4 ms·
Historically the fires have been often even more hazardous than the quakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake#Fires https://en.wikipe
by vlehto 11y ago
Historically the fires have been often even more hazardous than the quakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake#Fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake#...
Something like 30% wood might be the best. But it creates interesting problem, who gets to live in a wooden building? Who gets to build one?
- kansface 11y agoMany of those fires were set intentionally for insurance claims. Many other fires were caused by dynamite, gun powder, or artillery used to create fire breaks.
- kibwen 11y agoI trust that the vast majority of the destruction in the aftermath of the earthquake was caused by fire, but what I'm curious about is the death toll of the fires themselves, which I don't see in the article. The reason that it matters is because an earthquake can easily cause structural damage to a building that leaves it standing but renders it uninhabitable, forcing you to demolish it anyway. Even structures that are specifically built to withstand earthquakes aren't necessarily safe to occupy after the quake. From this (simplistic) perspective, wood is no worse than concrete because either way you'll be forced to rebuild the vast majority of the city after the big one hits.
- vlehto 11y agoYou have good points. My only counter point is that rescuing people from ruble is easier if there are not much fires around.