California: not a good place to buy a home.

[ozymandias]

And they get lot of snow in the winter it seems like.

Don't know about that.  I just know that Spokane is in a "dry" area of Washington state.   They probably benefit from the snow pack of the nearby Mountains of Idaho and Montana.

[Natalia Evans]

Actually Spokane is in the wet area but its at the edge of the dry land. I have been north of Spokane and it was all farm lands. Right after you leave the city going west, everything goes dry.

[QuirkyCarla]

New York City 

Manhattan ftw

[Teejay]

And it's cheap but the B&J neighborhood is pretty expensive because of the river down there. The houses are in the $300,000 range and they're all farm houses or country houses, they're like cottages. That's why I see $300,000 expensive. The highest price I seen for a house in Spokane was in the $600,000 range because it had the whole view of the river and it was in Browne's Addition. But the rest off the houses I have seen are in the $100,000 range. But I did see a house up for $85,000 but it said to bring a hammer meaning it needed work.

$300,000 is not expensive by standards of Australian captial cities, $300,000 would get you a house in a bad neighbourhood or a one which needed work in a decent neighbourhood. Where I live in Bendigo $300,000 would get you a nice house in a nice neighbourhood, $200,000 is average, I doubt there are even 1 bedroom flats for $100,000 now, let alone houses.

[ozymandias]

Actually Spokane is in the wet area but its at the edge of the dry land. I have been north of Spokane and it was all farm lands. Right after you leave the city going west, everything goes dry.

Ok, thats where the "rain shadow" is.  

[Teejay]

UCERF Earthquake Probabilities

According to the new forecast, California has a 99.7% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake during the next 30 years (see Figure 1). The likelihood of an even more powerful quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the next 30 years is 46%. Such a quake is more likely to occur in the southern half of the state (37% chance in 30 years) than in the northern half (15% chance in 30 years) (see Figure 2).

The probability of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake over the next 30 years striking the greater Los Angeles area is 67%, and in the San Francisco Bay Area it is 63%, similar to previous WGCEP estimates (see Figure 3). For the entire California region, the fault with the highest probability of generating at least one magnitude 6.7 quake or larger is the southern San Andreas (59% in the next 30 years; see Figure 4). For northern California, the most likely source of such earthquakes is the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault (31% in the next 30 years). Events of this size can be deadly, as shown by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (magnitude 6.9) and 1994 Northridge earthquake (magnitude 6.7).

Earthquake probabilities for many parts of the state are similar to those in previous studies, but the new probabilities calculated for the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults in southern California are about half those previously determined. For the far northwestern part of the State, a major source of earthquakes is the offshore 750-mile-long Cascadia Subduction Zone, the southern part of which extends about 150 miles into California. For the next 30 years there is a 10% probability of a magnitude 8 to 9 quake somewhere along that zone. Such quakes occur about once every 500 years on average.

The UCERF model includes the concept that earthquake likelihoods change with time. A fault that has ruptured in a recent large earthquake is less likely to produce another quake in the near future, because tectonic stress has not had time to build back up. Likewise, a fault that last ruptured a long time ago is more likely to produce an earthquake, because the stress on the fault has had time to re-accumulate. The faults with elevated probabilities for an earthquake include the southern San Andreas and Hayward-Rodgers Creek Faults (see Figure 5), although major quakes on these faults may still be decades away.

San Francisco-San Jose and Los Angeles are no more dangerous to live in than Tokyo and much less dangerous than Istanbul, the next big quake to strike Istanbul will kill hundreds of thousands, as opposed to just hundreds in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Buildings in California are better built and more earthquake resisent than in Japan (a quake similar to 1989 San Francisco one killed 5000 in the city of Kobe back in the 1990's) and especially Istanbul.

[Natalia Evans]

And it's cheap but the B&J neighborhood is pretty expensive because of the river down there. The houses are in the $300,000 range and they're all farm houses or country houses, they're like cottages. That's why I see $300,000 expensive. The highest price I seen for a house in Spokane was in the $600,000 range because it had the whole view of the river and it was in Browne's Addition. But the rest off the houses I have seen are in the $100,000 range. But I did see a house up for $85,000 but it said to bring a hammer meaning it needed work.

$300,000 is not expensive by standards of Australian captial cities, $300,000 would get you a house in a bad neighbourhood or a one which needed work in a decent neighbourhood. Where I live in Bendigo $300,000 would get you a nice house in a nice neighbourhood, $200,000 is average, I doubt there are even 1 bedroom flats for $100,000 now, let alone houses.

I wouldn't buy a cottage that is $300,000. That is too much for a small house. That is what I meant.

[Peter]

UCERF Earthquake Probabilities

According to the new forecast, California has a 99.7% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake during the next 30 years (see Figure 1). The likelihood of an even more powerful quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the next 30 years is 46%. Such a quake is more likely to occur in the southern half of the state (37% chance in 30 years) than in the northern half (15% chance in 30 years) (see Figure 2).

The probability of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake over the next 30 years striking the greater Los Angeles area is 67%, and in the San Francisco Bay Area it is 63%, similar to previous WGCEP estimates (see Figure 3). For the entire California region, the fault with the highest probability of generating at least one magnitude 6.7 quake or larger is the southern San Andreas (59% in the next 30 years; see Figure 4). For northern California, the most likely source of such earthquakes is the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault (31% in the next 30 years). Events of this size can be deadly, as shown by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (magnitude 6.9) and 1994 Northridge earthquake (magnitude 6.7).

Earthquake probabilities for many parts of the state are similar to those in previous studies, but the new probabilities calculated for the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults in southern California are about half those previously determined. For the far northwestern part of the State, a major source of earthquakes is the offshore 750-mile-long Cascadia Subduction Zone, the southern part of which extends about 150 miles into California. For the next 30 years there is a 10% probability of a magnitude 8 to 9 quake somewhere along that zone. Such quakes occur about once every 500 years on average.

The UCERF model includes the concept that earthquake likelihoods change with time. A fault that has ruptured in a recent large earthquake is less likely to produce another quake in the near future, because tectonic stress has not had time to build back up. Likewise, a fault that last ruptured a long time ago is more likely to produce an earthquake, because the stress on the fault has had time to re-accumulate. The faults with elevated probabilities for an earthquake include the southern San Andreas and Hayward-Rodgers Creek Faults (see Figure 5), although major quakes on these faults may still be decades away.

San Francisco-San Jose and Los Angeles are no more dangerous to live in than Tokyo and much less dangerous than Istanbul, the next big quake to strike Istanbul will kill hundreds of thousands, as opposed to just hundreds in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Buildings in California are better built and more earthquake resisent than in Japan (a quake similar to 1989 San Francisco one killed 5000 in the city of Kobe back in the 1990's) and especially Istanbul.

I don't recommend living in any of those places.

[Sophgay]

I want to move to San Francisco

[ozymandias]

I want to move to San Francisco

Just bring lots of cash or get a great job with lots of income.  San Fran is one of the more expensive cities to live in, in the US. 

[Sophgay]

Yeah I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to live there

[ozymandias]

Don't feel bad 95% percent of us can't either!   

[Dexter Morgan]

You could always be a bum.  There are lots of them in SF.

[renaeden]

I saw something about plate tectonics on tv not long ago and thought about how California has not had a big earthquake in ages.

[ozymandias]

I saw something about plate tectonics on tv not long ago and thought about how California has not had a big earthquake in ages.

The geological term:  "It's not a question of "IF", but a question of "WHEN".