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.
Being the closest major US city to Asia is pretty important. That would put Seattle in a short list.
It's relatively secure from rising sea levels due to being hilly, and is also predicted to do ok with climate change.
Tons of fresh water, outstanding natural seaports, a variety of outstanding growing climates in a short radius, closest big US city to Alaskan fisheries...
but Seattle is the city that's gonna get hit by the next "Big One" and scientists don't quite think it's impossible it will happen in our lifetime
but Seattle is the city that's gonna get hit by the next "Big One" and scientists don't quite think it's impossible it will happen in our lifetime
The Big One in Seattle would be offshore hundreds of miles away. The biggest risk will be tsunamis but Seattle is a city built on hills hundreds of feet above sea level.
Seattle is on a fault line but it won't cause a Big One, just 6.0-7.0 ones. Most residential construction here are wood framed and office buildings here are mostly built in modern earthquake proof era.
Cleveland is the mid-point between New York and Chicago. It’s within 500 miles of 50% of the US population, so most major East Coast and Midwest cities are within a day’s drive. It’s on a Great Lake, so has virtually endless supplies of fresh water, has few major natural disasters, has little threat from sea-level rise or forest fires.
My vote goes to St. Louis, at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and right in the geographical center of the lower 48. As water becomes more scarce I could see St. Louis experiencing a dramatic rebirth.
St. Louis sits on the New Madrid fault, which has caused some of the worst earthquakes in US history. It’s an old city built mostly of bricks. When the “big one” comes that city will be absolutely devastated.
The Big One in Seattle would be offshore hundreds of miles away. The biggest risk will be tsunamis but Seattle is a city built on hills hundreds of feet above sea level.
Seattle is on a fault line but it won't cause a Big One, just 6.0-7.0 ones. Most residential construction here are wood framed and office buildings here are mostly built in modern earthquake proof era.
Actually, it will be relatively close to the Pacific shoreline and indeed it will bring tsunamis that travel far inland and will be very large. I´m not familiair enough with the exact elevation of Seattle, but there would definitely be lower-lying suburbs that get destroyed. The scientists called it a future Big One, since it's a part of the tectonic plates in the Ocean that will slide and not just a normal fault line...Ofcourse I hope they are wrong about that!
Cleveland is the mid-point between New York and Chicago. It’s within 500 miles of 50% of the US population, so most major East Coast and Midwest cities are within a day’s drive. It’s on a Great Lake, so has virtually endless supplies of fresh water, has few major natural disasters, has little threat from sea-level rise or forest fires.
This is why I think cities on/near a Great Lake are in a good location. Minimal natural disasters, fresh water not just from the Great Lakes, but others as well), has enough of a military presence on both sides of the border and a pretty good agricultural presence.
Actually, it will be relatively close to the Pacific shoreline and indeed it will bring tsunamis that travel far inland and will be very large. I´m not familiair enough with the exact elevation of Seattle, but there would definitely be lower-lying suburbs that get destroyed. The scientists called it a future Big One, since it's a part of the tectonic plates in the Ocean that will slide and not just a normal fault line...Ofcourse I hope they are wrong about that!
Seattle isn’t anywhere near the Pacific shoreline. Very few people live on the Washington coastline. It’s mostly a national park and small Indian reservations. Even if a tsunami makes its way all the way to Elliott Bay, most of the population in Seattle live at least 100 ft above sea level. Sure there will be destruction to industrial areas, ports and some low lying areas but most of the population of Seattle and nearby suburbs are well above sea level.
New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle
New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans really shine in this category.
I get the coastal cities and the Great Lakes cities, but why Atlanta?
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.
