# Quarter of all SF buildings could collapse in new quake



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

*New Staggering Stats for SF Earthquake Risk*

*Riskiest buildings are primarily residential*

By JACKSON WEST 
Updated 6:50 PM PST, Mon, Feb 2, 2009










The city of San Francisco is not ready for the Big One,
according to a recent study.


30,000 of San Francisco's 120,000 buildings might be destroyed in an earthquake similar to 1989's Loma Prieta rumble according to a San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) report.

Most at risk are "soft-story" residential buildings, which are generally homes or apartments built above parking lots and retail spaces.

Nearly half the homes damaged in the '89 quake were soft-story structures.

Since the most vulnerable buildings are residential, the post-quake recovery efforts could be hampered by massive homelessness much like the displacement of New Orleanians after Hurricane Katrina, according to SPUR.

In the wake of the 1906 earthquake and fire, San Francisco earned the nickname "The City that knows how" for rebuilding so quickly -- largely thanks to residents who camped in hastily built refugee shacks instead of fleeing the city.

A recent report from the city's Department of Building Inspection suggests that $1.5 billion in damages could be avoided if 2,800 of the at-risk structures were required to retrofit for earthquake safety.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has not been in favor of mandatory retrofits, though is reconsidering his stance after recent reports.

However, with the city budget in arrears, real estate prices plummeting and the credit crunch affecting projects like the mayor's pet solar panel rebate program, any government mandated seismic safety program will likely prove unpopular.

At least, until it's too late.

The dry, cloudless skies San Franciscans have been enjoying of late is sometimes superstitiously referred to as "earthquake weather" among residents, and scientists predict that the next tectonic dance party will be significantly more powerful than the one twenty years ago.


----------



## TowerKid (Feb 3, 2009)

If you ask me, Earthquakes are the most dangerous natural disasters. That are so unpredictable. 30,000 Buildings destroyed? That is horrible.


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

Why don't americans do their homes of Cement, iron, concrete and those kind of things, that resist more than wood??


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Cities with wooden homes make no sense. They lack staying power. Volcanoes are another threat out West.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

gabrielbabb said:


> Why don't americans do their homes of Cement, iron, concrete and those kind of things, that resist more than wood??


Because more people would die in an earthquake. California has one of the highest seismic safety _standards_ in the world, if not the most.


----------



## dtzeigler (Jan 4, 2008)

I hope they do something before a Latrina-level events happens.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

latrina?


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

gabrielbabb said:


> Why don't americans do their homes of Cement, iron, concrete and those kind of things, that resist more than wood??


What??? As far as earthquakes, for an average residential building wood is by far the best material. 

Who told you otherwise?

Wood can sway and give by a few feet in many cases, concrete just crumbles to the ground unless you're spending a ton of money to reinforce everything.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

The huge issue in San Fran is the typical types of houses are the exact OPPOSITE of what you'd want.

You want a sturdy base with a light top. 

San Fran has garages and more open spaces on the first floor with the more substansive areas above. that's why they call them "soft". 

Very bizarre after the 1906 earthquake they would put those of all things up....but they were in a hurry and it was cheaper. You've basically got houses on stilts in an earthquake zone.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

We have to ask a more fundamental question: Why are earthquake-areas so attractive? California is highly populated (at american standards) and attracts many migrants. Although everyone knows that the big one could happen the next day, more and more people settle in California.


----------



## atariboy15 (Sep 11, 2002)

Chrissib said:


> We have to ask a more fundamental question: Why are earthquake-areas so attractive? California is highly populated (at american standards) and attracts many migrants. Although everyone knows that the big one could happen the next day, more and more people settle in California.


It is a beautiful state with great weather (pollution aside)


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

gabrielbabb said:


> Why don't americans do their homes of Cement, iron, concrete and those kind of things, that resist more than wood??


BECAUSE THAT'S NOT FLEXIBLE AND IT WILL COLLAPSE AND KILL THE INHABITANTS!!!


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

philadweller said:


> Cities with wooden homes make no sense. They lack staying power. Volcanoes are another threat out West.



Generally, what you say about wooden cities is true. However, high earthquake risk cities like San Francisco, are exceptions.


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

Chrissib said:


> We have to ask a more fundamental question: Why are earthquake-areas so attractive? California is highly populated (at american standards) and attracts many migrants. Although everyone knows that the big one could happen the next day, more and more people settle in California.


