View Single Post
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2007, 4:25 AM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Actually, I would NOT want to live there. Aside from the isolation and the constant wind, I would be concerned about earthquakes. I worked there at the time of the 1989 quake. There was serious liquifaction with mud "boils" and geysers, the pipes supplying water, gas and power from the "mainland" broke and so on. I know that buildings built now would be built much more solidly than the structures that were there in 1989 (some of which suffered surprising damage), but the land itself is a question mark in a bigger quake like 1906.
1 - About 1/2 of the remainder of the city is built on landfill as well.
2 - I personally think it is safer to live in a newer building in a landfill area (say Mission Bay), where they drive the metal piles down to the bedrock than to live in an older building on the hillside. The ground there may be more stable, but the building certainly isn't.
Reply With Quote