My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:

1. There's a 8-storage metropolitan apartment building that the
builder claims to be built with post-tension construction. It
was built in early 2003. Is this technique something especially
for earthquake? Or is it typical of any building these days,
regardless of geographical locations.

2. Given the current construction methods, what's the safety profile
of such a multi-level building versus the usual 2-3 story houses?

3. There're a lot of 40-50 year old houses selling at over half a
million here due to school district. My impression is that wood
framed structure tends to age and become weaker. Is this true?

Thanks,
Raymond

Are you new to California? If I had to guess I would say so. I doubt
the average California home buyer worries about any of this. Even the
best-built building is going to come down in a big earthquake in the
wrong location. The newer the building the more likely it meets updated
codes, of course. However, some old construction has proven to be very
sturdy as has survived many earthquakes. The only rule to know is to
avoid houses made of brick. Fortunately, 90%+ of housing here is wooden.
Other than that, I wouldn't too much worry about it. There's a good chance
you won't even *be* at home when an earthquake hits, but will be out and
about. The best-built home in the world won't help you if your office
building collapses on you. That's why I wouldn't worry about it too much.


Dimitri

"Raymond Yeung" wrote in message
om...
My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:

1. There's a 8-storage metropolitan apartment building that
the
builder claims to be built with post-tension
construction. It
was built in early 2003. Is this technique something
especially
for earthquake? Or is it typical of any building these
days,
regardless of geographical locations.

he has to follow the code for earthquake zones...it no doubt
meets the code... your interest should be how close is to
known major fault lines..if its close you are screwed
regardless. If its a few miles away you will probably be fine
with current construciton.



2. Given the current construction methods, what's the safety
profile
of such a multi-level building versus the usual 2-3 story
houses?

Depends on construction details. Generally speaking its a
tiny fraction of the structures in an entire area that go
south in a disaster. Id worry about location on hillsides,
mudslides and fire and what the neigbors house might do in a
shake or fire etc.



3. There're a lot of 40-50 year old houses selling at over
half a
million here due to school district. My impression is
that wood
framed structure tends to age and become weaker. Is this
true?

no.

The old wood is like iron compared to the new growth timber.
If its old and in good shape in this area its well built.
The foundation issues are more relevant to your questions.
You should get a house inspection before buying regardless.

and you need to look at the plus side..when california breaks
off into the pacific you could end up with island or beach
front property.


Phil Scott


Thanks,
Raymond

In article , (Raymond Yeung) wrote:
My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:
[...]

3. There're a lot of 40-50 year old houses selling at over half a
million here due to school district. My impression is that wood
framed structure tends to age and become weaker. Is this true?

Well, Raymond, I live in Indiana, where we don't worry much about earthquakes,
and so my opinion on this subject may be worth exactly what you're paying for
it... but it seems obvious to me that a 40-50 year old building that's still
standing has proven that it's able to withstand whatever quakes have occurred
in that area in the last 40-50 years. And some of those have been pretty big.

In a previous post Doug Miller says...
Well, Raymond, I live in Indiana, where we don't worry much about earthquakes,
and so my opinion on this subject may be worth exactly what you're paying for
it... but it seems obvious to me that a 40-50 year old building that's still
standing has proven that it's able to withstand whatever quakes have occurred
in that area in the last 40-50 years. And some of those have been pretty big.



Doug:

This is a misconception that many people have. It is entirely possible
that the structure has used up its "reserve" strength and will come
tumbling down in the next "Big One". There isn't a building yet
designed that can withstand every seismic event. The current
methodology uses a peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years.

I just spent all of Saturday at a structural engineering seminar on the
seismic portion of the the new IBC2003. This code is the state of the
art in terms of how SE's understand seismic events, but the code is only
as good as the design team who implements it and the builder who
constructs the building according to the design.

BTW, Indiana is not immune. The SW corner of the state has some
relatively high seismic risk.

--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:35:24 GMT, Bob Morrison
wrote:

In a previous post Doug Miller says...
Well, Raymond, I live in Indiana, where we don't worry much about earthquakes,
and so my opinion on this subject may be worth exactly what you're paying for
it... but it seems obvious to me that a 40-50 year old building that's still
standing has proven that it's able to withstand whatever quakes have occurred
in that area in the last 40-50 years. And some of those have been pretty big.

This is a misconception that many people have. It is entirely possible
that the structure has used up its "reserve" strength and will come
tumbling down in the next "Big One".

Or even "Not-So-Big-One".

There isn't a building yet
designed that can withstand every seismic event. The current
methodology uses a peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years.

SF's historic Old Mint was heavily damaged in the Loma Prieta
event and its museum had to be closed to the public even though
it had survived 1906 nicely. One of the problems is that there
were very few major earthquakes in the SF area from 1906 to 1989,
save the Daly City event of 1957, so one can say that some
building has survived well all that time, but that's because it
wasn't much tested. And Loma Prieta was NOT a Big One. And it was
60 miles away from SF.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 5 Oct 2004 22:09:58 -0700, (Raymond
Yeung) wrote:

My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:

1. There's a 8-storage metropolitan apartment building that the
builder claims to be built with post-tension construction. It
was built in early 2003. Is this technique something especially
for earthquake? Or is it typical of any building these days,
regardless of geographical locations.

