Damn. A 5.0 is a lot more potentially dangerous than people think, outside of areas with hardcore earthquake-proof-building regulations like SF and LA. In Manhattan, a 5.0 could cause some very serious damage and a lot of deaths because so many of the buildings are unreinforced brick masonry. The skyscrapers would be okay, but your brownstone wouldn't be very pleasant afterwards.
(And just to give Manhattanites a little something extra to worry about, there are actually major fault lines running right under Union Square and 125th St. The Big One will hit NYC one day, too, just like in SF and LA. Except we're not the least bit prepared in NY.)
That is so true. I'm a born and bred Kalifornian and quakes under 6.0 don't bother me in the least because of the geology of the ground and placement of the faults here. 5.0's hit quite frequently in the Mammoth Lakes area of the Sierra Nevada and shake us pretty good here, but little damage occurs. Also because of the building codes, most of your newer buildings suffer very little damage, even in large quakes. Remember Loma Prieta? Except for the Nimitz Frwy, the most damage was to older buildings, especialy on unstable landfill.
Abount 14 years ago I went to Cinninati and was in an antique store in Covington when a large truck rumbled by. The whole building shook violently and scared the wits out of this Kalifornia girl! It was an unreinforced brick 3 story home at least 100 years old.