London property set to collapse?

Sir_Humphrey

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expert-predicts-55-magnitude-earthquake-could-hit-london-at-any-time-2081634.html

One for the doomers.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expert-predicts-55-magnitude-earthquake-could-hit-london-at-any-time-2081634.html

One for the doomers.

London property set to collapse?
They were always going on about it at primary school. You really need to sort that bridge out.

What rock is London built on? there was one fairly locally in the 90s that was around that magnitude but it did not do much. Mainly down to sandstone I believe.

Degenerate

Really2 wrote: »

What rock is London built on? there was one fairly locally in the 90s that was around that magnitude but it did not do much. Mainly down to sandstone I believe.

Lots of factors to consider. Location and depth of the epicenter, duration of the quake as well.

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

London property set to collapse?
They were always going on about it at primary school. You really need to sort that bridge out.

What rock is London built on? there was one fairly locally in the 90s that was around that magnitude but it did not do much. Mainly down to sandstone I believe.

Central/North London is on clay, which is just about the worst for Earthquakes as it wobbles like a jelly. South London is on alluvial silt (which is not good either).

If you actually read the article however, we are talking more about collapsed chimneys, although it would be interesting how some of the cheaper newbuild junk would stand up (or not stand up)!

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Central/North London is on clay, which is just about the worst for Earthquakes as it wobbles like a jelly. South London is on alluvial silt (which is not good either).

If you actually read the article however, we are talking more about collapsed chimneys, although it would be interesting how some of the cheaper newbuild junk would stand up (or not stand up)!

Most probably better than older houses as foundations have to be thicker and deeper down due to building regs.

Older property are usually (before someone mentions pyramids, but part of thier reason is due to solid rock being their foundations) more at risk age, foundations and general weaknesses see to that.

Niv

I still prefer to buy a house built in the 1800's than one built in the last 30 odd years tbh. I see many more new builds with rather large cracks up them and built on flood plane than old houses. Anicdotal for sure, but I am sticking by it :-)

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expert-predicts-55-magnitude-earthquake-could-hit-london-at-any-time-2081634.html

One for the doomers.

My mate is in reinsurance and is into this sort of stuff. Apparently there is a 1 in 400 year chance of a tsunami hitting Sydney. It wouldn't be a big loss as most of Sydney is up on cliffs. Bondi would be a mess but it's mostly backpackers and they don't have much insurance so my mate doesn't care about them.

Really2

Niv wrote: »

I still prefer to buy a house built in the 1800's than one built in the last 30 odd years tbh. I see many more new builds with rather large cracks up them and built on flood plane than old houses. Anicdotal for sure, but I am sticking by it :-)

I am sure you would in the 1800s also
You will see many old house with the shadow of a roof on the side where next door used to be also.
Or with metal crosses holding the wall in place through movement.

Housing tends to get replaced every 100 or so years if not build on solid ground. Or poor foundations for the soil.

Niv

Really2 wrote: »

I am sure you would in the 1800s also

Housing tends to get replaced every 100 or so years if not build on solid ground.

So whats your point? That the house that was built in the 1800's that is still there is a better investment than the one just built as the 'new' one is more likely to need to be pulled down and replaced as the 1800's one has past the 100year mark and is 'stable'?

michaels

If it happened in the morning rush and flooded the tube I suspect it could take out enough useful workers to cause serious consequences - especially if the tube, rail and road links - and sewerage and utilities - were seriously comprised thereafter. Could be a long, cold winter for many if it happened next Tuesday morning...

chewmylegoff

"Britain is overdue a potentially devastating earthquake that could topple London's grandest landmarks, cause billions of pounds worth of damage and endanger scores of lives, a leading seismologist warned yesterday."...

Oh ok, this sounds bad, let's analyse the evidence for this.

..."The last large earthquake to affect London occurred on the 6 April 1580 and was estimated to have been a relatively large magnitude 5.5..."

5.5, that sounds serious, that could devastate London and cause billions of pounds of damage. No doubt our grandest landmarks will be toppled.

"It felled half a dozen chimney stacks and a pinnacle on Westminster Abbey. Two children were killed by falling stonework from Christ Church's hospital. The earthquake caused damage to the tower of St Peter's Church in Broadstairs, Kent, that can still be seen today..."

Move along, nothing to see here.