The most dangerous buildings are unreinforced masonry; this
building would be reinforced if post-tensioned.

Remember though, the goal of seismic structural design is not to
save the building; it is to save lives. Even a well-designed
building could be a total loss after an earthquake. This is an
important consideration if buying a place, since earthquake
insurance in California is fraught with difficulties.

2. Given the current construction methods, what's the safety profile
of such a multi-level building versus the usual 2-3 story houses?

A two/three story house would normally be made of wood, the
safest form of construction, provided shear walls have been
installed and the structure bolted to the foundation. It is
important that you check for this. Bewae of weak stories, such as
a typical SF house with garage below and living space above.

Interestingly, Loma Prieta didn't even knock down the shampoo
bottle I kept precariously on the top of the shower stall; we
lived in a two-story Daly City house, on of Malvina Reynolds'
notorious little boxes all made out of ticky-tacky.

3. There're a lot of 40-50 year old houses selling at over half a
million here due to school district. My impression is that wood
framed structure tends to age and become weaker. Is this true?

Actually, wood structures tend to flex in an earthquake instead
of breaking. They make a hell of noise in even a small quake,
though. Again, though, keep in mind the goal is personal safety,
the house be damned.

Given the insurance problems and the published earthquake
probabilities, I wouldn't want to own a house in the shakey parts
of California just now.

See http://quake.abag.ca.gov/ for some very good info, especially
shaking maps and liquefaction maps.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In a previous post Hatunen says...
Remember though, the goal of seismic structural design is not to
save the building; it is to save lives. Even a well-designed
building could be a total loss after an earthquake. This is an
important consideration if buying a place, since earthquake
insurance in California is fraught with difficulties.


Dave's information and advice appears well thought out and I concur with
his recommendations.

--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

"Bob Morrison" wrote in
message
k.net...
In a previous post Hatunen says...
Remember though, the goal of seismic structural design is
not to
save the building; it is to save lives. Even a
well-designed
building could be a total loss after an earthquake. This
is an
important consideration if buying a place, since
earthquake
insurance in California is fraught with difficulties.


Dave's information and advice appears well thought out and I
concur with
his recommendations.

My view is that the odds are about 1% that any particlar home
will be substantially damaged in the bay area.. the place is
full of hundred year old homes that have stood though all the
quakes,,, risks are minimal imho if you make sure to get a map
of the fault lines and be well off them..and be well off the
fill areas around the SF bay.,.. that ground turns to liquid
in a light quate...along the marina beach area 50 or more
homes, two story mostly came down and had to be rebuilt.

In solid ground away from the fault lines I think a person is
plenty save enough.

ymmv.

Phil Scott


--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

We actually lived in the area for close to 10 years. I know a lot of
people wouldn't even think about earthquake at all. Some think that FEMA
would bail them out should major disaster strike, so they won't even bother
with Earthquake insurance on a house worth half to one million. Earthquake
would strike here someday much like snow would fall on the North.
Incidentally, I learnt that earthquake magnitue is more of log scale -
every increment causes a 30 fold increase in released energy. A major
one is something of 7 or above. Think about the last one that's about 6,
and then multiply that by 30, and with epicenter right in the neighbourhood.

Anyway, here comes more questions/comments:

1. I still haven't heard anything about post-tension. Did some digging
on newsgroup. This technique seems like a routine on modern building.
But it sounds like people here think wood-frame 2-3 storeys are safer?

2. The tile roof looks pretty, but are they safe? Which material is safest,
affordable and reasonably durable?

3. Any other features to avoid/desire, e.g. chimney, number/size of windows?
Would Singles Family House be better than Townhouse (due to connected walls
etc, if something bad happens next door, it would likely affect us also)?

Thanks,
Raymond

(Raymond Yeung) wrote in
om:

Snipola
Incidentally, I learnt that earthquake magnitue is more
of log scale - every increment causes a 30 fold increase in released
energy. A major one is something of 7 or above. Think about the last
one that's about 6, and then multiply that by 30, and with epicenter
right in the neighbourhood.
Snipola

To be exact, the scale is calibrated such that a difference of 2
in magnitude represents a 1000 time increase in energy released.
So a difference of 1 magnitude is sqrt(1000) or about 31.623.

So a 7 is about 32 times more powerful than a 6, and 1000 times
more powerful than a 5.

This is also why the idea of triggering smaller quakes to release
the stress wouldn't work. To release the stress of a magnitude 7
quake would require 1000 magnitude 5 quakes, or 1 million magnitude
3 quakes!!!!

I did the calculations once to figure out how often a triggered
quake would have to be done to release the stress of a large San
Andreas event. Turns out you'd have to have a mag 3 to 4 triggered
quake every few minutes. Not something most people would put up with.

Here's a nice web page giving the formulas relating magnitude to
energy released. There's also a chart comparing various magnitude
quakes tons of TNT.

http://staff.imsa.edu/science/geophy.../eqenergy.html

PS. as a curiosity, there is such a thing as a magnitude 0 quake!!!

Brian
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~skywise711/index.html
*** Website restructured. Old links are no longer valid ***
"Great heavens! That's a laser!"
"Yes, Dr. Scott. A laser capable of emitting a beam of pure antimatter."

