U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which City is most Likely to be Destroyed by Natural Disaster, or Man-made Disaster
New York 14 12.73%
Los Angeles 43 39.09%
Chicago 2 1.82%
Houston 7 6.36%
Philadelphia 1 0.91%
Phoenix 6 5.45%
San Antonio 1 0.91%
San Diego 3 2.73%
Dallas 0 0%
San Jose 3 2.73%
Boston 0 0%
Fresno 2 1.82%
Oklahoma City 21 19.09%
Minneapolis 2 1.82%
New Orleans 34 30.91%
Tyler, Tx 3 2.73%
Denver 1 0.91%
San Francisco 32 29.09%
Las Vegas 3 2.73%
Hawaii 9 8.18%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-14-2014, 10:55 AM
 
1,043 posts, read 1,056,958 times
Reputation: 2370

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lance View Post
I think you need to stick to Rocket Science because meteorology is not your forte. If hurricane Ike had hit 50 miles further west that would have put the eye on shore at Freeport. This would have been bad news for Freeport and Galveston Island which would then been on the dirty side of the storm, but to suggest that would have sent storm surge all the way into downtown Houston is ridicules. A 20 foot storm surge cannot climb a 55 foot grade. There are maps that show where the worse case storm surges would flood, if you are interested in finding out facts, instead of fantasy, go look them up sometime.

If we just look at hurricane risk both New Orleans and Miami (which of course the OP left off the list) are at much greater risk than Houston. Not only because of the chances of being hit by a major hurricane are much greater in both those locations than Houston , but also those locations are at lower elevation and closer to the coast.
Buffalo Bayou downtown runs about 5 ft above sea level, with top of bank at 25 feet. A surge plus rainfall drives it above its bank, and floods the area's tunnels and infrastructure below ground level. TS Allison pushed it more than 10 feet over its banks. Storm surge during Ike pushed it 3 feet over.

If the Addicks and Barker Dams Fail | Houston Press

Expert: Ike damage could have been much worse - The Galveston County Daily News : Storm Season
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-14-2014, 11:45 AM
Status: "waite untill next year. It was fun while it lasted !" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Beautiful Northwest Houston
4,660 posts, read 4,507,435 times
Reputation: 3847
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
Buffalo Bayou downtown runs about 5 ft above sea level, with top of bank at 25 feet. A surge plus rainfall drives it above its bank, and floods the area's tunnels and infrastructure below ground level. TS Allison pushed it more than 10 feet over its banks. Storm surge during Ike pushed it 3 feet over.

If the Addicks and Barker Dams Fail | Houston Press

Expert: Ike damage could have been much worse - The Galveston County Daily News : Storm Season
You are a piece of work. I wasted several minutes reading your BS links. Nowhere in either of those citations does it say Downtown Houston was ever threatened by storm surge even in a worst case landfall scenario. Buffalo Bayou downtown is well above storm surge elevation. Everybody knows that Clear Lake and many of the channel industries are vulnerable to surge flooding and they take precautions when a storm approaches including evacuation and shut downs.

Your other link is a fictional scenario on what would happen if a couple of flood control damns failed. Again you are fantasizing , could it happen I doubt it? 2 flood control damns breaking at once? Might 10 F-5 tornadoes converge on DFW during rush hour? It could happen, but we are going to have to keep our fantasy's out of this, and try to stick to plausible scenarios .

DarkSide I am losing patients with your hyperbole and misrepresentations
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 01:48 PM
 
1,043 posts, read 1,056,958 times
Reputation: 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lance View Post
You are a piece of work. I wasted several minutes reading your BS links. Nowhere in either of those citations does it say Downtown Houston was ever threatened by storm surge even in a worst case landfall scenario. Buffalo Bayou downtown is well above storm surge elevation. Everybody knows that Clear Lake and many of the channel industries are vulnerable to surge flooding and they take precautions when a storm approaches including evacuation and shut downs.

Your other link is a fictional scenario on what would happen if a couple of flood control damns failed. Again you are fantasizing , could it happen I doubt it? 2 flood control damns breaking at once? Might 10 F-5 tornadoes converge on DFW during rush hour? It could happen, but we are going to have to keep our fantasy's out of this, and try to stick to plausible scenarios .

