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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2007, 02:07 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 7,937,203 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestak View Post
Don't forget the New Madrid fault line that runs underneath St. Louis and Memphis. In 1812, it let loose with an earthquake estimated at 8.0 on the richter scale. There are a lot of old brick buildings in those cities that can't withstand even a moderate quake.

According to wikipedia:

"Scientists estimate that in the next 50 years, with a probability over 90%, there will be an earthquake with a magnitude greater than 7 on the Richter scale."

Just something to think about when considering a move to that general area.
Sounds like I better think of getting out of here
Rate this post positively

 
Old 06-17-2007, 10:49 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,853 posts, read 14,622,272 times
Reputation: 6639
Quote:
Originally Posted by OREGONRAIN View Post
Portland has high crime and lots of drug and some gang problems
Please!! Portland Oregon is paradise compared to many of the cities mentioned.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-17-2007, 10:58 PM
 
Location: Nashville
81 posts, read 323,205 times
Reputation: 52
In general, if the earthquake is of a large/devastating magnitude then it would not matter if the building stock was wood-frame or brick and mortar.

Memphis is mostly wood frame, St. Louis is mostly brick and mortar. Neither city has a majority of structures that have been retrofitted. I will say that in a weak or moderate earthquake wood-frame houses fare slightly better than brick or concrete structures, so essentially St. Louis will see worse devastation from an earthquake than Memphis even at the same magnitude. St. Louis is screwed should, God forbid, they ever get an earthquake above a 7.0.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-17-2007, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
832 posts, read 3,748,036 times
Reputation: 211
Portland's crime IS high:

(the three figure below is the national average (higher is worst) Portland is 7 for Violant Crime and 8 for P_roperty Crime. This is according to Sperling's
Violent Crime 7 3
Property Crime 8 3
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-17-2007, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
832 posts, read 3,748,036 times
Reputation: 211
BTW, Tulsa is mentioned and has a LOWER crime rate than Portland.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-18-2007, 12:14 AM
 
14 posts, read 90,215 times
Reputation: 12
BearBranch did you check in comparison to the some other major cities. Similiar to most big cities.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-18-2007, 01:34 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 7,937,203 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefaultAlias View Post
In general, if the earthquake is of a large/devastating magnitude then it would not matter if the building stock was wood-frame or brick and mortar.

Memphis is mostly wood frame, St. Louis is mostly brick and mortar. Neither city has a majority of structures that have been retrofitted. I will say that in a weak or moderate earthquake wood-frame houses fare slightly better than brick or concrete structures, so essentially St. Louis will see worse devastation from an earthquake than Memphis even at the same magnitude. St. Louis is screwed should, God forbid, they ever get an earthquake above a 7.0.
St. Louis and Memphis probably oughta be talking to engineers in California, Oregon, and Washington to get their buildings retrofitted since those guys have been through BIG earthquakes. they'd better hurry up. I do know that they have taken extra precautions to put in supports on interstate highway bridges to make sure they still stand during the earthquake. I just figured since Memphis is far closer to the fault than St. Louis that they'd experience worse effects. The real problem with St. Louis is the soil that it's situated on. That would completely f*ck us ten thousand times over. If New Madrid goes off, it's also important to keep in mind Default that Nashville will be hit pretty hard as well, as will Louisville, Little Rock, Birmingham, Indianapolis, Springfield Illinois...Kansas City possibly...and Cincy. Chicago would feel it for sure but would likely not sustain major damage. This earthquake has the potential to severely damage six or seven major cities simultaneously. It could again cause the Mississippi (and potentially Missouri) to flow backwards, and if the last earthquake caused church bells to ring in Boston, think about what it could do to cities within 400 miles of it or less. New Madrid is a sleeping giant waiting for her alarm to go off and is not something to be taken lightly
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-18-2007, 01:59 AM
 
Location: Henderson NV
1,135 posts, read 1,116,383 times
Reputation: 82
Nothing can or will be done about that. Google Lisbon earthquake, 1755. The population density is much greater around New Madrid compared to the last time it slipped, and there is no one alive today who can tell people what it was like. Just,...rebuild.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-18-2007, 03:58 AM
 
245 posts, read 739,901 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
The real problem with St. Louis is the soil that it's situated on.
Well, if it's any comfort, the experts say there's only a 7-10% chance of an 8.0 monster quake in the next fifty years. That 90% probability figure was for a 6-7.0 earthquake. But... you're right about the soil conditions. Even a moderate quake will cause St. Louis to shake, rattle, and roll.

Of course, most parts of the U.S. have their own pet problems. In my area, it's hurricanes. I guess it's just a matter of picking the problems you can live with.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-18-2007, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
832 posts, read 3,748,036 times
Reputation: 211
Default Portland

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwtwgt View Post
BearBranch did you check in comparison to the some other major cities. Similiar to most big cities.
I'm sure that is true. However, there seems to be a trend of Portlanders who think Potland walks on water:

Originally Posted by OREGONRAIN
Portland has high crime and lots of drug and some gang problems

Reponse
Please!! Portland Oregon is paradise compared to many of the cities mentioned.
Rate this post positively
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.


Closed Thread


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.

© 2005-2023, 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