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

In a previous post Raymond Yeung says...
Anyway, here comes more questions/comments:

1. I still haven't heard anything about post-tension. Did some digging
on newsgroup. This technique seems like a routine on modern building.
But it sounds like people here think wood-frame 2-3 storeys are safer?

Post tension construction has no direct relationship to earthquake
resistance unless the engineer was using P/T strands to resist
overturing forces (unlikely). Post tensioning allows for lighter floor
slabs spanning longer distances. P/T can be a very effective tool when
trying to design large column-free spaces, but this has nothing to do
with seismic resistance.

2. The tile roof looks pretty, but are they safe? Which material is safest,
affordable and reasonably durable?

If earthquake resistance is an issue then stay away from tile roofs.
They add weight in the worst possible place -- the roof. Tile roofs
are great for resistance to forest fires.


3. Any other features to avoid/desire, e.g. chimney, number/size of windows?
Would Singles Family House be better than Townhouse (due to connected walls
etc, if something bad happens next door, it would likely affect us also)?

Generally, masonry chimneys should be avoided in high seismic zones.
However, many new homes have metals flues with stone veneer on wood
framing. So, they only look like masonry, but in fact are not. If the
townhouse or single family residence is properly engineered then it will
make no difference.

--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:13:46 GMT, "Phil Scott"
wrote:


"Bob Morrison" wrote in
message
nk.net...
In a previous post Hatunen says...
Remember though, the goal of seismic structural design is
not to
save the building; it is to save lives. Even a
well-designed
building could be a total loss after an earthquake. This
is an
important consideration if buying a place, since
earthquake
insurance in California is fraught with difficulties.


Dave's information and advice appears well thought out and I
concur with
his recommendations.

My view is that the odds are about 1% that any particlar home
will be substantially damaged in the bay area.. the place is
full of hundred year old homes that have stood though all the
quakes,,,

Actually, there aren't. There have only been two significant
earthquakes in the Bay Area since 1906: Daly City 1957, which was
fairly small as these things go, mostly causing damage in Daly
City, and Loma Prieta, 1989. While that was a fairly large quake,
it was not a great earthquake. It was 60 odd miles from SF and
Oakland. For a better idea of what a not-so-large quake can do
near the epicenter look at Watsonville after Loma Prieta.

With the seismologists predicting a major quake on the Hayward or
San Andreas faults in the East May or on the Peninsula with a
probability of, what is it now? 40% in the next 30 years? there
is a rather high probability of significant damage to a
residential structure. Both northern and southern California got
lulled into a sense of complacency because there was a lull in
seisemic activity for most of the 20th century, save, for
southern California the Long Beach, Sylmar and Santa Barbara
events.

There is a good reason why insurance companies won't write
earthquake insurance in most of California.

Perhaps an analogy would be flood insurance, now almost totally
underwritten by the federal government because insurance
companies won't themselves provide flood insurance. The
requirement to buy insurance is based on theso-called "100 year
flood". This is a flood that has an occurance probability of 1%
in any given year. It sounds low, but anyone who has had
Statistics 101 should be able to calculate that the probability
of a flood over the typical 30-year lifetime of a mortgage is
about 26%.

When I ws working for the city of Palo Alto I had innumerable
occasions when homeowners whined to me that they didn't
understand why they had to meet flood zone requirements in there
new or substantially improved structure, because after all they
had lived there for 30 years and there had never been a flood.
But they were singing a different tune after the area flooded a
while back.

risks are minimal imho if you make sure to get a map
of the fault lines and be well off them..and be well off the
fill areas around the SF bay.,.. that ground turns to liquid
in a light quate...along the marina beach area 50 or more
homes, two story mostly came down and had to be rebuilt.

In solid ground away from the fault lines I think a person is
plenty save enough.

What you think matters very little here. A big shock in the East
Bay or on the Peninsula will cause widespread damage. Remember,
there has not been a big shock in the area since 1906. By all
means, don't be foolish enough to live on bay fill or old
baylands or alluvial plains, but a nearby shake can cause damage
to even homes on solid ground (of which there is actually very
little in the Bay Area, and what there is is very expensive
indeed because it will have elevation and therefore a view).

Also remember that you don't have to have your house fall down to
make repair costly.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 6 Oct 2004 23:08:31 -0700, (Raymond
Yeung) wrote:

We actually lived in the area for close to 10 years. I know a lot of
people wouldn't even think about earthquake at all. Some think that FEMA
would bail them out should major disaster strike, so they won't even bother
with Earthquake insurance on a house worth half to one million.

There's a misconception the very few houses cost half to one
million. But the property might. As I used to tell people in Palo
Alto, no, youdidn't pay $600,000 for this house; you paid about
$120,000 for the house and about $480,000 for the ground it's
sitting on. That's why people are so willing to buy a really cute
house and lot for $500,000 and then tear the house down and build
a new one.

Earthquake
would strike here someday much like snow would fall on the North.
Incidentally, I learnt that earthquake magnitue is more of log scale -
every increment causes a 30 fold increase in released energy. A major
one is something of 7 or above. Think about the last one that's about 6,
and then multiply that by 30, and with epicenter right in the neighbourhood.