DarkSide I am losing patients with your hyperbole and misrepresentations
They are not "my" fantasy, the US Army Corps of Engineers have designated them "extremely high risk."
http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/Missio...tyProgram.aspx

Regarding my "BS links" not sure why you consider a disaster implausible. It depends on your definition of "disaster" I suppose. I already considered Allison and Ike as "disasters". Allison flooded 70,000 homes, the Houston downtown tunnel system, multiple hospitals had to be evacuated, 95,000 cars were flooded, and 55 people killed directly and indirectly. Over 2700 homes were destroyed leaving 30,000 homeless. Ike killed 94 people and flooded 100,000 homes in Texas alone. Even with precautions, flooding and damages affect hundreds of thousands of people, with the potential to affect millions. It is very likely that flooding, surge, and storms will occur again in Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 02:22 PM
Status: "waite untill next year. It was fun while it lasted !" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Beautiful Northwest Houston
4,660 posts, read 4,507,435 times
Reputation: 3847
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
They are not "my" fantasy, the US Army Corps of Engineers have designated them "extremely high risk."
http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/Missio...tyProgram.aspx

Regarding my "BS links" not sure why you consider a disaster implausible. It depends on your definition of "disaster" I suppose. I already considered Allison and Ike as "disasters". Allison flooded 70,000 homes, the Houston downtown tunnel system, multiple hospitals had to be evacuated, 95,000 cars were flooded, and 55 people killed directly and indirectly. Over 2700 homes were destroyed leaving 30,000 homeless. Ike killed 94 people and flooded 100,000 homes in Texas alone. Even with precautions, flooding and damages affect hundreds of thousands of people, with the potential to affect millions. It is very likely that flooding, surge, and storms will occur again in Houston.
No kidding DarkSide, here we agree flooding, surge, and storms will occur again.

You stated that downtown Houston would have been at risk of storm surge had Ike struck 50 miles west of where it did. This was just total nonsense and nothing in the links you provided supported that fantasy. Downtown Houston is not at risk of storm surge. Flooding is a potential problem in Houston as in any metro in Texas. In fact most other metros in Texas have more vulnerability to flash floods than does Houston. Flooding in Houston happens at a very slow rate compared to what can happen in more hilly terrain.

As far as your hyperbole about the flood control damns in west Houston (BTW I live about a mile east of Addicks), in the same article, reason prevails.

Not that everyone agrees. According to Michael Sterling of the Corps' Galveston District, Addicks and Barker dams aren't about to crumble. The Corps, which has put in a couple of quick fixes that may or may not work, says the soonest that Addicks and Barker can be fully repaired is by September 2017.
"All dams present risk potential; however, it is important to know that Addicks and Barker dams are not in imminent danger of failing," says Sterling, who adds, "The fact that the Houston metropolitan area is the nation's fourth largest population center is a primary concern. Any dam safety issues at Addicks and Barker could have a far greater impact due to the magnitude of people and property downstream as opposed to other dams around the country located in rural or low-population density areas."

Like I said you are taking the alarmist view to try to discourage people from moving to Houston is some feeble attempt to poach those migrants to Dallas. But Houston is a far superior metro mainly due to the very body of water that poses most of the risk to the area, the Gulf. It is also important to remember that people really do not use the possibility of disaster in their calculations as to where they wish to live as the main determinant of location. They understand that many of the best places to live carry the highest risk of weather, or geologic instability.

So cut it out DarkSide or whatever other ID you may use to try to make it look like their is support for your feckless efforts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
12,521 posts, read 22,393,080 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkSide View Post
Personally, I think the most Dangerous city to live in according to all the factors
is either Los Angeles, or Houston.

Both are next to LARGE bodies of water and in danger of Tsunami, Hurricane, etc..
Both are most-likely nuclear targets if another country tries to attack.

Both are at risk for EarthQuakes, although Los Angeles takes that category.

But Houston is practically a LIVE BOMB, with all those Gasoline and oil containers.
True

The eastern half of the city miles outside of downtown in & around the ship channel is, not the whole city.

You do realize Houston covers over 10,000 square miles right?

That "LIVE BOMB" area is relatively confined. Not much of the population even lives in that area just a few trailer parks & small communities sprinkled here & there.

The majority of Houston's population is in the inner loop & far western, northern, & southern suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:19 PM
 
1,981 posts, read 3,048,684 times
Reputation: 1569
Oklahoma City: tornado alley, prairie fires, drought, dust bowl, softball sized hail, Sooners. Like fellow trailer parks, the place is a disaster magnet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:20 PM
 
1,043 posts, read 1,056,958 times
Reputation: 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lance View Post


Like I said you are taking the alarmist view to try to discourage people from moving to Houston is some feeble attempt to poach those migrants to Dallas. But Houston is a far superior metro mainly due to the very body of water that poses most of the risk to the area, the Gulf. It is also important to remember that people really do not use the possibility of disaster in their calculations as to where they wish to live as the main determinant of location. They understand that many of the best places to live carry the highest risk of weather, or geologic instability.

