1906 San Francisco vs. 2013 San Francisco

[methodwriter85]

    Here's an interesting photo series, where the photographer juxtaposed photos of modern-day San Francisco with pictures of the aftermath of the 1906 Earthquake. Pretty cool-looking, I think.

 

    The best shot has to be the dead horses and the modern-day driver.

 

 

[Kitt]

Sort of weird to look at. If the earthquake photos hadn't been black and white it would have been extremely difficult to see where the old stopped and the new started in some of them.

[Mark Arbour]

Very Cool Jeremy!

[Ashi]

Nice series of photos.  I've seen some of those scenes in my own eyes (modern SF, of course, I am not that old yet!), so they're kind of like surreal to me.  Anyways, the dead horses picture is the most haunting for me....  Poor horses.

 

I have quite a few photos of San Francisco, some might even resemble the ones from your link....

 

The funky thing from picture #6 is, that ugly collage of billboards on the left of Market Street is still there.  Different advertisements posted of course, but it's still there.

[Thorn Wilde]

The one with the dead horses was oddly beautiful in kind of a morbid way, and also so surreal... I think that one's my favourite.

[Bill W]

It makes me wonder how the city would fare if an earthquake of the same or greater magnitude were to hit today. 

[methodwriter85]

It makes me wonder how the city would fare if an earthquake of the same or greater magnitude were to hit today. 

 

Probably not well. Liquefaction was an issue with the 1989 quake, and I imagine that it's still an issue. Also, a lot of the buildings that were built from the 1910's to the 1970's weren't built as strongly as they could have been, and while retrofitting helps...it's still probably not going to be pretty.  I mean seriously, look at the damage of the 1989 quake, and that was a 6.9 rather than a 7.8. They say the only reason why the death toll wasn't in the hundreds for '89 was because people weren't on the roads like they usually would have been because of the World Series.

Edited December 26, 2013 by methodwriter85

[hh5]

it was an 8.3 Richter(10x) so why isn't it 6.04 (30x)?

 

Could have the california gold rush trigger the earthquake since hundreds of tons of gold and rock has been removed?

 

Probably not well. Liquefaction was an issue with the 1989 quake, and I imagine that it's still an issue. Also, a lot of the buildings that were built from the 1910's to the 1970's weren't built as strongly as they could have been, and while retrofitting helps...it's still probably not going to be pretty.  I mean seriously, look at the damage of the 1989 quake, and that was a 6.9 rather than a 7.8. They say the only reason why the death toll wasn't in the hundreds for '89 was because people weren't on the roads like they usually would have been because of the World Series.

Edited December 30, 2013 by hh5