haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
The recent destructive quakes in Mexico have focused US west coast attention on the chances for big quakes here. I think that Japan and California and Chile have very progressive earthquake aware building codes. and Chile has had some pretty big quakes recently that have demonstrated that these stringent codes make a very large difference.
There is recent controversy here in Seattle, with California and to some extent Portland mandating earthquake aware retrofits to make buildings safer, but Seattle is lagging behind. Old west coast cities like Seattle have a fair number of unreinforced masonry buildings (URM). It seems that the biggest risks here are from 2 different things, and mainly affect two different groups. External masonry like parapets falling on people in the sidewalk or street, and building collapse caused by unreinforced masonry bearing walls.
Here there is real resistance by building owners to retrofit expenses that may need hard to get rent increases to justify, especially in older apartment buildings.
I live in an area built fairly close to bed rock, (no fill) in a low rise 1980s wood frame with stucco cladding that while not quite ideal, is not half bad. My GF lives in a true high rise building with pilings and a welded steel frame with cast concrete panels. My son who still lives here lives in a new frame house, but works in a old downtown brick building, which however has apparently been reinforced to code earthquake standards.
I had friends who had narrow escapes in the 1971 San Fernando quake in LA. I lived at the beach, and felt heavy shaking, but very minor damage to my duplex.
I am in favor of acting to increase earthquake survival and shortening recovery time. I think any masonry that might kill people walking below should have mandated remediation. I might be less aware if I had not almost been taken out by a damn steel sign that came down during an autumn storm as I was walking below. Missed me by 5 feet.
Ha
There is recent controversy here in Seattle, with California and to some extent Portland mandating earthquake aware retrofits to make buildings safer, but Seattle is lagging behind. Old west coast cities like Seattle have a fair number of unreinforced masonry buildings (URM). It seems that the biggest risks here are from 2 different things, and mainly affect two different groups. External masonry like parapets falling on people in the sidewalk or street, and building collapse caused by unreinforced masonry bearing walls.
Here there is real resistance by building owners to retrofit expenses that may need hard to get rent increases to justify, especially in older apartment buildings.
I live in an area built fairly close to bed rock, (no fill) in a low rise 1980s wood frame with stucco cladding that while not quite ideal, is not half bad. My GF lives in a true high rise building with pilings and a welded steel frame with cast concrete panels. My son who still lives here lives in a new frame house, but works in a old downtown brick building, which however has apparently been reinforced to code earthquake standards.
I had friends who had narrow escapes in the 1971 San Fernando quake in LA. I lived at the beach, and felt heavy shaking, but very minor damage to my duplex.
I am in favor of acting to increase earthquake survival and shortening recovery time. I think any masonry that might kill people walking below should have mandated remediation. I might be less aware if I had not almost been taken out by a damn steel sign that came down during an autumn storm as I was walking below. Missed me by 5 feet.
Ha
Last edited: