Aside from the "earth science" the article glosses over, there's always the trivial details like Chileans actually having the money to pay for buildings that meet these specs.
EDIT: And then there's the issue of emergency services, police, Chile not being a tiny island, etc.
I wonder though if the additional cost imposed by building code would actually be good for the local economy.
If it costs 2x as much to build a place, then that money is probably going (largely) back into the labor force. Yes, it would 'cost' more per building, but the long term effects would be high and the stimulus from the wages earned would also be significant.
The real problem is the initial investment. You need some stimulus to get developers building there to begin with otherwise you can't really kickstart the cycle.
Haiti has a GDP of $1,300 per person. As it turns out, about 40% of this is basically welfare from the rest of the world, but that is neither here nor there for the current argument. So, anyway, each Haitian is producing somewhere between $700 and $1,300 of value each year ... and likely eating 90% of that as food. The surplus that might possibly be generated in a given year is perhaps $100 or so per person.
This is the cold equation of building safety: there is no way that Haitians can possibly build earthquake proof buildings on 30 cents per day. I don’t care if the building code was five times stricter, or if there were roving gangs of armed building code enforcers – the buildings in Haiti are going to be made out of scrap metal, home-made cinder blocks, and substandard concrete.
The death toll in Chile was much lower because Chileans are more productive people - their per capita GDP is $15,000 - about 13 x the per capita GDP in Haiti.
Bump up producitivity by 13x and you can buy a lot of things.
Even being a free marketeer, building codes are one of the few government interventions that have had huge positive impact on society (i know, i know, there are others as well).
To the extent that people want earthquake/tsunami insurance, building codes could just as well be administered by insurance companies. (A structure that doesn't meet the insurance company's code would be more expensive to insure.) Also, insurance companies, because they have an incentive to mitigate their risk, would likely be quicker to adapt codes to new technology and information. If an idea is good, it doesn't require government, that is, people don't have to be forced to adopt good ideas.
There are plenty of examples of building codes (here in the US) that are mostly union motivated and actively discourage the adoption of safer buildings and new technology. It works both ways. Codes can be great, but they're also an excellent place to hide graft and selective enforcement.
But factors like distance of Epicenter from population centers? Depth of seismic disturbance? Geological nature of the soil? . . . to consider these things requires analysis and critical thought. That is asking way too much when a natural disaster is so recent in our collective memories. Especially one so easily capitalized on by news media.
[+] [-] Semiapies|16 years ago|reply
EDIT: And then there's the issue of emergency services, police, Chile not being a tiny island, etc.
[+] [-] tibbon|16 years ago|reply
If it costs 2x as much to build a place, then that money is probably going (largely) back into the labor force. Yes, it would 'cost' more per building, but the long term effects would be high and the stimulus from the wages earned would also be significant.
The real problem is the initial investment. You need some stimulus to get developers building there to begin with otherwise you can't really kickstart the cycle.
[+] [-] kqr2|16 years ago|reply
Would the Bay Area have fared as well if it had suffered a 8.8 magnitude quake?
[+] [-] akd|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjic|16 years ago|reply
This is the power of productivity.
Haiti has a GDP of $1,300 per person. As it turns out, about 40% of this is basically welfare from the rest of the world, but that is neither here nor there for the current argument. So, anyway, each Haitian is producing somewhere between $700 and $1,300 of value each year ... and likely eating 90% of that as food. The surplus that might possibly be generated in a given year is perhaps $100 or so per person.
This is the cold equation of building safety: there is no way that Haitians can possibly build earthquake proof buildings on 30 cents per day. I don’t care if the building code was five times stricter, or if there were roving gangs of armed building code enforcers – the buildings in Haiti are going to be made out of scrap metal, home-made cinder blocks, and substandard concrete.
The death toll in Chile was much lower because Chileans are more productive people - their per capita GDP is $15,000 - about 13 x the per capita GDP in Haiti.
Bump up producitivity by 13x and you can buy a lot of things.
...including earthquake resistant buildings.
[+] [-] jpcx01|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpatru|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vaksel|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bilbo0s|16 years ago|reply
But factors like distance of Epicenter from population centers? Depth of seismic disturbance? Geological nature of the soil? . . . to consider these things requires analysis and critical thought. That is asking way too much when a natural disaster is so recent in our collective memories. Especially one so easily capitalized on by news media.
[+] [-] martian|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] joeycfan|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]