Safest/ Most Dangerous Bay Area Cities in event of earthquake (San Francisco: condo, house)

[thechoson]

Are there differences in earthquake preparation (such as building codes and the like) among the cities in the Bay Area?

If so, which would be the safer cities?

[Jonotastic]

Originally Posted by thechoson

Are there differences in earthquake preparation (such as building codes and the like) among the cities in the Bay Area?

If so, which would be the safer cities?

It depends on the house/condo, not the city...

[ambient]

It also depends on the ground you're on and what's underneath it. Ground with solid bedrock below it will invariably do better than areas like the Marina that are basically built on a semi-liquid landfill.

But as far as cities go, you're pretty much screwed anywhere in this region. Any place around here could have a massive earthquake hit nearby.

[thechoson]

Originally Posted by Jonotastic

It depends on the house/condo, not the city...

Good point.

I've heard differing views regarding age of the house/ condo. Some people have told me older homes are better because they built them better back then with more solid materials.

Others tell me the newer homes are built to stringer code standards so are safer.

Hard to know what's what I guess

[humboldtrat]

Single story buildings are better than multiple story buildings.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

The two most important things are the underlying soil / rock and the construction.

City vs city matters a lot less.

Places with bedrock at or near the surface are best in terms of what's underlying, those with thick alluvium or even worse, landfill, are the worst.

Construction wise, wood frame is best and wood frame with overt seismic strengthening features is even better.

Details on all of the above can be easily Googled.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Jonotastic

It depends on the house/condo, not the city...

Both, really.

[batransplant]

I was in the Northridge earthquake in SoCal...I believe in 1992. At the time, I was living in an old brick building in Silverlake going to school...approximately 25 miles from the epicenter. The whole back of the building "crumbled off" so basically when you walked out of your unit, there was nothing there but the hallway. No wall, just outside. It was pretty surreal, and terrifying. The building was red-tagged, and you could not enter to get your stuff until approved by the city. I cannot recall how long it took. Maybe a couple of days.

On the converse, my parents had a tract house actually in Northridge, but it was new construction at the time built in 1989. Their house only sustained a few surface cracks on a few walls and ceilings. Nothing major thankfully so maybe the new construction had more stringent regulations regarding earthquakes.

I dont think I would want to be in many of the old buildings in an earthquake in San Francisco. Not sure what the codes retrofitting has been done there, but I do know they are STILL fixing the bay bridge after it collapsed in '89 Loma Prieta quake, which isn't promising.

[Moonlover]

Earthquakes are not limited to the bayarea. Hence...Haiti.
No matter where you live you are bound to be subjected to mother nature in one way or another.
I'll take my chances with an Earthquake every 20 years rather than a hurricane, snowstorm or a tornado EVERY year.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by ba transplant

I was in the Northridge earthquake in SoCal...I believe in 1992. At the time, I was living in an old brick building in Silverlake going to school...approximately 25 miles from the epicenter. The whole back of the building "crumbled off" so basically when you walked out of your unit, there was nothing there but the hallway. No wall, just outside. It was pretty surreal, and terrifying.

One of the things I haven't been able to reconcile in my head from back east is buildings. Born and raised in Pennsylvania, nothing says safety and stability to me more than brick and stone homes.

And they are SO wrong out here.

And I really miss them.