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.
Tampa being on the West Coast protects it. It’s hard for a Hurricane to back into the Bay Area. It’s been 98 years since Tampa has been hit by a major hurricane let alone a Cat 5. Hurricanes go West, NW,N then NE so a coastal area like Tampa either has a Hurricane come from leeward side or passing parallel to the coast. A right turn needed to turn a hurricane so tightly so that the West coast south of Tampa (or Cuba) to tear the storm apart tends to be a weather system strong enough to shear apart storms.
Miami is primary due to being a small target. A storm 50 miles out to sea isn’t a big deal (well it is for the Bahamas) so a 16% of any hurricane being near Miami is probably like a 3% chance of actual hurricane conditions especially because with recurring storms Miami is on the weak side.
Savannah is similar the fact that storms either come from the Leeward side or need a pretty rare westward component at that latitude protects the city.
If Irma had stayed off the coast, rather than veering inland east of Tampa, Tampa would have been severely impacted by both storm surge and high winds. It was a worry at the time and Hillsborough County was under a voluntary evacuation order. In fact as late as Sept. 10, NBC News reported Tampa Bay was facing a direct hit by Irma.
In fact, Accuweather.com says Tampa is one of the five most vulnerable U.S. cities to hurricanes.
<<The western coast of Florida has endured its share of hurricanes, and the city of Tampa is no exception. The Tampa-St. Petersburg area has an 11 percent chance of feeling the impacts of a hurricane in any given year. Tampa, situated on a peninsula lying along Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, is exposed to hurricanes entering the Gulf and systems forming in the Atlantic. Many of the 347,645 people living in the area have homes along the coast, making residents susceptible to storm surge.
"Like Miami, Tampa is a large metropolitan area and the effects of a hurricane would be widespread throughout the city," Samuhel explained. "Because it is located by the shallow Tampa Bay, water piles up into the city, causing very significant storm surge along the coastline...."
Most recently in 2004, Hurricane Charley caused $16 billion in damages when the Category 4 storm made landfall just south of Tampa. >>
If Irma had stayed off the coast, rather than veering inland east of Tampa, Tampa would have been severely impacted by both storm surge and high winds. It was a worry at the time and Hillsborough County was under a voluntary evacuation order. In fact as late as Sept. 10, NBC News reported Tampa Bay was facing a direct hit by Irma.
In fact, Accuweather.com says Tampa is one of the five most vulnerable U.S. cities to hurricanes.
<<The western coast of Florida has endured its share of hurricanes, and the city of Tampa is no exception. The Tampa-St. Petersburg area has an 11 percent chance of feeling the impacts of a hurricane in any given year. Tampa, situated on a peninsula lying along Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, is exposed to hurricanes entering the Gulf and systems forming in the Atlantic. Many of the 347,645 people living in the area have homes along the coast, making residents susceptible to storm surge.
"Like Miami, Tampa is a large metropolitan area and the effects of a hurricane would be widespread throughout the city," Samuhel explained. "Because it is located by the shallow Tampa Bay, water piles up into the city, causing very significant storm surge along the coastline...."
Most recently in 2004, Hurricane Charley caused $16 billion in damages when the Category 4 storm made landfall just south of Tampa. >>
So much for the value of your unsubstantiated expertise.
Charlie hit over 100 miles south of Tampa. That’s not “just south”. Irma was nearly 200 miles south.
And again “feeling the effects of a Hurricane” is not the same as hurricane conditions. Most Hurricanes will go along the coast leaving Tampa pretty unharmed. If the storm is close enough that Tampa is in the core it’s generally pretty disrupted because it’s be mostly over Florida the whole time.
Tampalikely wont even get hit by a Hurricane in the 2020s let alone a Cat 5.
You said there is a good chance a Cat 5 hits A major Florida metro area that’s wishcasting not based on facts just hoping misfortune so people move back to Cleveland
I live near Houston. My house has been through 3. major Hurricanes and numerous tropical storms. It has never had even a scratch. The media is a big liar. They live to exaggerate things and make drama.
I have been going to Galveston and Pensacola beaches for decades. There pylon on the beach and it Mark's the high tide mark. It has been there for 75 years. Now listen!!!! The high tide mark has not budged not even an inch in 75 years. Yet the alarmist want you to think that an apocalypse in eminent.
Depends on your definition of significant but the last Cat 5 to hit a major city was Andrew in 1992 and before that was Labor Day in 1935. Miami has gone without a landfalling hurricane of any strength since 2005. (Katrina) the last time Tampa Bay got hit by a Hurricane was also in the 30s.
