The earthquake that struck Chile on Saturday measured a whopping 8.8 in magnitude, making it 500 times more powerful than the 7.0 quake that struck Haiti in late January. Still, the death toll in Chile — which has recently topped 700, hardly an insignificant tragedy – is a mere .3% of the estimated 250,000 that died in and around Port-au-Prince.
So what saved the South American country from the Caribbean nation’s levels of death and destruction?
The economic answer is that Chile is a modernized and industrialized nation, with a per capita economic output that’s more than 10 times larger than Haiti’s. As such, building codes are far stricter and better-enforced, emergency resources are more available, and the population is better educated as to the safest places to take refuge. The earth science answer, as the BBC News points out, is that the Chile quake’s epicenter was 21 miles underground and occurred off-shore, meaning it was 70 miles from the nearest large city, Concepcion. Meanwhile, in Haiti, the epicenter was only 8 miles underground and located right next to the capital city.
But another key reason is the buildings themselves. After a massive 9.5 earthquake hit the country in 1960 (the strongest ever recorded), the Chilean government developed a seismic design code for all new buildings, shown in the image above. According to AIR Worldwide, the country’s building codes were revised again in 1993 to include significant advances over previous versions. And they were wise to do so, given the frequency with which Chile experiences quakes: the country gets hit with a magnitude 7 or higher quake at least once every five years, meaning that the earthquake awareness, both in engineering and building codes, is superior. As the BBC describes it:
One system that helps [Chile's] buildings stay up is called the “strong columns weak beams” system.
The idea is that buildings are held up by reinforced concrete columns, which are strengthened by a steel frame.
Reinforced concrete beams are joined onto the columns to make floors and the roof.
If there is an earthquake, the idea is that the concrete on the beams should break near the end, which dissipates a lot of the energy of the earthquake, but that the steel reinforcement should survive and the columns should stay standing, which means the building will stay upright.
Granted, even the best buildings aren’t perfect — the damage from Saturday’s quake is estimated to be in the range of $15 billion to $30 billion, according to EQECAT Inc., a catastrophe modeling company. But the property damage and loss of life are a stark comparison to the utter devastation that continues to plague Haiti.
Image: BBC News
March 1st, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I just knew someone had to have written about this.
It’s not the building codes. It’s their wealth. It’s the structures themselves that stood the test, not some bureaucratic enforced legislation.
The idea, that without government enforced building codes, that a country’s infrastructure would be weaker is ludicrous. What apartment complex, business park, high rise, or hotel would invest their capital in a structurally unsound structure? Risk their occupants, customers or owners lives? NO ONE! And if they did, they wouldn’t stay in business.
The market would create private rating agencies to rate the soundness of all structures. There would then be competition to occupy/own/rent the soundest structures around. Structures would be 10x sounder than these currently met building codes. After all, once you meet the governments standard, what motivation do you have to improve them? NONE!
March 1st, 2010 at 2:19 pm
This post should be re-titled “Why Regulation Matters”.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Josh - businesses cut corners all the time to save money to be more competitive. Unfortuantely your “market” solution is idealist and assumes that everyone is completely rational and thinking in the long-term and about the well-being of their stakeholders. I’m sure that if everyone was like you or I
Because Capitalism is an ideology of self-interest, without regulation there will always be those who cut corners to save money. It’s why we have regulation in the first place.
As for the comment about apartment complexes you obviously have never had to deal with a landlord who refuses to fix vital infrastructure in a building or house. Where I live this is a constant problem, and recently it came out that Burmese refugees were living with no heat in the middle of winter, with nowhere to turn but the City government. Also, many of the buildings are owned by slumlords who live out-of-state and do not invest AT ALL in their buildings - only recently has the City issued and enforced an anti-blight ordinance and issued citations to the property owners. Many of the houses are industrial-revolution era (late 1800s) and are so dilapitated they wouldn’t stand a chance in any earthquake or major disaster.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Josh,
It seems to be a function of both wealth AND regulation. “The market would create private rating agencies to rate the soundness of all structures.” Like the rating agencies that did the same thing for the soundness of derivatives? Thing is, without far-sighted legislation, people will take risks to make or save a quick buck. Even if rating agencies exist, human beings just don’t usually pay attention to such things until it’s too late and the once in a century earthquake has wrecked havoc.
Do you really think that buyers or renters are (or ever will be) more concerned with the structural soundness of buildings (even in places like Santiago or Los Angeles) than with price, space, location, etc. when they are looking to buy or to rent?
March 1st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Building standards are perhaps the primary reason for the limited damage in Chile, but it may also be worthwhile to point out that the geological characteristics of the Chilean quake muted its impact on the country’s populated regions by comparison to the Haitian quake.
March 1st, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Regulations on building safety do not prevent property owners from upgrading into a higher seismic performance category. In fact, some owners do this on their own volition (see LDS church tabernacle at http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=951).
The problem with allowing free markets to set requirements for structural safety is that very few people have an intuitive understanding of infrequent catastrophic events. A massive earthquake may only happen every 500-2000 years at a given map location, but allowing every nearby building to collapse when it occurs would be bad policy.
Building codes and enforcement are vitally important in modern society, especially when considering essential services such as fire stations, highways, hospitals, and water supply. For most structures in the US, building codes only require that designers preserve life safety (i.e. no collapsing). Thus, compliance is not too expensive.
March 1st, 2010 at 5:09 pm
“The market would create private rating agencies to rate the soundness of all structures.”
