mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...4-LA-quake-caused-widespread-devastation.html
What did we learn from it?
What did we learn from it?
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
25 years ago LA quake
- Thread starter mtlogcabin
- Start date
ADAguy
REGISTERED
Not nearly enough to require upgrades to older commercial buildings.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Cutting Codes to save money, "Cutting Codes" https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...osts-of-construction.24715/page-4#post-192677
Doesn't work in CA.
Whiners complain about Steel in Type V construction.
"not the way we built it in the "60's"
Well Ya, here is a reason for that.
Doesn't work in CA.
Whiners complain about Steel in Type V construction.
"not the way we built it in the "60's"
Well Ya, here is a reason for that.
If you think that the problems were only with old commercial buildings you need to learn more about why those buildings failed.
While the idea of upgrading older building is seductive the consequences of this are really messy. First you need to decide how safe is safe enough. Remember that there is no such thing as an earthquake proof building.
Building codes like many other laws are compromises. We would have fewer automobile deaths if we lowered the speed limits but we don't. Consider the costs and the impact it will have on ownership of buildings and the rent charged. What will be the impact on individuals and businesses displaced during the upgrading.
What we know and our seismic building codes have changed greatly over the last 50 years. Thus an argument could be made that many if not most of the older existing buildings are not strong enough. Does this mean that they all should be strengthened? Where do we draw the line? To make it personal what would your reaction be if you were required to seismically strengthen your house.
While there are a lot of messy issues around earthquake risks it is clear that reducing enforcement, as some seem to be suggesting, to reduce construction costs does not make sense.
While the idea of upgrading older building is seductive the consequences of this are really messy. First you need to decide how safe is safe enough. Remember that there is no such thing as an earthquake proof building.
Building codes like many other laws are compromises. We would have fewer automobile deaths if we lowered the speed limits but we don't. Consider the costs and the impact it will have on ownership of buildings and the rent charged. What will be the impact on individuals and businesses displaced during the upgrading.
What we know and our seismic building codes have changed greatly over the last 50 years. Thus an argument could be made that many if not most of the older existing buildings are not strong enough. Does this mean that they all should be strengthened? Where do we draw the line? To make it personal what would your reaction be if you were required to seismically strengthen your house.
While there are a lot of messy issues around earthquake risks it is clear that reducing enforcement, as some seem to be suggesting, to reduce construction costs does not make sense.
Lisaban86a
REGISTERED
everything is slowly going underground
Lisaban86a
REGISTERED
I saw it in www.google.com
ADAguy
REGISTERED
Owners who resist should be aware that it is "they" who will pay when the tenants in their buildings die.
It is a risk vs reward decision that they "choose" to make, or not.
Ultimately it is the "suits" who will "feast" after each event.
It is a risk vs reward decision that they "choose" to make, or not.
Ultimately it is the "suits" who will "feast" after each event.