| ▲ | markdown 2 hours ago |
| It's Japan though. They don't have non-resistant buildings. |
|
| ▲ | klausa 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There's plenty of old buildings here that are not built up to the latest standards; increasing exponentially the further you get from the core of a big city. Japan is _very good_ at tearing down old buildings and building better in their place; but it doesn't mean that there are zero old buildings around. |
| |
| ▲ | amelius an hour ago | parent [-] | | Wouldn't the not so strong old buildings have collapsed during previous quakes? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | asutekku 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Like half of the buildings are non-resistant since they are old and made of wood. IIRC only buildings built after 1991 are guaranteed to be earthquake resistant. |
| |
| ▲ | markdown an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Earthquakes didn't start in 1991. The Japanese have always had to live with earthquakes and build accordingly. | | |
| ▲ | klausa an hour ago | parent [-] | | For a long time "live with earthquakes and build accordingly" meant "make it easy to rebuild", not "engineer the structures to withstand the earthquakes". | | |
| |
| ▲ | crest an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | One of the reasons Japan uses wood for construction is that combined with their traditional building techniques it results in earthquake resistant buildings. |
|