3 ms·

Build up. The same way every other big city deals with this problem. http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B005KGATLO/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1 htt

Build up. The same way every other big city deals with this problem. http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B005KGATLO/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1 http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B005...

rdouble 13y ago
Yeah, but where? That is what I'm asking.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Bayview. The Mission.
- probablycorey 13y ago
  The tenderloin, soma, mission bay, dog patch, bayview. It's not like current buildings were built on empty lots.
- khuey 13y ago
  Everywhere.
DanBC 13y ago
What about earthquakes? How expensive is it to build up in SF when you know that there's a 60% chance, in the next 30 years, of having an earthquake with minimum magnitude of 6.7? Especially when a buynch of peolpe live on one of the faults, and a bunch of infrastructure goes over one of the faults. (http://seismo.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html http://seismo.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html)
- usaar333 13y ago
  When you have the property values San Francisco has, even after all the earthquake protection needed, you'll still end up with positive ROI. If it is cost-effective to build 10 story complexes in Mission Bay - on landfull - I can't imagine it not being cost-effective to do the same on Potrero Hill - bedrock.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Isn't high-density earthquake-safe construction a solved problem? It's not like SF has no high-density properties.
  - khuey 13y ago
    Yes, Japan figured this out decades ago. SF NIMBYs just like to pretend it's impossible.
- mechanical_fish 13y ago
  You talk to Japanese civil engineers and they tell you how to build earthquake-resistent tall buildings, which they have a lot of practice with. From http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=863 http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=863 , talking about the Kobe earthquake of 1995 (magnitude 7.2): "Sixty percent of those who died were over 60 years old. The reason for this is that they were mainly the one who lived in the older houses that collapsed. Few people died in new homes. Nearly all the buildings that killed people were built before the enactment of modern building codes in the 1970s and 80s. Many newer buildings were badly damaged but they didn’t collapse." "Kobe's modern buildings 'seemed to have performed very well,' a former Stanford engineering professor told Newsweek. 'There may have been one or two that have been damaged. But I haven't heard of any that fell.' Every building constructed according to the building codes established in 1981 was unscathed." I bet there are many, many structures currently standing in SF that would be more earthquake-safe if they were replaced with taller, higher-capacity, but better-engineered modern buildings.
- x0x0 13y ago
  all I can say is, have you seen the existing housing stock in sf? It's not like that much of it is earthquake safe. And landlords have fought like hell to avoid retrofitting [1]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/san-francisco-earthquake_n_2689821.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/san-francisco-earth...
- walshemj 13y ago
  Tall buildings survive earthquakes better than low rise (odd but true) Though it does depend on ground in the area.

rdouble 13y ago

Yeah, but where? That is what I'm asking.

tptacek 13y ago
Bayview. The Mission.
probablycorey 13y ago
The tenderloin, soma, mission bay, dog patch, bayview. It's not like current buildings were built on empty lots.
khuey 13y ago
Everywhere.

DanBC 13y ago

What about earthquakes? How expensive is it to build up in SF when you know that there's a 60% chance, in the next 30 years, of having an earthquake with minimum magnitude of 6.7? Especially when a buynch of peolpe live on one of the faults, and a bunch of infrastructure goes over one of the faults. (http://seismo.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html http://seismo.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html)

usaar333 13y ago
When you have the property values San Francisco has, even after all the earthquake protection needed, you'll still end up with positive ROI. If it is cost-effective to build 10 story complexes in Mission Bay - on landfull - I can't imagine it not being cost-effective to do the same on Potrero Hill - bedrock.
tptacek 13y ago
Isn't high-density earthquake-safe construction a solved problem? It's not like SF has no high-density properties.
- khuey 13y ago
  Yes, Japan figured this out decades ago. SF NIMBYs just like to pretend it's impossible.
mechanical_fish 13y ago
You talk to Japanese civil engineers and they tell you how to build earthquake-resistent tall buildings, which they have a lot of practice with. From http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=863 http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=863 , talking about the Kobe earthquake of 1995 (magnitude 7.2): "Sixty percent of those who died were over 60 years old. The reason for this is that they were mainly the one who lived in the older houses that collapsed. Few people died in new homes. Nearly all the buildings that killed people were built before the enactment of modern building codes in the 1970s and 80s. Many newer buildings were badly damaged but they didn’t collapse." "Kobe's modern buildings 'seemed to have performed very well,' a former Stanford engineering professor told Newsweek. 'There may have been one or two that have been damaged. But I haven't heard of any that fell.' Every building constructed according to the building codes established in 1981 was unscathed." I bet there are many, many structures currently standing in SF that would be more earthquake-safe if they were replaced with taller, higher-capacity, but better-engineered modern buildings.
x0x0 13y ago
all I can say is, have you seen the existing housing stock in sf? It's not like that much of it is earthquake safe. And landlords have fought like hell to avoid retrofitting [1]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/san-francisco-earthquake_n_2689821.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/san-francisco-earth...
walshemj 13y ago
Tall buildings survive earthquakes better than low rise (odd but true) Though it does depend on ground in the area.