The further away you are from the coast, the more natural disaster proof you are. I can think of a few ways a circular building would benefit in a natural disaster (better aerodynamics...) but they're also more expensive all, more complex, harder to maintain, etc... unless you're building with steel and concrete. Regardless I think proper planning has a lot more to do with natural disaster preparedness than the inherent shape of the building.
Is there any validity to Terrence Howard’s claim that circular buildings are natural disaster proof?
Discussion
Interesting, thanks for the reply 🙏🏽