Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnW
Just remind me, what was the year of the San Fransisco earthquake? Wasn't it just a hundred years ago? They have advanced a little in the building codes since then.
Many of the houses destroyed in Florida are what are called Mobile homes, in England they would probably be called pre-fabricated homes. These homes are, in the main, owned by what we call snowbirds who only come down here for the winter months from their main homes in the north. When conventional houses are destroyed, they are rebuilt to the new codes which give them a far better chance of withstanding a hurricane.
As I said. What is the point of re-building houses below sea level?
|
Let's get the facts:
The big San Fran earthquake was 1906. Most of the damage from the quake was not the result of buildings fall, it was from the fire that consumed the city due to ruptured gas mains. Also, many of San Francisco's buildings are older and are not built to a high standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_Sa...sco_earthquake
Let's not forget the 1989 San Fran earthquake, which was a strong (but not the BIG ONE, by any means) 7.1 on the Richter scale. That's at the small side of the major earthquake category. The 1906 quake is estimated to have been a magnitude 8.0, many times as powerful as 1989's quake. In 1989, the quake caused almost $3 billion in damage in San Fran proper, about twice that in total. A lot of the damage to buildings resulted from the liquefacton of soil, something that improved building techniques can't help. Perhaps this is another location we sould just walk away from?
Similarly, the Northridge quake of 1994 was only 6.7 on the scale. This falls into the category of a strong earthquake, but it was only a fraction of the size of the 1989 quake. However, it did $44 billion in damage, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of building was done in this area well after the San Fran quake of 1906 and with full awareness that the Los Angeles area was vulnerable. While I am sure that improved building techniques helped to lessen the damage, it's not a panacea.
Similarly, while mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to wind damage in hurricanes, many other buildings are also vulnerable. All one has to to to debunk the myth that most of hurricane damage is to mobile homes is simply to look at the damage done by Kristina in Biloxi and Pass Christian. Historically, an awful lot of the damge done by hurricanes (and the vast majority of lives lost) is not due to wind, but to the flooding associated with the huge storm surges. An argument not to rebuild in large portions of coastland Florida?