Most Hurricane Prone City (rating, areas, building)

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Ann_Arbor

I can't- Houston + a big Hurricane = a ridiculous amount of urban flooding. It's the largest, super-flat city listed.

Doesn't change the fact that Houston is not the most prone city to hurricanes. Miami is in a much worse position than Houston. Also, Miami is actually flatter than Houston because there are some rolling hills in North Houston.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by Ann_Arbor

I can't- Houston + a big Hurricane = a ridiculous amount of urban flooding. It's the largest, super-flat city listed.

Do you honestly think Houston is more vunerable than Miami when it comes to Hurricanes??? Houston would flood and have lots of damage,but Miami would be destroyed if hit by a CAT 5.

[houstoner]

"Houston is not on the Atlantic Coast," the nitpicker points out helpfully.

[happ]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Do you honestly think Houston is more vunerable than Miami when it comes to Hurricanes??? Houston would flood and have lots of damage,but Miami would be destroyed if hit by a CAT 5.

It nearly in 1926 & just missed a mega-hurricane that destroyed Homestead a few years ago.

Here's an insurance company's list with Miami at the top:
Top 10 worst places for an extreme hurricane to strike

[cottonwood2420]

Miami.

[nate14ri]

def miami/keywest

[cpg35223]

I think for Mobile to suffer a catastrophic hurricane, conditions would have to be absolutely perfect, i.e., a bulls-eye hit along the western shore of Mobile Bay. Ivan, a Cat 4, hit along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay and was not devastating for Mobile.

Meanwhile, New Orleans did not even suffer the brunt of Katrina, a Cat 2 or Cat 3 hurricane, and look what happened there.

Wilmington should be fine.

Miami would probably be a total disaster like New Orleans because you'd have millions of people trying to head north on just a couple of interstates, including a higher percentage of elderly and indigent evacuees.

New York would definitely have its problems, chiefly because New Yorkers would probably say, "Hurricane? What's the big deal about a little rain and wind," forgetting the big one that roared through there in about 1936.

Nope. If New Orleans takes even close to a direct hit from a Cat 4 or 5, it's really game over for that city.

[OneSweetWorld]

Miami is the most likely to get hit and New Orleans is by far the most vulnerable to damage

[ABQSunseeker]

I don't think anyone needs a poll to answer this. There are statistics and paths of past hurricanes which give answers.
At any rate, I think it's obvious that New Orleans is the most vulnerable. But a Category 5 hurricane hitting any US. city head on is going to inflict catastrophe. Certainly Miami, Houston, Mobile, Charleston, and even New York could all be vulnerable.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by Ann_Arbor

I can't- Houston + a big Hurricane = a ridiculous amount of urban flooding. It's the largest, super-flat city listed.

Hurricanes themselves don't usually cause huge floods. Unless it sits over the city or hits it more than once, which seems more common with slow-moving tropical storms. However, I was in Houston when TS Alison hit, and had no clue the city was flooding until I looked at the news... our part of town on the west side had no problems.

New Orleans' flooding problem was with the levees failing. It's below sea level and depends on those levees.

Houston is above sea level and doesn't have the levees. It's also inland and most of it wouldn't have problem with storm surge.

Statistically, Miami is much more vulnerable because of its location jutting out in the ocean.

The largest problem Houston would have if a major hurricane hit would be wind damage... not water damage.

I agree with other posters who said many other cities are much more prone than Houston.