Cause it happens so rarely that you overlook it


----------



## WonderlandPark (Sep 9, 2007)

Chrissib said:


> . Although everyone knows that the big one could happen the next day, more and more people settle in California.


And tens of millions more live in Tokyo, Osaka, Istanbul, Mexico City, Santiago, Taipei, Chengdu, Tehran..........


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"Cause it happens so rarely that you overlook it"

That is a great answer.

Why do people live in the plains with tornadoes? They do more damage than earthquakes, especially the trailer parks. People that live on the Atlantic side have to deal with hurricanes and violent Nor'easters. There are perils everywhere in the US.


----------



## Kreicherisch (Sep 13, 2010)

gabrielbabb said:


> Why don't americans do their homes of Cement, iron, concrete and those kind of things, that resist more than wood??


For small houses and structures, cement, concrete, and brick may look resistant to earthquake. But there're not flexible and tend to break apart when earthquake occurs. Wood, however, is very flexible and, to some extent, can withstand earthquake.


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

Yeah.. during an earthquake the house doesn't automatically "want" to move with the ground, it's like tugging on a carpet that you're standing on, you'll end up falling down if you just remain stiff like concrete or cement. Now if you flex a little you can somewhat counterbalance the momentum and remain standing even if you're struggling


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Just for interest sake: how many people have been killed in California (now about 40M people) since the SF earthquake? Has to be microscopic compared to traffic accidents, murders, drownings, drug OD's, biking or hiking accidents, etc. 

Post-1906, even the well known ones in SF and LA have deaths of a couple of dozen, largely from heart attacks, which arguably were going to be happening in the near future in any event. I've been through about 10 big shakers and never seen damage except on TV (actually, a nice vase fell and broke during one of them). 

But who knows, maybe the "big one" will change all that.


----------



## techniques1200s (Mar 11, 2005)

pesto said:


> Just for interest sake: how many people have been killed in California (now about 40M people) since the SF earthquake? Has to be microscopic compared to traffic accidents, murders, drownings, drug OD's, biking or hiking accidents, etc.
> 
> Post-1906, even the well known ones in SF and LA have deaths of a couple of dozen, largely from heart attacks, which arguably were going to be happening in the near future in any event..
> 
> But who knows, maybe the "big one" will change all that.


Northridge earthquake - 72 killed, 8,700+ injured 
Loma Prieta Earthquake - 63 killed, 3,757 injured

Not huge numbers, but much more than a couple dozen. Also, where did you get hear that most deaths were heart attacks? I seem to remember that many people were crushed to death in the Loma Prieta earthquake for example...such as the 42 people killed when the cypress freeway collapsed in Oakland, or the 5 people killed when a building's facade fell on them in downtown SF. Not to mention the person killed when a section of the bay bridge collapsed. Wikipedia also tells me of 3 people dying in collapsed buildings in Santa Cruz, one person getting crushed to death in Santa Clara, and an infant suffocating on dust in SF. So that leaves at most 10 potential heart attack deaths out of 63 for Loma Prieta. That doesn't look like people "largely" died of heart attacks to me.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I hope that any good-looking skyscrapers in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, or Stamford University don't collapse in any future earthquakes hitting the Bay Area.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Its no fun being in one during an earthquake. But modern skyscrapers in the US are built to code that makes them the least vulnerable buildings to quakes.


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

-Corey- said:


> Because more people would die in an earthquake. California has one of the highest seismic safety _standards_ in the world, if not the most.


Yes but in Mexico we've learnt since 1985 to make any structure safe for eartquakes up to 8 degrees, if the structure is not safe then it get closed by the government until they make a real good work for any damage during any major earthquake


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

techniques: those numbers are just laughable. I would guess that looking into those numbers would indicate a number of heart attack deaths and the 8000 injuries must have included a lot of stubbed toes.

I was in both of those and can remember the news desperately looking for deaths or injuries or even damage. When they find one, they focus on it endlessly which gives the impression of widespread destruction. Think about how many agencies find it in their interest to exaggerate the numbers.

There were legitimate collapses of buildings and roads but still even granting your numbers the largest ones don't get close to murders in Oakland or SF every year.

btw, for the Northridge quake I can remember specific news reports that about half the deaths were from heart attacks.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

What if the majority of Panama's new skyscrapers collapsed in an earthquake? Such a disaster would be worse than 9/11.


----------

