Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 of these disaster-prone cities is the most dangerous?
Los Angeles (Earthquakes) 6 8.70%
San Francisco (Earthquakes) 15 21.74%
New Orleans (Hurricanes) 23 33.33%
Miami (Hurricanes) 11 15.94%
Tampa (Hurricanes) 1 1.45%
Houston (Hurricanes) 1 1.45%
Oklahoma City (Tornadoes) 9 13.04%
Other 3 4.35%
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-13-2012, 10:11 AM
 
932 posts, read 1,943,871 times
Reputation: 553

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
Mudslides are extremely localized, and wildfires more often than not happen in sparsely populated wilderness. The closest "LA" comes to burning is if Malibu or anywhere in the Santa Monica Mtns burns. But even that is only a drop in the bucket in terms of population affected.

Historically speaking, even the deadliest earthquake in LA's history doesn't even scratch the surface of the most deadly hurricanes. Even with all that warning, hurricanes kill more people.

Hurricane Katrina: A week or preparation and warning and 1,833 lives lost.

Northridge Earthquake: No warning whatsoever. 57 lives lost.

I don't know....57 < 1,833. Just saying, I'll take earthquakes, mudslides and wildfires every single day than ONE hurricane season. Warning and all.
To be intellectually honest, though, you do have to admit that LA is constantly preparing for earthquakes with new building and roadway dampening designs. Ho bad would it be if they didn't do that? We'll never know.

But, I am still more scared of hurricanes than earthquakes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2012, 10:16 AM
 
3,755 posts, read 4,798,787 times
Reputation: 2857
What about tropical storms? While they're obviously not as strong as a Hurricane, they can still cause some damage. How many of those have hit South Florida in the last decade?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,078 posts, read 15,846,871 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTA88 View Post
To be intellectually honest, though, you do have to admit that LA is constantly preparing for earthquakes with new building and roadway dampening designs. Ho bad would it be if they didn't do that? We'll never know.

But, I am still more scared of hurricanes than earthquakes.
Don't all cities do this to prepare for their respective potential natural disasters?

Honestly I'm way mote worried about a tsunami than a mudslide or wildfire. Like MB said, those two things effect like .01 percent of Southland residents, mainly the affluent hillside neighborhoods.

For me I'd say any medium to large mid-west or southern city - you've got tornados and the ever present danger of rivers flooding. Flooding seems so much more devastating than earthquakes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2012, 10:42 AM
 
650 posts, read 1,629,358 times
Reputation: 307
Miami should not even be on the list. Compared to LA?? SF??? NOLA????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2012, 12:13 PM
 
Location: SoCal
1,242 posts, read 1,946,265 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by canefandynasty View Post
Miami should not even be on the list. Compared to LA?? SF??? NOLA????
Miami is more prone to considerable damage and loss of life from natural disasters than LA or SF ever could dream of being. For every ONE major earthquake that actually does something there are HUNDREDS of Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and tropical storms that are far more costly and deadly. Please, if anything, LA and SF should NOT be on the list and Miami should be on the list twice.

Last edited by MB8abovetherim; 10-13-2012 at 12:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2012, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,410,092 times
Reputation: 6288
I voted for New Orleans, but Houston, specifically the Galveston region, is right there with it. The whole Gulf Coast really. Hurricanes are not as visually startling as tornadoes/earthquakes/volcano eruptions, but they are devastating and far more frequent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2012, 12:39 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
814 posts, read 1,474,654 times
Reputation: 677
New Orleans is probably going to "win" this poll since most people still have the images of Katrina in their heads. But I dont think people realize that that type of storm does not hit often at all. Also I dont think major hurricanes hit the New Orleans area any more often than the rest of the coast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2012, 12:42 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
814 posts, read 1,474,654 times
Reputation: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by canefandynasty View Post
Miami should not even be on the list. Compared to LA?? SF??? NOLA????
Miami should be on the list. It sits right on the coast and has a very low elevation. Just look at the Mississippi coast after Katrina if you want to see what can happen to places that sit directly on the coast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2012, 03:28 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,500,336 times
Reputation: 5879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1 View Post
Miami should be on the list. It sits right on the coast and has a very low elevation. Just look at the Mississippi coast after Katrina if you want to see what can happen to places that sit directly on the coast.
aftermath of Hurricane Andrew

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2012, 04:06 PM
 
14,725 posts, read 33,361,633 times
Reputation: 8949
San Francisco. The San Andreas fault runs RIGHT UNDER the city, and it's infrastructure is too complicated and crowded, especially with BART and MUNI stacked on different levels on top of each other. In some neighborhoods, such as the Marina, the compaction of the soil is iffy and some of the rowhouses built on steep hills could be seriously jeopardized.

In Los Angeles, the San Andreas fault runs quite a ways north of the city and skirts it by being out in the high desert.

As for New Orleans, if it had ever spent the money to build an appropriate and substantial seawall instead of rickety levees, the problem could be somewhat alleviated.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:50 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top