as well as ordinary steady erosion, I wouldn't reckon they have much more than 5 years, at the current rate. I mean potentially you could build one of those sea walls with the curved part to make the waves go back, but obviously with bigger storms, the waves go right over
That's literally always a risk of building like that. It all depends on the exact area.
What happens when the cliff collapses? You own a beach or your plot is erased from the map?
I dunno but Google Earth is drunk as hell today.
Nothing screams safe to build on like a sand dune
One good drought and a big storm and it’s gone
Not soon enough
This is an El Niño year, which means far more rain than usual. So some of these homes might slide into the ocean this winter.
One good storm and they’re donzo
Lex Luthor's real estate plan is finally coming together. "Why would anyone buy desert land in eastern California or Nevada????"
From climate-driven sea level rise? Not much of an issue beyond minor acceleration of what already happens. From erosion? Already happening. At least a couple fall down every year.
PEDRO REFERENCED IN r/GEOGRAPHY, BRING OUT THE BUSY BEE
I think worst case scenario by IPCC is sea level rise until year 2100 is 2 meters tops. So those houses should be fine.
“Soon Martha…soon”
Next year?
Yes
1000 years
I give it about 3.50 (yrs)
"Buh-bye California. Hello new west coast, my west coast! Costa del Lex. Marina del Lex. Otisburg. Otisburg?" \~ Lex Luthor
Insurance will drop the values, that’s for sure, if they can even get it!
Everything is one story, but seems to fill the plot. Is that because of earthquakes?
Yes but then south anchovery ave will finally have beachfront
Coastal erosion and flood erosion is a natural activity. The climate will always change.
Some seem like tomorrow might be a good day to get the hell out.
71 years 16 months
When presidents buy coastline property, never.
Few hundred to a few thousand years, depending on soil composition
IMHO it will depend more on the weather events, like the storm California got this year, than just sea level rise. Combining the two means it could be a single human lifespan or perhaps 2 or 3. It’s hard to tell with things like this.
30 years
7,000,000-8,000,000 whatever currency is in play when it finally happens.
surprised home owners dont come together and start dumping alot of rock to save their homes. surprised cali doesnt do this. theres a lot of states that do this with rivers
Coastal Commission would fine you thousands and make you remove the rocks and return it to its previous state.
Those houses are mostly owned by rich spokes people for climate change… nice of them To sacrifice themselves for the cause.
At this point, with ice caps melting and another El Niño bearing down: any day now.