3 ms·

Seattle-Tacoma area, around Lake Washington, from east of I-5 out to the mountains, about to hwy 203. That's inland enough for when the big one hits again, gre

Seattle-Tacoma area, around Lake Washington, from east of I-5 out to the mountains, about to hwy 203. That's inland enough for when the big one hits again, great climate, good farming; its a good place to live. Just be sure to live at least 100 feet above sea level. The Piedmont area of Maryland, Virginia, North & South Carolina. Good climate, good farming, minimal natural disasters. The Hudson River Valley of New York is similar, although a bit colder. I've heard good things about the Portland, Oregon area, but I haven't been there. I suggest living east of I-5, again, though. The rest of the United States has interesting weather.

pyromine 11y ago
Don't ignore the majority of New England, there really is no significant threats to most of Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island, the northern half of New England might be a bit cold but it's not bad. Similarly most of the eastern seaboard is fine, and the intermountain west is similarly inhabitable with minimal meteorological issues. I don't know where this trope that there are so many issues everywhere comes from.
- jdminhbg 11y ago
  Most of the eastern seaboard is vulnerable to serious hurricanes and winter storms like Sandy.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Not unless your at sea level or would have flooding issues otherwise. Area I grew up in had regular flooding on the property with both a river and large stream on it, but the house was 200+ years old and never had water get anywhere near it. It's kind of a simple rule don't put your house within 20' of the water level in the highest flood anyone knows about. In terms of snow that's a simple trade-off do you want an actual winter Y/N. It kills off a lot of pests which IMO makes it worth a lot, plus you get out of the monotony of dry vs wet that most tropical areas fall into. Some people like going further north so rivers / ponds freeze ect but again trade-off.
    - jdminhbg 11y ago
      Sure, but the vast majority of the population on the US's eastern seaboard is living within a few feet of sea level -- the whole point of those cities being there is there proximity to sea trade routes.
      - Retric 11y ago
        Less than you might think. DC for example is on average 150 feet above sea level. Even NYC is on average 33 feet above sea level. They mostly have to deal with bacements and the subway flooding in major storms. In general flooding is just expencive to deal with so people build there last. This is also why Katerina mostly flooded poor areas.
- CapitalistCartr 11y ago
  I've lived in the Inter-mountain West. I enjoyed the weather, but it is brutal, and right now they're having the sixteen-year drought the article mentions. That's bad weather. New England doesn't have hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or massive forest fires. But the cold is serious. So many people move to the Sun Belt because of it. All of the places I mentioned have substantial population growth because of their weather. In the Carolinas there are lots of Northerners who move down to Florida, discover how much the Summers suck here, then move back up as far as there. They call them Halfbacks.
- striking 11y ago
  Have you forgotten the October Snowstorms? Or the fact that we had snow in April? The cold sucks here, guy. The summers are great but the fall, winter, and sometimes even spring can be pretty bad.
cpeterso 11y ago
Seattle's fine until Mount Rainier next erupts. http://geology.com/usgs/rainier/ http://geology.com/usgs/rainier/
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone
mrep 11y ago
I'm assuming your source was the new yorker article since you mention the "I-5 line". You should read the reddit AMA from earthquake experts responding to the article as it is quite over-exaggerated [1]. Here's a quote from it "The 100ft waves are even rare in great earthquakes, more often the waves are 10 to 30 feet, and they will not be nearly as big in the Puget Sound. So shaking, not waves, are the threat to the Puget Sound from coastal earthquakes. - John" [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthquake_experts_ask_us_anything_about https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthqu...

pyromine 11y ago

Don't ignore the majority of New England, there really is no significant threats to most of Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island, the northern half of New England might be a bit cold but it's not bad. Similarly most of the eastern seaboard is fine, and the intermountain west is similarly inhabitable with minimal meteorological issues. I don't know where this trope that there are so many issues everywhere comes from.

jdminhbg 11y ago
Most of the eastern seaboard is vulnerable to serious hurricanes and winter storms like Sandy.
- Retric 11y ago
  Not unless your at sea level or would have flooding issues otherwise. Area I grew up in had regular flooding on the property with both a river and large stream on it, but the house was 200+ years old and never had water get anywhere near it. It's kind of a simple rule don't put your house within 20' of the water level in the highest flood anyone knows about. In terms of snow that's a simple trade-off do you want an actual winter Y/N. It kills off a lot of pests which IMO makes it worth a lot, plus you get out of the monotony of dry vs wet that most tropical areas fall into. Some people like going further north so rivers / ponds freeze ect but again trade-off.
  - jdminhbg 11y ago
    Sure, but the vast majority of the population on the US's eastern seaboard is living within a few feet of sea level -- the whole point of those cities being there is there proximity to sea trade routes.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Less than you might think. DC for example is on average 150 feet above sea level. Even NYC is on average 33 feet above sea level. They mostly have to deal with bacements and the subway flooding in major storms. In general flooding is just expencive to deal with so people build there last. This is also why Katerina mostly flooded poor areas.
CapitalistCartr 11y ago
I've lived in the Inter-mountain West. I enjoyed the weather, but it is brutal, and right now they're having the sixteen-year drought the article mentions. That's bad weather. New England doesn't have hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or massive forest fires. But the cold is serious. So many people move to the Sun Belt because of it. All of the places I mentioned have substantial population growth because of their weather. In the Carolinas there are lots of Northerners who move down to Florida, discover how much the Summers suck here, then move back up as far as there. They call them Halfbacks.
striking 11y ago
Have you forgotten the October Snowstorms? Or the fact that we had snow in April? The cold sucks here, guy. The summers are great but the fall, winter, and sometimes even spring can be pretty bad.

cpeterso 11y ago

Seattle's fine until Mount Rainier next erupts. http://geology.com/usgs/rainier/ http://geology.com/usgs/rainier/

ojbyrne 11y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone

mrep 11y ago

I'm assuming your source was the new yorker article since you mention the "I-5 line". You should read the reddit AMA from earthquake experts responding to the article as it is quite over-exaggerated [1]. Here's a quote from it "The 100ft waves are even rare in great earthquakes, more often the waves are 10 to 30 feet, and they will not be nearly as big in the Puget Sound. So shaking, not waves, are the threat to the Puget Sound from coastal earthquakes. - John" [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthquake_experts_ask_us_anything_about https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthqu...