9 ms·

"Who wants to take that risk?" I do, Japanese society in general is ridiculously risk-averse, and IMHO this is the perfect example. You take risks everyday you

"Who wants to take that risk?" I do, Japanese society in general is ridiculously risk-averse, and IMHO this is the perfect example. You take risks everyday you don't even know/think off, which are likely multiple orders of magnitude higher than you dying on an earthquake even if you are in the riskiest position. E.g. in the worst earthquake last few decades (2011) and only ~600 (4% of deaths) people died because of the earthquake itself. Even if that happened every year, it wouldn't be in the top 10 causes of death, probably not even top 100 (Japan has 1.2 million deaths/year). If you are even slightly conscious/purposeful about this, you can do a thousand things with the money you save NOT rebuilding a house in Japan to lenghten your life that are a lot more effective. About cost, I don't know enough about architecture to tell about earthquakes, but in non-earthquake areas a house built costing 2x as another one (everything else being equal and focusing the extra cost on quality/durability) will go from lasting X years to basically forever, or at least a much much larger timeframe than 2X. Assuming earthquake are similar (I suspect not), cost should definitely be worse if you have to rebuild every 20-40 years than if multiple generations lived in the same house! IMHO in Spain (low geo mobility, long-time housing duration) that's a big deal and basically why, while it is a "salary poor" country, people have relatively good lives. That's why most people also go somewhere else for summer holidays, either a family second house, a friends house, etc.

Gatsky 4y ago
The downside of this is that preserving 'heritage' architecture is a potent form of NIMBYism. It has reached ridiculous proportions in Australia, where ugly (but solid) architecture from 40 years ago needs to be preserved at all costs. We would all like to live in Venice of course, but when the population of your city is growing fast, this kind of thing is a big problem.
midoridensha 4y ago
>E.g. in the worst earthquake last few decades (2011) and only ~600 (4% of deaths) people died because of the earthquake itself. "Only" 600 people died because buildings were constructed to withstand earthquakes. Contrast that with other countries where buildings are not well-constructed, and an earthquake kills tens of thousands. According to you, buildings should NOT be made to withstand earthquakes, and should instead be preserved because they're old, and then when the whole city collapses due to an earthquake, killing hundreds of thousands, you'll just wring your hands about the poor old buildings lost. The fact is that engineering gets better over time as architects and structural engineers learn better how to design buildings to handle earthquakes while also being attractive, comfortable, energy-efficient, etc. You can't do that with old buildings; retrofitting an old building to improve its performance in these ways (even if it's possible) will always be MUCH more expensive than just tearing down the building and erecting a new one, just like trying to retrofit a 60s Mustang to perform like a new one will cost millions. There's a reason housing costs in Japan aren't high compared to, e.g. America, and keeping unsafe, ancient buildings around long past their good-by date isn't one of them.

Gatsky 4y ago

The downside of this is that preserving 'heritage' architecture is a potent form of NIMBYism. It has reached ridiculous proportions in Australia, where ugly (but solid) architecture from 40 years ago needs to be preserved at all costs. We would all like to live in Venice of course, but when the population of your city is growing fast, this kind of thing is a big problem.

midoridensha 4y ago

>E.g. in the worst earthquake last few decades (2011) and only ~600 (4% of deaths) people died because of the earthquake itself. "Only" 600 people died because buildings were constructed to withstand earthquakes. Contrast that with other countries where buildings are not well-constructed, and an earthquake kills tens of thousands. According to you, buildings should NOT be made to withstand earthquakes, and should instead be preserved because they're old, and then when the whole city collapses due to an earthquake, killing hundreds of thousands, you'll just wring your hands about the poor old buildings lost. The fact is that engineering gets better over time as architects and structural engineers learn better how to design buildings to handle earthquakes while also being attractive, comfortable, energy-efficient, etc. You can't do that with old buildings; retrofitting an old building to improve its performance in these ways (even if it's possible) will always be MUCH more expensive than just tearing down the building and erecting a new one, just like trying to retrofit a 60s Mustang to perform like a new one will cost millions. There's a reason housing costs in Japan aren't high compared to, e.g. America, and keeping unsafe, ancient buildings around long past their good-by date isn't one of them.