5 ms·

You also have to factor in the risk of earthquakes. Los Angeles doesn't have frequent earthquakes, but because it's near a fault-line, that tail risk has to be

You also have to factor in the risk of earthquakes. Los Angeles doesn't have frequent earthquakes, but because it's near a fault-line, that tail risk has to be addressed (the same way one wears a seatbelt, even though car accidents happen only a couple times in an individual's life).

necovek 5y ago
I never knew that wood construction was considered safer than concrete construction when it comes to earthquakes. Even the smallest of residential houses here (Serbia) are constructed with reinforced concrete as the base and reinforced concrete pillars, with brick walls filling in between the pillars and floors and ceilings: basically, a house is a reinforced concrete box that can move independently from the ground, and that's supposed to guarantee earthquake stability (it's definitely not done for fire reasons, since roof construction is still predominantly wooden). Construction standards have been heavily modified post-1963 Skopje earthquake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Skopje_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Skopje_earthquake). Buildings such as Ušće tower, built in this style, have not survived a big earthquake, but I imagine surviving a couple of tomahawk missiles is a good enough reassurance of stability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%A1%C4%87e_Towers#NATO_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%A1%C4%87e_Towers#NATO_bom... (though I am fully aware that earthquakes and missiles are completely different when it comes to shocks a building experiences). Interestingly, concrete based construction is one of the cheapest around here, possibly because most houses are built that way. So I wonder, how prevalent is reinforced concrete use for houses in USA and esp California? Are there many houses and buildings built with insufficiently-reinforced concrete? I know that wood is a predominant construction choice, but what type of reinforced concrete are you comparing it to?

necovek 5y ago

I never knew that wood construction was considered safer than concrete construction when it comes to earthquakes. Even the smallest of residential houses here (Serbia) are constructed with reinforced concrete as the base and reinforced concrete pillars, with brick walls filling in between the pillars and floors and ceilings: basically, a house is a reinforced concrete box that can move independently from the ground, and that's supposed to guarantee earthquake stability (it's definitely not done for fire reasons, since roof construction is still predominantly wooden). Construction standards have been heavily modified post-1963 Skopje earthquake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Skopje_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Skopje_earthquake). Buildings such as Ušće tower, built in this style, have not survived a big earthquake, but I imagine surviving a couple of tomahawk missiles is a good enough reassurance of stability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%A1%C4%87e_Towers#NATO_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%A1%C4%87e_Towers#NATO_bom... (though I am fully aware that earthquakes and missiles are completely different when it comes to shocks a building experiences). Interestingly, concrete based construction is one of the cheapest around here, possibly because most houses are built that way. So I wonder, how prevalent is reinforced concrete use for houses in USA and esp California? Are there many houses and buildings built with insufficiently-reinforced concrete? I know that wood is a predominant construction choice, but what type of reinforced concrete are you comparing it to?