On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:28:22 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

OFWW writes:


Considering all the historic quakes on this fault, I find that
statement to be implausible, if not completely false. Particularly
given Loma Prieta, which was the San Andreas and didn't destroy
either SF or Berkeley. No more than Northridge or Sylmar destroyed
LA.

Actually the damage to LA was great.

Not when compared with 1906. And that's because of lessons learned from
Long Beach and Sylmar. From a cost basis, it cost less than Katrina.
Yes, it caused damage, for the most part relatively minor, and the
bulk of which affected soft-story apartment buildings in the valley.


Sylmar was way after 1906, Long beach I don't remember, I do remember
the earthquake in Bakersfield. Less damage only because of less people
and bldgs. Earth moved a full city block splitting the highway.

the Northridge/SM earthquake
damage was wide spread. Houses shaken off their foundations, buildings
cracked, just to name a few. As far as downtown proper then the
Burbank earthquake did more.

Never bothered equating this with Katrina, different problems, and
mostly they were never prepared for this with a lot of older bldgs
which did not meet current codes. Same kind of problem will plague the
Midwest, east, etc. since their bldgs for the most part where never
designed to be earthquake resistant.

None of it pretty.