Anyway, here comes more questions/comments:

1. I still haven't heard anything about post-tension. Did some digging
on newsgroup. This technique seems like a routine on modern building.
But it sounds like people here think wood-frame 2-3 storeys are safer?

You can't really post-tension a wooden structure. post-tenisionig
is usually done by embedding reinforcing bars in concrete and
then tightenign giant nuts at the ends after the concrete sets.

2. The tile roof looks pretty, but are they safe? Which material is safest,
affordable and reasonably durable?

Tile rooves are a disaster waiting to happen. They are mostly
held in place by gravity.

3. Any other features to avoid/desire, e.g. chimney, number/size of windows?
Would Singles Family House be better than Townhouse (due to connected walls
etc, if something bad happens next door, it would likely affect us also)?

People have been killed or injured by falling brick chimneys. Not
only that, even a minor shaker can crack the brickwork, making
the chimney a fire hazard from the leakage of hot gasses to the
wooden structure. Always have a chimney inspected after even a
minor earthquake.

Also avoid "soft stories"; these were a major problem in the
Marina in 1989. A soft story is a level of the structure that has
little support, like the typical San Francisco house that has an
open space or garage in the ground level and the living area
above that. If ther is a soft story, make sure that shear
paneling has been installed and the house is bolted to the
foundation (there used to be instructions for this in the front
of Bay Area telephone books).

The walls of the house should be tied together at the corners. A
major damage of houses in an earthquake is due to the walls
falling away from the house.

by the way, lot's of earhquake pictures at
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/eqiis.html

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 7 Oct 2004 11:22:05 -0700,
(Eastward Bound) wrote:

(Raymond Yeung) wrote in message . com...
My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:

I couldn't help myself but to cringe and smirk when I read this. I'm
not trying to be rude or anything but I grew up in the South Bay Area
and I have long since moved on. You are probably considering
something in or around Torrance. You will be faced with problems such
as (1) 2 hour commutes - 1 way.

Oh, oh. Ambiguity alert!

I took South Bay Area to mean south Bay Area, i.e., near San
Francisco, not South Bay area, i.e., near Los Angeles.



************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

(Raymond Yeung) wrote in message . com...
My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:

1. There's a 8-storage metropolitan apartment building that the
builder claims to be built with post-tension construction. It
was built in early 2003. Is this technique something especially
for earthquake? Or is it typical of any building these days,
regardless of geographical locations.

2. Given the current construction methods, what's the safety profile
of such a multi-level building versus the usual 2-3 story houses?

3. There're a lot of 40-50 year old houses selling at over half a
million here due to school district. My impression is that wood
framed structure tends to age and become weaker. Is this true?

Thanks,
Raymond



LOL

I couldn't help myself but to cringe and smirk when I read this. I'm
not trying to be rude or anything but I grew up in the South Bay Area
and I have long since moved on. You are probably considering
something in or around Torrance. You will be faced with problems such
as (1) 2 hour commutes - 1 way.
(2) Nasty year round SMOG (3) ****ty drivers (4) Overinflation (5)
High cost of living (6) Police corruption & police brutality (7)
Drug related crimes (8) superficial populace (9) Winter floods
where all the freeways shut down and everyones roof seems to cave in
(10) Day to day Police pursuites (11) Cars crashing into buildings
constantly (12) Nazi red light cameras

Not to mention that you are in California and Over HALF of your income
is taxed away from you. Something like 75%. You will be faced with
(FAKE) Oxygenated gasoline that they try to sell as (REAL AUTHENTIC)
gas but really isn't. Intended to burn cleaner but as a result you
pay 50 cents more a gallon for it, your car runs like **** on it and
burns it faster. Not only that but the oxygenated - MTBE ****ty stuff
corrods all of your fuel line and engine components causing Car fires
on the side of the freeway every daily commute.

Good luck once you loose your car in an accident from all the ****less
mexican illegal alien drivers there with NO or FAKE insurance. Your
****ty SoCal. insurance company will not compensate you for it and you
will have to sue them. Before you can get things settled you will be
faced with problems such as not being able to get to work (since it's
car town with no mass transit) PLUS sky high medical bills that you
won't be able to pay off.


MWA hAHA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! If you just moved, you are in for a time
of your life. I am so glade I moved on...

(Raymond Yeung) wrote in message . com...
My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:

1. There's a 8-storage metropolitan apartment building that the
builder claims to be built with post-tension construction. It
was built in early 2003. Is this technique something especially
for earthquake? Or is it typical of any building these days,
regardless of geographical locations.

2. Given the current construction methods, what's the safety profile
of such a multi-level building versus the usual 2-3 story houses?

3. There're a lot of 40-50 year old houses selling at over half a
million here due to school district. My impression is that wood
framed structure tends to age and become weaker. Is this true?

