Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

New buildings? In San Francisco?

Not to belittle the catastrophic potential outcome, but the city is quite in a precarious spot vis-a-vis tectonic plates, which may result in new construction opportunities in time.

We have the technology to build high rises that can withstand very strong earthquakes, and they have been proven multiple times in such earthquakes. "Earthquake" zone is not a reason to stop building.

SF could improve greatly if they made the minimum height limit to some standard european city size, such as 6-8 stories vs. 4 stories. 2000sqft Apartments on top with stores and large sidewalks & trees on the ground floor replacing the current 2 story standard 1940 sunset district house. It's very pleasant.

A lot of stuff not up to standard got knocked down in 1989.

Only the most vulnerable. The 1989 epicenter was around Santa Cruz. Something similar to the 1906 earthquake would be probably be very bad.

That's more what I had in mind. I'm not into reading historical events as absolute predictors - but when I came across a mention that both Ecuador and Japan had seismic events before the 1906 quake in SF...that got my attention up. Over a decade ago I took an absolutely fascinating Earthquakes and Volcanoes course from an 'industry pro' who was doing Adjunct work between gigs - he specialized in diamond and oil/gas deposit work. As in, seismic events would enable him to study new developments and discover pockets for potential recovery operations. His love of his science was contagious and I've held his fearful respect for the Earh's tectonic system ever since.

Good point, maybe we ought to intentionally drive up the costs to encourage evacuation and lower the inevitable death toll.

It's more likely than you think.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact