It is illogical to rebuild structures in disaster-prone areas without considering more resistant designs that protect people, as rebuilding wastes time and money. While withstanding 200+ mph winds may be impossible, better resistant designs could save costs compared to total replacement after each disaster. Rebuilding should have more logic through designs departing from the current mentality of total reconstruction each time.

1. It is illogical to build and rebuild structures in an area that is prone to
natural disasters without giving some thought to designs that are
resistant and that protect the people living in those structures. The time
and energy that is given without some serious thought is also illogical. It
would make better sense to look at alternatives that would lend
themselves to become productive innovations that would not require the
total replacement of homes, schools, infrastructure, etc... Although it is
virtual impossible to economically design structures that can resist 200+
mph winds; we certainly can do a better job at it. The cost of replacing all
those destroyed buildings is astronomical.
The buildings would look much different than what we are accustomed,
but could and would be a departure from our current build it and rebuild
from scratch mentality. It could even save us a whole lot of money in the
long run. I am just saying as Mr. Spock would say "that it is illogical" to
rebuild as we have done time and time again.
There should be some logic behind disaster replacement