San Francisco vs San Jose (Oakland, Hayward: neighborhood, schools, earthquake)

[gone down south]

As a renter, I wouldn't worry too much about liquifaction. Maybe an earthquake will hit tomorrow, maybe not for 10 more years. The odds of us getting hit on any given day are pretty low, the odds of it happening while you're at home and not out even lower, etc etc. A homeowner has different financial concerns.

[headingwest236]

Originally Posted by gone down south

As a renter, I wouldn't worry too much about liquifaction. Maybe an earthquake will hit tomorrow, maybe not for 10 more years. The odds of us getting hit on any given day are pretty low, the odds of it happening while you're at home and not out even lower, etc etc. A homeowner has different financial concerns.

Thanks. If I every decide to buy property I'll make sure to buy outside of a liquefaction zone. What worries me more is making my apartments unsafe to live in/rupture a gas line and start a fire. Also, not being a CA native means I'm not used to quakes, and I'm not sure how much worse the shaking is in a liquefaction area.

[syborg]

earthquakes are a real concern, but it wouldnt keep me from living in those "red" zones. We ended up in the southbay and having a quick escape route to the east in case of emergency was a bonus.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

There is just no there there in San Jose, it's just really boring endless suburbia.

No, it's not. If you're only driving around the Legolands, then that would apply, but go downtown, among many other places, and it's a totally different story.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by jaypee

San Mateo has a pretty nice, walkable, downtown scene as well. If I were working in San Mateo, I'd live either in San Mateo or SF -- definitely not San Jose.

Have you not encountered places like Willow Glen, Rosegarden, or Naglee Park, to name a few? We have our swanky San Mateo-esque areas, too. Caltrain goes betwwen the two cities as well.

[FrenchKissed]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

What I meant is that, from what I've read, a Hayward fault quake would be at max somewhere around 7 or less on the scale, while the San Andreas could create one up to more like 8 or so. But certainly if a 6.8 quake hit right under downtown Berkeley it would cause a lot more damage than a 7.5 quake in the remote hills outside San Jose.

No, I think what they've been saying is that there is a 31% chance of a 6.7 or greater earthquake hitting the Hayward fault in the next 30 years and a 21% chance of a 6.7 or greater earthquake hitting the San Andreas fault. An earthquake along the San Andreas fault is no more likely to reach M8.0 than an earthquake along the Hayward fault.

[mayorhaggar]

Hayward Fault Fact Sheet

The Hayward Fault is thought capable of generating a magnitude 7.5 quake.

That says 7.5 though I dunno if that is the max or not. The 1906 quake on the San Andreas is thought to be a 7.8.

The good news (sort of) is that our California faults have a somewhat low ceiling of potential quake power, something like 8.0 or so, whereas faults in places around Alaska and Japan can go up to 9 or something. Still, a 7.8 would be hugely destructive. Also the soil here is younger and less compacted than out east, so quake energy doesn't travel as far. That's why a quake in San Jose can be felt in Santa Rosa, but not much further out, but a quake in Virginia can be felt up into NYC.

[jaypee]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Have you not encountered places like Willow Glen, Rosegarden, or Naglee Park, to name a few? We have our swanky San Mateo-esque areas, too. Caltrain goes betwwen the two cities as well.

Ok, but OP works in San Mateo. I never said San Jose didn't have anything like that

[headingwest236]

Originally Posted by syborg

earthquakes are a real concern, but it wouldnt keep me from living in those "red" zones. We ended up in the southbay and having a quick escape route to the east in case of emergency was a bonus.

Just saying...does that mean if I'm caught in a bad quake in SF it'll be hard to get off the peninsula? Would a quake cause a need for evecuation? Sorry I'm kinda paranoid.

[gone down south]

Originally Posted by headingwest236

Just saying...does that mean if I'm caught in a bad quake in SF it'll be hard to get off the peninsula? Would a quake cause a need for evecuation? Sorry I'm kinda paranoid.

If there's a really big one, the bridges will probably go out and everyone will have to evacuate via San Jose (ie 101 and 280).

But check out the odds above, and remember those are over the next 30 years Compare that to the GUARANTEE that the southeast will have a half dozen hurricanes make landfall every single year, the ice storms and blizzards in the northeast that take power out every winter, etc etc etc. Bad stuff happens everywhere all the time.