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.
I would assume Florida because of the concentration of people on coasts. Anywhere north of the Carolinas, I would say don't have too large a chance of being hit by a hurricane, at least of that size. I doubt Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi have enough property or economic activity clustered together on the coasts for a single hurricane to do so much damage.
Aside from Florida, Louisiana. I mean, did Katrina cause almost that damage to Louisiana? (Now that I mention it, maybe I should have voted for Louisiana). Maybe Texas, but I don't know how vulnerable and prepared the Houston area is to hurricanes. The only other notable cities in the Texas coast are Corpus Christi and Brownsville, but I doubt a hurricane can do that much damage in those areas.
Louisiana, if Katrina came a bit further west the west Bank likely would have flooded as well, that would have been a disaster well over $100,000,000,000.
Of course a lot has to do with timing and inflation.
I would bet Katrina's Dollar value eclipses $100B in value of that years currency before there is an actual $100B storm.
New York City is very vulnerable, sandy was a category one and look what it did. If a four or five had taken that path NYC would have been devestated. They say the geography of New York City works to put it at risk from storm surge too. Northern people have falsely believed for years that hurricanes are for people in the South but there is a real danger in NYC. The shear value of property concentrated in NYC could make it the first place to have a 100 billion dollar hurricane
New York City is very vulnerable, sandy was a category one and look what it did. If a four or five had taken that path NYC would have been devestated. They say the geography of New York City works to put it at risk from storm surge too. Northern people have falsely believed for years that hurricanes are for people in the South but there is a real danger in NYC. The shear value of property concentrated in NYC could make it the first place to have a 100 billion dollar hurricane
I don't think people in the North believe that hurricanes are for people in the South. Just look at the list of New York hurricanes. They aren't rare.
I'll pick Florida. It seems to be threatened regularly.
Louisiana, if Katrina came a bit further west the west Bank likely would have flooded as well, that would have been a disaster well over $100,000,000,000.
Of course a lot has to do with timing and inflation.
I would bet Katrina's Dollar value eclipses $100B in value of that years currency before there is an actual $100B storm.
Katrina's already listed as $108 billion in 2005; $148 in 2012 dollars
Sandy is around $75 billion, so a somewhat stronger storm or closer hit to NYC would have increased the total somewhat. The cost for both hurricane were split between states, though.
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.
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.
