3 ms·

Most Japanese want to buy a new house because they want an earthquake-resistant house. You don't want you and your family buried under rubble.

marak830 3y ago
Anything after 81 has to comply with the "Building Standard Act: Earthquake Resistance Standards" that was passed. Which, interestingly enough passed due to the 41 Fukui earthquake. Although telling this to my Japanese wife - whilst living in Japan and apartment shopping - doesn't stop her from thinking newer is better(despite obvious examples of this not being true).
- midoridensha 3y ago
  For the most part, it IS true. Anything built before ~1982 is too dangerous because of the standards upgrade you mentioned (1981 isn't safe enough: houses take some time to construct, so some from that year don't meet those standards because they were started earlier), but there was another standards upgrade around ~2001 (because of the '95 earthquake in Kobe), so homes built after that time are yet another step higher in safety. Another factor is renovations: many buildings go through scheduled renovations after 20 years, which can be disruptive (you have to move out temporarily). A newer building is farther from that point.
  - marak830 3y ago
    I did not know this. Thankyou, I will research and adjust my point of view :bow:
- minebreaker 3y ago
  These earthquake standards are updated frequently. Kumamoto earthquake mentioned in the other comment is a typical example. Nowadays many believe Level-3 is a must(耐震強度3. I don't know about the U.S. equivalent. Do they even have one?). I don't know about your wife's case. Some people believe earthquakes are like the lottery (and there are a few people who believe it's a god's will. Like Shintaro Ishihara after the 3.11 earthquake).
  - marak830 3y ago
    You are correct my wife is more of a 'somethibg could happen randomly' VA my science approach. Both approaches have their advantages.

marak830 3y ago

Anything after 81 has to comply with the "Building Standard Act: Earthquake Resistance Standards" that was passed. Which, interestingly enough passed due to the 41 Fukui earthquake. Although telling this to my Japanese wife - whilst living in Japan and apartment shopping - doesn't stop her from thinking newer is better(despite obvious examples of this not being true).

midoridensha 3y ago
For the most part, it IS true. Anything built before ~1982 is too dangerous because of the standards upgrade you mentioned (1981 isn't safe enough: houses take some time to construct, so some from that year don't meet those standards because they were started earlier), but there was another standards upgrade around ~2001 (because of the '95 earthquake in Kobe), so homes built after that time are yet another step higher in safety. Another factor is renovations: many buildings go through scheduled renovations after 20 years, which can be disruptive (you have to move out temporarily). A newer building is farther from that point.
- marak830 3y ago
  I did not know this. Thankyou, I will research and adjust my point of view :bow:
minebreaker 3y ago
These earthquake standards are updated frequently. Kumamoto earthquake mentioned in the other comment is a typical example. Nowadays many believe Level-3 is a must(耐震強度3. I don't know about the U.S. equivalent. Do they even have one?). I don't know about your wife's case. Some people believe earthquakes are like the lottery (and there are a few people who believe it's a god's will. Like Shintaro Ishihara after the 3.11 earthquake).
- marak830 3y ago
  You are correct my wife is more of a 'somethibg could happen randomly' VA my science approach. Both approaches have their advantages.