So cut it out DarkSide or whatever other ID you may use to try to make it look like their is support for your feckless efforts.
You have me confused with someone you are feuding with. I am truly trying to give a valid response to the poll.

Regarding "disaster" cities, I exclude most tornado cities as the damages tend to be more localized, I exclude earthquake cities as although they can be large and disruptive, the most prone areas are the most prepared and therefore the potential loss of life is minimized. Other disasters (man-made, etc) are random, so I consider the effects contained and low (relative to an entire community). The most likely disaster scenarios are the result of flooding, either due to rainfall, tropical systems, system failures (dams, levees), or all of the above.

Hurricanes and Tropical storms are the greatest periodic natural risks for causing flooding, so in looking at all of the cities along the Gulf and East Coast, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana cities all vie for the most likely. I could have picked New Orleans due to its location below sea level, but the population growth and distribution of people represents a threat from both storm surge in the Southeast sections up thru the Ship Channel and rainfall upstream. A single system can cause both. SE Texas and Louisiana are subject to similar topography and weather conditions, but the population is in the Houston area.

In the years I have lived in Houston, in different parts of town: my place of business has had its roof peeled back like a sardine can (NW Houston), stayed at friend's apartment where water rose into living room (SW Houston), and I had no electricity for a week (Alicia); I had water up to my weep holes at my home and had to dig a hasty drainage ditch to drain my yard but lucked out before home flooded (Clear Lake) (Chantal); had a car flooded out on my own street (Clear Lake)(unnamed tropical system); had friends' homes flooded twice in one week (Friendswood) (Allison); had backyard tree uprooted, fences down, electricity out, some home damage (Montrose), one co-worker's home in literally swept away (Bolivar), another co-worker's home gutted by surge and waves (Shore Acres) (Ike); and evacuated my family at least 2 or 3 times from home (Gilbert, Rita, others I don't remember).

Yet I would still rather live in Houston than Dallas. Maybe I should have used the possibility of disaster in my calculations, but I have about as much fondness for Dallas as Mrs. Kennedy, but I at least now no longer live in a flood or storm surge zone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:37 PM
Status: "waite untill next year. It was fun while it lasted !" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Beautiful Northwest Houston
4,660 posts, read 4,507,435 times
Reputation: 3847
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
You have me confused with someone you are feuding with. I am truly trying to give a valid response to the poll.

Regarding "disaster" cities, I exclude most tornado cities as the damages tend to be more localized, I exclude earthquake cities as although they can be large and disruptive, the most prone areas are the most prepared and therefore the potential loss of life is minimized. Other disasters (man-made, etc) are random, so I consider the effects contained and low (relative to an entire community). The most likely disaster scenarios are the result of flooding, either due to rainfall, tropical systems, system failures (dams, levees), or all of the above.
This is ridicules , how can you say the potential loss of life is minimized by earthquake preparedness? Have you ever seen casualty estimates for a major earthquake in a highly populated area?

You list a wide range of weather events that have happened in Houston and I have faced most of those myself, and guess what? We are still here as is Houston. Even the worst case category 5 hurricane would not do the type or severity of damage in Houston that a severe 8 or 9 earthquake would do to a major west coast population center.

Your criteria for judging is very flawed. Show me casualty estimates that support your contentions please..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:51 PM
 
1,462 posts, read 1,510,328 times
Reputation: 1019
Fact - In San Francisco, less than 10 people have died from earthquakes in over 100 years.

Whether you think that means SF is 'due' or not, just compare that to something like Sandy...

People aren't living in fear of earthquakes over here, but hurricanes sure seem scary to me.

Rising sea level has to be the greatest (and real) risk right now..The Maldives Islands are already looking at purchasing land from countries like Australia & India so their people have some place to live because they are about to be under water. They are straight up gonna have to abandon their homes soon. Fact. Scientist Robert Watson, the leading global warming scientist, says the places in the U.S. that are screwed in the near future are:



Manhattan is under the greatest risk as it is at the same sea level as the Maldives, the lowest in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Capitol Hill - Seattle
407 posts, read 842,302 times
Reputation: 450
I'd have to unfortunately nominate my home city of Seattle. Not too far away is the Cascadia subduction zone which can produce megathrust quakes greater than 9.0 magnitude, not to mention faults running throughout the city (shallow faults at that). There's also that 14,000+ foot active volcano that looms over the metro.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top