I think Los Angeles is great, and it is my favorite city, but unfortunately I cannot live there now because of my work, etc., but I would if I had the finances. Not to alarm anyone, but I am wondering if you folks think that the city is prepared for a large earthquake? I read 30 years ago, that it would happen within 30 years and that time has passed.
California building codes are amongst the most stringent in the nation. You can never be perfectly prepared. There will be a really humongous earthquake every 1000 years or so on the order of magnitude of the Cascadia earthquake (8.7-9.1). If that happens a number of tall buildings will probably collapse, but it’s not really cost effective or possible to make buildings absolutely earthquake proof.
I think large parts of LA wouldn’t be any worse from a quake than they already are. And the people in the other parts will just think they took too much coke or something. Then the builders will have tons of work and everyone will be happy.
Angelinos had better be prepared with all the recent oarfish sightings.
LA is probably not far behind most Japanese cities in earthquake preparedness, which will be of limited good when Thuh Big One hits. Just too many variables and we’ve become accustomed to keeping our emergency infrastructure pretty tightly budgeted (except, of course, when it comes to grannies smuggling water bottles onto planes). I guarantee that while the building codes and preparations are going to save many lives, there will be Katrina-like outcries at the “failures” of state and federal government to respond as quickly as SoCalians think they should. It’s just in the nature of the beast.
The really scary scenario is a massive Great Plains quake, which could utterly destroy one or more major central-US cities. There is next to no planning in place or building code support for earthquake resistance in that general area.
In a nutshell yes.
More than you wanted to ever know
http://www.calema.ca.gov/PlanningandPreparedness/Pages/Standardized-Emergency-Management-System.aspx
Guides on state level emergency incident command systems.
In addition the CA Office of Emergency Services has a program where they provide fire apparatus to local fire departments in exchange for the ability to call upon those units and their crews in the event of a major disaster.
In addition CA is a big state, and an earthquake that shatters San Francisco or LA will be little more than unsettling jolt or two in Fresno or Bakersfield. Massive resources are available that will not be crippled by an incident on the earthquake prone coast.
As has been said upthread, California has very stringent earthquake building codes. But one can always be more prepared. There was recently an article in the *Los Angeles Times *about how L.A. is considering adopting some of San Francisco’s latest codes, which would strengthen low-rise apartment buildings.
I’ve lived through a major earthquake in California, in the course of which my house literally flew to pieces (that’s the old literally). My guess would be, if you are in a newish office or other public building, you’ll be fine. If your newish house with code sheer walls anchor-bolted to a code perimeter foundation is on consolidated earth or bedrock, you’ll be fine. Will L.A. be fine? No. In a major earthquake, most unreinforced masonry will crumble (chimneys, wall facades, etc). Streets buckle, crevasses and sinkholes appear, fill liquifies, the power grid collapses, sewage and water pipes break, and the unforeseen specific calamity (bridge failure for example) is a given. Trees fall onto buildings and roads and wherever there are road cuts or steep ground there are massive landslides. There is nothing messier than an earthquake, even flooding (also lived through a 100 year flood). There will be billions of dollars of property damage, and probably some hundred or so deaths.
My advice based on personal experience is, if you move to LA, don’t put all your aquariums in your library.
Watsonville?
Downtown LA will be hit pretty hard, especially buildings of about 10 stories in height that were built under an older code. The mid-town basin is a lot of sediment in a big stone bowl that will reflect back into the sediment for several minutes. I think the super tall buildings will fine if they don’t get hit by weaker buildings. Downtown LA is probably the worst place to be in CA for a big quake, and I say that as somebody not really bothered by quakes. I wouldn’t want to be there. They have 50 years of retrofitting and rebuilding to do before the older buildings are ready. IMHO
I lived through the last two in L.A. (Northridge & Sylmar), in two residential locations close to the epicenters, in the same valley. No damage whatsoever, unless you count a few books falling off the shelves. Although not The Big One, these were powerful enough to over turn some buildings and topple a freeway overpass, so my guess is TBO damage will be spotty as well.
Closer to the surface of the epicenter than Watsonville.
The flood was what made me wonder I was around for 1980 when most of Santa Cruz County was one giant mud puddle.
When we had the last short story writing contest I set my story’s main part in St. Louis, during a monster quake from the New Madrid fault. Even had part of the Gateway Arch come down. A grandmother was telling her grandkids about where she was and what she did, during the quake.
I read this as “oafish sightings,” and I wondered if it was Halloween-related.
I kind of enjoyed the flood. Very dramatic! We were on high ground. We walked into town (most mountain roads were closed from the slides and fallen trees) to help shovel the next day.
What a shame… 
isn’t The Big One overdue all up & down the coast?
is LA more or less overdue than San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle…and so on.
Of course, the Really Big One would be the Yellowstone Supervolcano going off. That would affect a whole lot more than a few major cities in California and we’re well overdue for that one, as well.