Thanks,
Raymond



LOL

I couldn't help myself but to cringe and smirk when I read this. I'm
not trying to be rude or anything but I grew up in the South Bay Area
and I have long since moved on. You are probably considering
something in or around Torrance. You will be faced with problems such
as (1) 2 hour commutes - 1 way.
(2) Nasty year round SMOG (3) ****ty drivers (4) Overinflation (5)
High cost of living (6) Police corruption & police brutality (7)
Drug related crimes (8) superficial populace (9) Winter floods
where all the freeways shut down and everyones roof seems to cave in
(10) Day to day Police pursuites (11) Cars crashing into buildings
constantly (12) Nazi red light cameras

Not to mention that you are in California and Over HALF of your income
is taxed away from you. Something like 75%. You will be faced with
(FAKE) Oxygenated gasoline that they try to sell as (REAL AUTHENTIC)
gas but really isn't. Intended to burn cleaner but as a result you
pay 50 cents more a gallon for it, your car runs like **** on it and
burns it faster. Not only that but the oxygenated - MTBE ****ty stuff
corrods all of your fuel line and engine components causing Car fires
on the side of the freeway every daily commute.

Good luck once you loose your car in an accident from all the ****less
mexican illegal alien drivers there with NO or FAKE insurance. Your
****ty SoCal. insurance company will not compensate you for it and you
will have to sue them. Before you can get things settled you will be
faced with problems such as not being able to get to work (since it's
car town with no mass transit) PLUS sky high medical bills that you
won't be able to pay off.


MWA hAHA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! If you just moved, you are in for a time
of your life. I am so glade I moved on...

(Raymond Yeung) wrote in message . com...
My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:

1. There's a 8-storage metropolitan apartment building that the
builder claims to be built with post-tension construction. It
was built in early 2003. Is this technique something especially
for earthquake? Or is it typical of any building these days,
regardless of geographical locations.

2. Given the current construction methods, what's the safety profile
of such a multi-level building versus the usual 2-3 story houses?

3. There're a lot of 40-50 year old houses selling at over half a
million here due to school district. My impression is that wood
framed structure tends to age and become weaker. Is this true?

Thanks,
Raymond



LOL

I couldn't help myself but to cringe and smirk when I read this. I'm
not trying to be rude or anything but I grew up in the South Bay Area
and I have long since moved on. You are probably considering
something in or around Torrance. You will be faced with problems such
as (1) 2 hour commutes - 1 way.
(2) Nasty year round SMOG (3) ****ty drivers (4) Overinflation (5)
High cost of living (6) Police corruption & police brutality (7)
Drug related crimes (8) superficial populace (9) Winter floods
where all the freeways shut down and everyones roof seems to cave in
(10) Day to day Police pursuites (11) Cars crashing into buildings
constantly (12) Nazi red light cameras

Not to mention that you are in California and Over HALF of your income
is taxed away from you. Something like 75%. You will be faced with
(FAKE) Oxygenated gasoline that they try to sell as (REAL AUTHENTIC)
gas but really isn't. Intended to burn cleaner but as a result you
pay 50 cents more a gallon for it, your car runs like **** on it and
burns it faster. Not only that but the oxygenated - MTBE ****ty stuff
corrods all of your fuel line and engine components causing Car fires
on the side of the freeway every daily commute.

Good luck once you loose your car in an accident from all the ****less
mexican illegal alien drivers there with NO or FAKE insurance. Your
****ty SoCal. insurance company will not compensate you for it and you
will have to sue them. Before you can get things settled you will be
faced with problems such as not being able to get to work (since it's
car town with no mass transit) PLUS sky high medical bills that you
won't be able to pay off.


MWA hAHA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! If you just moved, you are in for a time
of your life. I am so glade I moved on...

(Raymond Yeung) wrote in message . com...
My wife and I are looking for a house/condo/apartment in the
South Bay Area of California. We've some earthquake related
questions:

1. There's a 8-storage metropolitan apartment building that the
builder claims to be built with post-tension construction. It
was built in early 2003. Is this technique something especially
for earthquake? Or is it typical of any building these days,
regardless of geographical locations.

2. Given the current construction methods, what's the safety profile
of such a multi-level building versus the usual 2-3 story houses?

3. There're a lot of 40-50 year old houses selling at over half a
million here due to school district. My impression is that wood
framed structure tends to age and become weaker. Is this true?

Thanks,
Raymond



LOL

I couldn't help myself but to cringe and smirk when I read this. I'm
not trying to be rude or anything but I grew up in the South Bay Area
and I have long since moved on. You are probably considering
something in or around Torrance. You will be faced with problems such
as (1) 2 hour commutes - 1 way.
(2) Nasty year round SMOG (3) ****ty drivers (4) Overinflation (5)
High cost of living (6) Police corruption & police brutality (7)
Drug related crimes (8) superficial populace (9) Winter floods
where all the freeways shut down and everyones roof seems to cave in
(10) Day to day Police pursuites (11) Cars crashing into buildings
constantly (12) Nazi red light cameras

Not to mention that you are in California and Over HALF of your income
is taxed away from you. Something like 75%. You will be faced with
(FAKE) Oxygenated gasoline that they try to sell as (REAL AUTHENTIC)
gas but really isn't. Intended to burn cleaner but as a result you
pay 50 cents more a gallon for it, your car runs like **** on it and
burns it faster. Not only that but the oxygenated - MTBE ****ty stuff
corrods all of your fuel line and engine components causing Car fires
on the side of the freeway every daily commute.

