In every area of the world where there is earthquake risk, there are still many buildings of this type; it is very frustrating to try to get rid of them.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Japan's humid and warm summer climate, as well as frequent earthquakes resulted in lightweight timber buildings raised off the ground that are resistant to earth tremors.
We shall not have succeeded in demolishing everything unless we demolish the ruins as well. But the only way I can see of doing that is to use them to put up a lot of fine, well-designed buildings.
Nuclear power plants built in the areas usually thought of as earthquake zones, such as the California coastline, have a surprisingly low risk of damage from those earthquakes. Why? They built anticipating a major quake.
I usually point out that most loss of life and property has been due to the collapse of antiquated and unsafe structures, mostly of brick and other masonry.
Even with good maps, there's no guarantee that the public will get the word about landslide hazards, or that state and local governments will take action to discourage or prevent building in dangerous areas.
Disasters happen. We still have no way to eliminate earthquakes, wildfires, hurricanes, floods or droughts. We cope as best we can by fortifying ourselves against danger with building codes and levees, and by setting aside money to clean up afterwards.
I don't see that any buildings should be excluded from the term architecture, as long as they are done properly.
Chile's mines are very dangerous; the country has a lot of earthquakes.
We build buildings which are terribly restless. And buildings don't go anywhere. They shouldn't be restless.
I love buildings that aren't purpose-built.
No opposing quotes found.