We've gotten better at disaster prep and recovery as a percentage of GDP destroyed by disasters, but when the last big hurricane to smack Miami in 1926 happened, it took until the 1940s for the city to get back to where it was and if a similar one struck today, it would cost an estimated 200 billion dollars in damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd433
The population of coastal areas is SURGING right now at the fastest rate in history. all over the world. Almost half of the worlds population lives within 60 miles of the coast. If you stretch it to 100 miles the number increases to 64%
Really? Initially the US was largely coastal (even going back to native settlement this was true), then it moved inland and farmed the heck out of everything, then farming no longer needed the people it once did, but have people really started to move back to the coastlines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubb Rubb
I bet we can pull this same thread from 10 years ago, have the same exact responses and the same exact cities stated, and see that in real life that didn't happen.
Trends will continue and things don't reverse overnight, but there is bound to be shifts. At one time, 100 years ago, Akron OH was a the innovation and tech hub of the US and the fastest growing region. Likewise the recent housing gains in the Cleveland and St. Louis area show that things change from one decade to the next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I'm surprised at people piling on the Bay Area.
Yeah, that surprising me too, but the area generates strong feelings apparently, and is probably at the forefront of a lot of the big city issues facing the US currently in 2020.
For Denver, it's many of the same issues as SF, just not to the same degree. I do not think Denver will do as well in the 2020s as it did in the 2010s. At a certain point I would think the people who want to be in a steppe climate next to the mountains will have moved here, or will consider plan B options like Albuquerque or Ft. Collins. The shale boom northeast of Denver looks more like a shale bust right now, the pot boom is over (a contentious subject, but it definitely had an effect), and the housing market seems be running out of gains. On a more general level, the city just hasn't been able to keep up, issues like transportation and congestion and air quality are worsening at a rate seemingly faster than the rate people people are moving in at. For a city to continue to grow, it's got to build as fast as people are coming in, and for those cities which haven't, at a certain point growth has to stall. Denver doesn't have a lot of big development cards to play anymore, it's already got the mega airport, the 5 sports teams, Red Rocks, they aren't building more ski areas... A lot of the growth recently was from earlier investment in those mega projects during the 90s and 00s, which helped spurn its spot as the hub of the Rockies.
Even at my office, for the positions that can work from home, a lot of them are choosing to be somewhere besides Denver. We haven't had anyone move from our other markets to Denver either for a job change, though we've had people do the opposite. I would imagine it's these slow trickles that would influence growth in places like DC, Seattle or the Bay.
Yeah I've heard Boise is where all the PNW/Bay Area refugees are going now and the rising housing costs are reflecting that.
Didn't know there were potential water issues there. That's always a potentially limiting factor.
Boise's also the biggest thing for quite an area, and while some of that is uninviting desert, a lot of it is pretty decent land in areas like eastern OR and WA and MT that still haven't really been developed though it could be. By a number of standards, the ID mountains even surpass the CO Front Range with less flat valleys separating the ranges, more snow, and a little more warmness and rain allowing for some PNW tree species.
The water issue out west is largely a SoCal, Vegas, AZ problem, with NM, UT, and CO having some issues, but not as severe. The northern states have really big drainage basins that collect a ton of winter snow which have enough water to supply both development and agriculture.
I don't see Seattle slowing one bit. The built environment will propel the city to even more growth. The mega companies that exist there (Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, Costco, Joint base Lewis/McChord, and many others make the region almost immune from a decline.) That said, Seattle does have a history of boom/bust. But this feels different.
Yeah I've heard Boise is where all the PNW/Bay Area refugees are going now and the rising housing costs are reflecting that.
Didn't know there were potential water issues there. That's always a potentially limiting factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwguy2
I don't see Seattle slowing one bit. The built environment will propel the city to even more growth. The mega companies that exist there (Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, Costco, Joint base Lewis/McChord, and many others make the region almost immune from a decline.) That said, Seattle does have a history of boom/bust. But this feels different.
mhays has pointed out as well how the pro development aspect of the city has helped it keep up with the growth that those companies have provided. I think the state of Washington, both sides of the Cascades has been a success story comparatively over the last 100 years. The state could do something to deal with the property crime problem it has though.
mhays has pointed out as well how the pro development aspect of the city has helped it keep up with the growth that those companies have provided. I think the state of Washington, both sides of the Cascades has been a success story comparatively over the last 100 years. The state could do something to deal with the property crime problem it has though.
Yes, agreed on the past 100 years, with some busts in between as I mentioned. Property crime? Not sure what you are referring to here, perhaps the homeless problem?
There are hurdles ahead for sure. The homeless issue is one, and the predicted mega-quake is another, though that could happen either tomorrow or not in our lifetimes. But a reasonable prediction is this metro will continue to boom. What I find interesting is how Seattle has mega-expanded in the past decade or two, while their cousin, Portland, seems to be fine with the status quo. Different attitudes about growth, for sure.
Definitely San Francisco. As for its population, I don't think San Francisco will ever hit 1 million people. Not with the aversion to tall apartment buildings the city has. That's why the city's so expensive.
I also don't think Phoenix will continue to grow as it has. Rapidly increasing elderly population and rising temperatures aren't going to help with growth. Besides, it's not a hot bed for any industries.
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.
Never affected by a hurricane