Those agencies would compete for clients by being more and more congenial to them and less and less stringent.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:31 pm
[...] effective government can be the difference in a disaster. And to that point, The Infrastructurist points out that good government means “building codes are far stricter and better-enforced, emergency [...]
March 1st, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Even if the magnitude of the quakes were equal, you would still see enormous damage in Haiti versus Chile. The buliding codes definitely help reduce the amount of damage. Another look at how economic status helps improve things.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:14 pm
It also helps that the earthquakes had different oscillatory frequencies: smaller buildings resonated better (experienced more stress) in Haiti.
March 1st, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Josh: Is the free market building zone 4 designs in the St Louis? In Memphis? Or are they building lightly reinforced concrete or CMU structures?
March 1st, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Josh -
You said this:
“What apartment complex, business park, high rise, or hotel would invest their capital in a structurally unsound structure? Risk their occupants, customers or owners lives? NO ONE! And if they did, they wouldn’t stay in business.”
That’s what they said about the banks and the financial industry in general too. We all know how well that worked. After the dust settled, Alan Greenspan this: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms … I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”
I assume, by your “market” solution, there would be a wide array of buildings with various structural safety levels. Ostensibly the cheaper the building, the less structurally safe it would be. This would effectively force the poorest people to live in unsafe buildings. Third world country, here we come!
Think deregularion works? Look at the airline industry. It’s craptacular!
To sum things up I will say this: what you wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever read. At no point were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this site is now dumber for having read it.
Thank you.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:34 am
I was going to make the point Eric made. The US has strong building codes against earthquakes….in california. There have been large earthquakes around Boston and the midwest. Are these cities prepared for the next 8.0? Or like haiti, does the frequency, once every 250 years, mean there are no earthquake codes?
After all, Josh’s free market would argue that a building has a usable life of 100 years or less. If an earthquake comes along every 250 years, then there is no reason to build to withstand earthquakes.
Ditto with hurricanes. While a direct strike in Miami causes huge damages….they build for hurricanes. Is NYC prepared for a direct hit? Are all those glass curtains strong enough?
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:39 am
[...] Infrastructurist credits reinforced concrete columns, for the limited death toll. Anne Applebaum predicts an efficient recovery. And Matt Yglesias [...]
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:40 am
The geologic answer is independent of economics, but the infrastructure answer is not. Most countries have stringent economic regulations, including earthquake codes in earthquake zones; however, poverty and corruption are such that they are never followed. This was the problem in Turkey, where people would pay bribes to avoid regulations until the Izmit earthquake struck in 1999. The reason Concepcion did not have so much damage is that Chile is rich enough that builders follow earthquake regulations.
By the way, here’s an exercise to anyone who thinks the market should come up with its own self-enforcing codes: find an excuse for rating subprime mortgages AAA, and repeat it in front of a mirror enough times until you can say it with a straight face.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:12 am
I suggest reading Marc Reisner’s “A Dangerous Place” to see how both the private sector and our publicly-built trasnportation infrastructure might fare in a “big one” in Northern California Good government is absolutely necessary. Josh, transparency international rates government honesty and effetiveness across nations as one characteristic that helps business to thrive (this is a business-backed private rating system!). Rule of law is a basic fundamental of capitalism. Corruption, poor education, poor land ownership records, poor traasnprotation systems, and yes, shoddy buildng codes or corrupt local officials, can all hinder the development of wealth. Look at the poor job the U.S. does maintaining levies, as compared to, say, the Netherlands, where well-maintained levies protect some of the greatest private wealth in the world. It’s a chicken or an egg question, perhaps, but Chile is lucky to have realtive wealth and good building codes …
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I think the earthquake magnitude comparison is misleading. What matters is the effective magnitude when the seismic waves hit the structure. While the differences are clear in terms of preparation, I’d be surprised if the “500 times” were not an exaggeration. There seem to be at least 3 major variables affecting the impact of an earthquake: the effective magnitude at the structure, the type of wave involved (including direction and frequency of motion), and the duration of the event. Also, the observation that no one wants to be Haiti is pretty obvious: look at life expectancy, quality of life, and other factors, and the country looks like a disaster every day of the week. The earthquake was an extremely terrible punctuation in a long terrible story.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
[...] related discussions, see this piece from Fast Company and this piece from the Infrastructurist. The comments on the second piece include an interesting discussion of the extent to which Chilean [...]
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:20 pm
[...] compares building codes in Haiti and Chile. I hope we’re as well prepared as Chile was INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Comparing the earthquake magnitudes is not correct. More comparable is the ground shaking intensity. USGS maps show that ground shaking was higher (IX and X) in parts of Port-au-Prince while it was typically VIII (although over a very large area) in Chile. However, as I saw in Haiti while assessing building damage as a structural engineer that besides poor quality of construction it was lack of knowledge in the design of earthquake resistant buildings over there. Properly designed buildings will be damaged in large earthquakes but prevent collapse thus saving lives. This is what we witness in Chile where the codes dictated the building design and saved lives.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I just saw on Chilean TV that a group of Haitian refugees, now in Santiago, said that the 8.3° quake in Chile’s capital felt a lot stronger than the one in Port-au-Prince. Consequently, I agree with those who think that the difference in death toll lies mostly in the relative quality of buildings in the two cities. The worst areas are the coastal ones because of the tsunami and lighter, bungalow-type, construction.
June 19th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
[...] hasn’t already started a Building Codes Without Borders initiative, you’d think the contrast provided by the effect of earthquakes in Haiti and Chile would kick-start such an [...]