Good luck once you loose your car in an accident from all the ****less
mexican illegal alien drivers there with NO or FAKE insurance. Your
****ty SoCal. insurance company will not compensate you for it and you
will have to sue them. Before you can get things settled you will be
faced with problems such as not being able to get to work (since it's
car town with no mass transit) PLUS sky high medical bills that you
won't be able to pay off.


MWA hAHA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! If you just moved, you are in for a time
of your life. I am so glade I moved on...

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:55:06 +0000 (UTC),
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

With the seismologists predicting a major quake on the Hayward or
San Andreas faults in the East May or on the Peninsula with a
probability of, what is it now? 40% in the next 30 years? there
is a rather high probability of significant damage to a
residential structure. Both northern and southern California got
lulled into a sense of complacency because there was a lull in
seisemic activity for most of the 20th century, save, for
southern California the Long Beach, Sylmar and Santa Barbara
events.


Northridge? Whittier?


Also remember that you don't have to have your house fall down to
make repair costly.


This is true. I had a coworker whose house was torn down even though it
"looked" fine. On the other hand, the average amount of earthquake
damage tends to be rather small - smaller than the deductible, which is
not a coincidence.


Dimitri

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

With the seismologists predicting a major quake on the Hayward or
San Andreas faults in the East May or on the Peninsula with a
probability of, what is it now? 40% in the next 30 years? there
is a rather high probability of significant damage to a
residential structure. Both northern and southern California got
lulled into a sense of complacency because there was a lull in
seisemic activity for most of the 20th century, save, for
southern California the Long Beach, Sylmar and Santa Barbara
events.


Northridge? Whittier?


Also remember that you don't have to have your house fall down to
make repair costly.


This is true. I had a coworker whose house was torn down even though it
"looked" fine. On the other hand, the average amount of earthquake
damage tends to be rather small - smaller than the deductible, which is
not a coincidence.


Dimitri

Anyone knows if the building codes rigorously enforced (esp. in Californi)
e.g. via strict house inspection by responsible government bodies? Do they
have enough man power to do something like that?

If the houses are not checked, then it doesn't matter how good the building
codes are. Also, is there any good way/place to check out a builder's
reputation, workmanship etc.?

On 7 Oct 2004 13:16:35 -0700, (Raymond
Yeung) wrote:

Anyone knows if the building codes rigorously enforced (esp. in Californi)
e.g. via strict house inspection by responsible government bodies? Do they
have enough man power to do something like that?

I expect it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Palo Alto
had pretty good building inspection.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 07 Oct 2004 14:43:43 -0700, Darryl Okahata
wrote:

(D. Gerasimatos) writes:

residential structure. Both northern and southern California got
lulled into a sense of complacency because there was a lull in
seisemic activity for most of the 20th century, save, for
southern California the Long Beach, Sylmar and Santa Barbara
events.

Northridge? Whittier?

San Fernando? (1971)

That's the same as Sylmar.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

(D. Gerasimatos) writes:

residential structure. Both northern and southern California got
lulled into a sense of complacency because there was a lull in
seisemic activity for most of the 20th century, save, for
southern California the Long Beach, Sylmar and Santa Barbara
events.

Northridge? Whittier?

San Fernando? (1971)

[ The San Fernando area was also pretty active for a couple of weeks or
so in the mid-80s (summer 1986???). An uncle used to live there, and
his concrete cinderblock backyard fence collapsed at least 2-3 times
over the years. ]

--
Darryl Okahata


DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Agilent Technologies, or
of the little green men that have been following him all day.

Hi,

Just to clarify, we're in the Northern California, San Jose neighbourhood.
As in Silicon Valley.

Raymond



Hatunen wrote in message . ..
On 7 Oct 2004 11:22:05 -0700,
Oh, oh. Ambiguity alert!

I took South Bay Area to mean south Bay Area, i.e., near San
Francisco, not South Bay area, i.e., near Los Angeles.

There's a misconception the very few houses cost half to one
million. But the property might. As I used to tell people in Palo
Alto, no, youdidn't pay $600,000 for this house; you paid about
$120,000 for the house and about $480,000 for the ground it's
sitting on. That's why people are so willing to buy a really cute
house and lot for $500,000 and then tear the house down and build
a new one.


Okay, I suppose that's the good news. If the house is totaled, it'd
cost about $120,000 to rebuild? And I suppose such a devastating
event would have little impact to subsequent resale value of the
property? I'd suppose people might be hesitant in buying a land upon
which a house had previously been shaken down.

You can't really post-tension a wooden structure. post-tenisionig
is usually done by embedding reinforcing bars in concrete and
then tightenign giant nuts at the ends after the concrete sets.


So is there any new benefit the P/T method to the consumers like us? Or
is it just marketing hype (they think P/T is a cute term that grabs
attention)?

On 8 Oct 2004 08:07:20 -0700, (Raymond
Yeung) wrote:

There's a misconception the very few houses cost half to one
million. But the property might. As I used to tell people in Palo
Alto, no, youdidn't pay $600,000 for this house; you paid about
$120,000 for the house and about $480,000 for the ground it's
sitting on. That's why people are so willing to buy a really cute
house and lot for $500,000 and then tear the house down and build
a new one.


