What a strange title, huh?
Well, I’m still plugging on with my research about commonalities in hauntings. From what I've seen so far, some cities around the country have all the right elements to have a higher percentage of hauntings than other cities. I can postulate that these cities should report more incidents of hauntings than other cities of similar size/population. There are lot more cities that could be included than these below, but they're a sampling of cities that show promise for "haunted stew."
Pittsburgh, PA (combination of sandstone/shale, railroad tracks, and waterways)
Atchison, KS (combination of limestone/shale, tons of railroad tracks, river)
Charleston, SC (combination of sedimentary rock/sandstone, railroad tracks, waterways)
Chicago, IL (combination of limestone/shale, tons of railroad tracks, water)
San Francisco, CA (combination of sandstone/sediment, tons of tracks, waterways)
Savannah, GA (combination of sandstone/limestone, tons of tracks, waterways)
Minneapolis, MN (combination of sandstone/shale, tons of tracks, waterways)
What I get so far from this research is that there appears to be ideal conditions for a haunting in the content of the land and the content of the building, but also in the events that occurred there. You can imagine that Savannah would be much more haunted than say Minneapolis just for the sort of history it’s seen, but my next question as I continue to research is…
Can a place have a traumatic history but none of the conditions and still be haunted???
I will continue my observations as I learn more.