4 ms·

Manhattan also has significantly less potential for destructive earthquakes than San Francisco, making it much easier to build tall buildings. It's not just a

Manhattan also has significantly less potential for destructive earthquakes than San Francisco, making it much easier to build tall buildings. It's not just a matter of being bordered by water. A big part of it has to do with no one wanting to rent or build a 20+ story building in San Francisco. That tends to limit population density.

davidw 14y ago
If you look at what fell over during the 89 earthquake in SF, it wasn't the tall buildings.
rayiner 14y ago
The problem isn't that you can't build 20+ story buildings in an earthquake zone or that people wouldn't want to live in them (see Japan, Taiwan, etc), but rather that nobody in San Francisco can get permits to build them.
greggman 14y ago
Tokyo has far more earthquakes and far more tall buildings than SF. Besides SF has plenty of tall buildings even now. Is there something special about the existing tall buildings that would be different from new tall buildings? I guess I'm not quite following your point. As far as I know none of the existing tall buildings are having trouble finding people to rent them
- 001sky 14y ago
  yes, there is sand and silt under parts of SF. new york is built on granite. the geologies are different. in sf you have to dig 15 stories for a basement. so its not just the seismic issues, but other factors of geology and geography: eg. you have the topo issues (hills). Then you have the SF summer/winds. Lastly, you have an existing stock of Victorian (actually, edwardian in most places) architecture that is worth keeping, for cultural reasons (/arguably).
  - oijaf888 14y ago
    A ton of lower manhattan is built on fill so that doesn't seem to be a huge problem in building tall buildings. (Battery Park is totally fill, the Financial District is about half the size if you look at how big it was originally, so the rest is fill, etc)
    - 001sky 14y ago
      The problem is fill in an earthquake, has risk of ~liquification. So its the combination of factors. NYC would have a major problem with a major tectonic event, for example. ~Nothing there is seismically zoned/engineered.
  - bitcartel 14y ago
    Check out this interactive map of liquefaction risk. If you zoom into SF you can see that most of the skyscrapers are built in a high risk zone. Guess they figured it was ok. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/ http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Great link! But If you zoom in, you'll see the Marina, South of Market, and the edges in NB etc are "red" (the worst areas). This is exactly why the financial district (where the high-rises are) is located where it is (on Yellow to montgomery), and why SOMA was the "wrong side of the tracks". While they are/have been recently building high rises in the Red (embarcadero, etc), they have been digging 150 feet down (ie, 2x the normal height of an above-grouhnd building ~traditionally < 7 stories). to set the foundations. At least that's my understanding.
- WildUtah 14y ago
  Mexico City has more nasty earthquakes than SF or Tokyo and far worse geography than either for foundation stability. Nevertheless, all the skyscrapers stand up to earthquakes just fine in Mexico City.

davidw 14y ago

If you look at what fell over during the 89 earthquake in SF, it wasn't the tall buildings.

rayiner 14y ago

The problem isn't that you can't build 20+ story buildings in an earthquake zone or that people wouldn't want to live in them (see Japan, Taiwan, etc), but rather that nobody in San Francisco can get permits to build them.

greggman 14y ago

Tokyo has far more earthquakes and far more tall buildings than SF. Besides SF has plenty of tall buildings even now. Is there something special about the existing tall buildings that would be different from new tall buildings? I guess I'm not quite following your point. As far as I know none of the existing tall buildings are having trouble finding people to rent them

001sky 14y ago
yes, there is sand and silt under parts of SF. new york is built on granite. the geologies are different. in sf you have to dig 15 stories for a basement. so its not just the seismic issues, but other factors of geology and geography: eg. you have the topo issues (hills). Then you have the SF summer/winds. Lastly, you have an existing stock of Victorian (actually, edwardian in most places) architecture that is worth keeping, for cultural reasons (/arguably).
- oijaf888 14y ago
  A ton of lower manhattan is built on fill so that doesn't seem to be a huge problem in building tall buildings. (Battery Park is totally fill, the Financial District is about half the size if you look at how big it was originally, so the rest is fill, etc)
  - 001sky 14y ago
    The problem is fill in an earthquake, has risk of ~liquification. So its the combination of factors. NYC would have a major problem with a major tectonic event, for example. ~Nothing there is seismically zoned/engineered.
- bitcartel 14y ago
  Check out this interactive map of liquefaction risk. If you zoom into SF you can see that most of the skyscrapers are built in a high risk zone. Guess they figured it was ok. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/ http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Great link! But If you zoom in, you'll see the Marina, South of Market, and the edges in NB etc are "red" (the worst areas). This is exactly why the financial district (where the high-rises are) is located where it is (on Yellow to montgomery), and why SOMA was the "wrong side of the tracks". While they are/have been recently building high rises in the Red (embarcadero, etc), they have been digging 150 feet down (ie, 2x the normal height of an above-grouhnd building ~traditionally < 7 stories). to set the foundations. At least that's my understanding.
WildUtah 14y ago
Mexico City has more nasty earthquakes than SF or Tokyo and far worse geography than either for foundation stability. Nevertheless, all the skyscrapers stand up to earthquakes just fine in Mexico City.