Okay, I suppose that's the good news. If the house is totaled, it'd
cost about $120,000 to rebuild? And I suppose such a devastating
event would have little impact to subsequent resale value of the
property? I'd suppose people might be hesitant in buying a land upon
which a house had previously been shaken down.

After the flood in palo Alto I saw no sign of a drop in property
values.

You can't really post-tension a wooden structure. post-tenisionig
is usually done by embedding reinforcing bars in concrete and
then tightenign giant nuts at the ends after the concrete sets.


So is there any new benefit the P/T method to the consumers like us? Or
is it just marketing hype (they think P/T is a cute term that grabs
attention)?

If you are buying a masonry structure it might be helpful.
Basically, masonry is very strong in compression but very weak in
tension, so you find a way to put the masonry under enough
compression that a typical shaking event won't be sufficint to
overcome the pre-tensioning and allow the masonry to go in to
tensile mode.



************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

(Raymond Yeung) writes:

There's a misconception the very few houses cost half to one
million. But the property might. As I used to tell people in Palo
Alto, no, youdidn't pay $600,000 for this house; you paid about
$120,000 for the house and about $480,000 for the ground it's
sitting on. That's why people are so willing to buy a really cute
house and lot for $500,000 and then tear the house down and build
a new one.

Okay, I suppose that's the good news. If the house is totaled, it'd
cost about $120,000 to rebuild? And I suppose such a devastating

The cost to rebuild is highly variable, and depends on your
situation. You can't just say that it'll cost $XXX,XXX to rebuild.
Think about it. How big is the house? Is it on flat ground, or on an
hillside (will it need special engineering considerations)? What
construction materials are being used? Wood? Gold? What about changes
in building codes?

[ Someone here should have better numbers, but I think an approximate
rule of thumb is to use $100 per square foot of house (for an
"average" house on flat ground). I've forgotten if you also have to
include the footage for garage area (anyone remember?). Many parts of
the country will be less, but I think I read somewhere that the
average cost is significantly higher in the SF bay area
($150+/sq.ft.???). Another rule of thumb: if you ever build an house
and get an overall cost estimate, add 25% to whatever you get.
Construction costs always seem to go over budget. ]

--
Darryl Okahata


DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Agilent Technologies, or
of the little green men that have been following him all day.

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:
On 8 Oct 2004 08:07:20 -0700, (Raymond
Yeung) wrote:

There's a misconception the very few houses cost half to one
million. But the property might. As I used to tell people in Palo
Alto, no, youdidn't pay $600,000 for this house; you paid about
$120,000 for the house and about $480,000 for the ground it's
sitting on. That's why people are so willing to buy a really cute
house and lot for $500,000 and then tear the house down and build
a new one.


Okay, I suppose that's the good news. If the house is totaled, it'd
cost about $120,000 to rebuild? And I suppose such a devastating
event would have little impact to subsequent resale value of the
property? I'd suppose people might be hesitant in buying a land upon
which a house had previously been shaken down.

After the flood in palo Alto I saw no sign of a drop in property
values.



Property values did dip temporarily after the Northridge earthquake and
savvy buyers took advantage of that. The next time an earthquake hits an
area and property values drop (mostly as fearful people flee the area and
sell for a loss) I will be buying as much as I can. The property values
rebounded within a couple of year.


Dimitri

(Raymond Yeung) wrote in message . com...
Hi,

Just to clarify, we're in the Northern California, San Jose neighbourhood.
As in Silicon Valley.

Raymond



Hatunen wrote in message . ..
On 7 Oct 2004 11:22:05 -0700,
Oh, oh. Ambiguity alert!

I took South Bay Area to mean south Bay Area, i.e., near San
Francisco, not South Bay area, i.e., near Los Angeles.




Well that's a relief.

Regaurding the house -- Just make sure to check that the house is
bolted to the foundation. If the house has a basement than the check
is very easy. Otherwise you will need to shine a flashlight inside
the crawlspace.

But if we buy a new house, or one that was built withint the last 10
years, should house be bolted to the foundation (by building codes),
esp. the new houses they're building now?


Well that's a relief.

Regaurding the house -- Just make sure to check that the house is
bolted to the foundation. If the house has a basement than the check
is very easy. Otherwise you will need to shine a flashlight inside
the crawlspace.

In article ,
Raymond Yeung wrote:

But if we buy a new house, or one that was built withint the last 10
years, should house be bolted to the foundation (by building codes),
esp. the new houses they're building now?


Yes.


Dimitri

(Raymond Yeung) wrote in message . com...
But if we buy a new house, or one that was built withint the last 10
years, should house be bolted to the foundation (by building codes),
esp. the new houses they're building now?


Well that's a relief.

Regaurding the house -- Just make sure to check that the house is
bolted to the foundation. If the house has a basement than the check
is very easy. Otherwise you will need to shine a flashlight inside
the crawlspace.

Think Oakland fires.... You should be more worried about the possible
fire storms, floods, and landslides. Earthquakes are a probability,
it's just all those other things you should be thinking about, don't
you forget it.

Also you will probably choose to live in "suburbia". Much of the bay
area is built more suburban than city. So worry about traffic,
traffic, traffic. Oh and did I say the traffic?

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:15:42 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On 8 Oct 2004 08:07:20 -0700, (Raymond Yeung)
wrote:

Okay, I suppose that's the good news. If the house is totaled, it'd
cost about $120,000 to rebuild?

Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work. If you can wait until the activity dies down to normal levels
and then rebuild, you could probably have your house rebuilt for about
that much. But where would you live in the meantime?

And I suppose such a devastating
event would have little impact to subsequent resale value of the
property? I'd suppose people might be hesitant in buying a land upon
which a house had previously been shaken down.

New people are coming to CA all the time. Even longtime residents have
short memories. If the house is *in* an earthquake zone, you must
disclose that fact,

And the definition of a disclosable earthquke zone is quite
limited; it's called a "seismic studies zone" and it lies only
within a half-mile (?) of a fault trace. It's aimed mostly at
keeping structures from being torn apart by fissuring or lateral
displacement.

but if it's not the buyer need never know that it
was shaken to the ground unless he does his due diligence and pulls
all the past permits on your property.

As a mater of fact, buying a house in an area where significant
earthquake damage has occured can be a sound business strategy.
Suppose there were a major quake on the Newport-Inglewood fault
tomorrow with damage levels comparable to the 1933 event. Real estate
prices would be depressed, but only temporarily. You swoop in and buy
up a great lot with an ocean view in Newport Beach for a bargain price
because the owner wants to bail and move to Florida where they don't
have earthquakes. You clear the debris off the lot and build a brand
new house. Everyone else is rebuilding, too, and in 5 years you can't
tell there was ever an earthquake in the area. Prices rebound and
eventually reach new record highs, so you're sitting pretty.

This is, of course, a definte risk, since there is nothing to
prevent another earthquake from destroying your new house within
some reasonable length of time, which might be as short as next
year. You're playing the odds, and you won't have good enough
insurance to cover your losses.

And large earthqukes do sometime occur closely together; it's now
theorized that quakes are not completely random events, but
rather one may cause another nearby.

The worst US case would be the three New Madrid 8.0 earthquakes
in Missouri over the years 1810 to 1813 (I think it was).

Meanwhile, your risk of being in another quake is drastically reduced,
because all the strain has been taken out of the ground along the N-I
fault; by the time enough strain builds up for another big quake to
occur, you've long since sold at a huge profit.

Except it may set up the for a quake on an adjacent fault. But
it's your money; go for it.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote in message . ..

Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

As a mater of fact, buying a house in an area where significant
earthquake damage has occured can be a sound business strategy.

[snip]

Prices rebound and
eventually reach new record highs, so you're sitting pretty.

This situation is different, you know. In this case, you're talking
about someone that has free/fresh cash to take risk. In the original
scenario, someone has already committed big money in the property; it
is gone...


This is, of course, a definte risk, since there is nothing to
prevent another earthquake from destroying your new house within
some reasonable length of time, which might be as short as next
year. You're playing the odds, and you won't have good enough
insurance to cover your losses.

Yes, good point. In fact, when the damages are done, we won't even
know if that is the big/last one. Theoretically, it may well be the
pre-shocks. More after-shocks may come, and right now, no one can
predict after-shocks time schedule. Building a new property in temporal
promixity might actually increase your chance of getting hit.


And large earthqukes do sometime occur closely together; it's now
theorized that quakes are not completely random events, but
rather one may cause another nearby.

" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you for
your lack of foresight.

"3D Peruna" wrote in message ...
" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.


Yes, I agree with you that insurance should be bought in such areas. I
did hear certain people skipping insurance and counting on FEMA. So I thought
I would verify that claim. What sort of relieves had been distributed to
other disasterous states before?

On another note, the earthquake insurance here in California is really poor,
at least that's what it used to be some 7-8 years ago when I first looked
into it; it probably still is like this - high premium, high deductible,
and lots of fine prints. Essentially, my impression is that none of them
is particularly practical.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you for
your lack of foresight.

Don't know how many people in California buy Earthquake insurance. By
the same token, don't know if it's common for people in Tornado Alley,
Florida etc to buy the corresponding disaster insurance.

If FEMA has set up a process/system to help, then it has. If it hasn't,
then it hasn't. There's no need to be resentful. Otherwise, we can talk
about our tax system, which essentially is a redistribution of wealth.

In a previous post Raymond Yeung says...
Yes, I agree with you that insurance should be bought in such areas. I
did hear certain people skipping insurance and counting on FEMA. So I thought
I would verify that claim. What sort of relieves had been distributed to
other disasterous states before?


The BEST you could hope for would be a low interest loan. FEMA will not
repair structures outright.

I gotta say that it sounds like you are really nervous about living in
California. My opinion is if you can't stand the risk then don't. Find
someplace else to live.

Many people don't like the rain here in the Pacific NW. I don't mind it
and in fact moved from the dry side of the state to to the wet side.

Don't force yourself to live where you know you will be on "pins and
needles" all the time. You will just be miserable and not enjoy life.
A job isn't worth that.

So, bottom line: either get comfortable with some risk or find another
situation. Don't expect the government to bail you out because they
won't.


--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

So, bottom line: either get comfortable with some risk or find another
situation. Don't expect the government to bail you out because they
won't.

And, more importantly, the goverment shouldn't bail you out.