

The Power of Building Codes: Chile Death Toll Less Than 1% That of Haiti - martian
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/03/01/the-power-of-building-codes-chile-death-toll-less-than-1-that-of-haiti/

======
Semiapies
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.

~~~
tibbon
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.

~~~
wmf
That sounds a lot like the broken window fallacy.

~~~
xsmasher
No, claiming that the earthquake damage stimulates the economy would be the
broken window fallacy. Aside from being a simple safety measure, building
codes are more like insurance - you're making this investment in a building,
let's spend a little more money to make sure it's going to survive fire,
flood, and quakes. Same with safety standards on cars.

Insurance is always a gamble; if you buy it and never use it, you lose. If you
don't buy it and later need it, you lose. This assumes you have the money for
the insurance of course; Haiti did not have the money for insurance or seat-
belts, and got thrown from the car into a concrete pylon.

~~~
camccann
Claiming that the stricter building codes would stimulate the economy is
arguably also the same fallacy, just without the obvious net-negative of the
"broken window" case.

On the other hand, even disregarding the risk mitigation, it's also arguable
that the seemingly burdensome building codes would inflict no appreciable
_harm_ on the economy, for exactly the same reasons that the broken window
fallacy sounds plausible.

~~~
xsmasher
Agreed that if no disaster occurs then the building code is just moving money
around from one industry to another, with no net benefit.

If disaster does occur than the code has prevented the destruction of capital,
and therefore has benefited the economy -- maybe not "stimulated", but
benefited by preventing a greater loss.

------
kqr2
Does anyone know how Chilean building codes compare to San Francisco Bay Area
codes?

Would the Bay Area have fared as well if it had suffered a 8.8 magnitude
quake?

~~~
akd
No - Bay Area is a strike-slip fault whereas Chile is a subduction zone

------
tjic
This isn't the power of building codes.

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
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).

~~~
dpatru
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.

~~~
brazzy
Your trust in people's rationality and long-term thinking is rather sweet, but
history disagrees. Case in point: seat belts. Proven to be life-saving
devices, but people just wouldn't wear them because "how dare you suggest I am
a bad driver?!?"

As for insurance companies - between people simply doing without insurance
because those meddlesome insurance companies have all those ridiculous
requirements and insurers making a quick buck by competing on low requirements
and going bankrupt when the quake hits, you'd be asking for government
regulation pretty quickly.

~~~
Semiapies
Municipalities would miss out on a lot of traffic ticket money if laws made
people wear seatbelts; not the best example.

~~~
brazzy
Actually it's a perfect example. That people still won't wear the seatbelt
when they're not just running a small risk to lose their life, but
additionally a not quite as small risk to pay a fine shows that people suck at
dealing with risks - or maybe that they're careless and forgetful, but
designing a building isn't the kind of thing where you just _forget_ an
important step (ín part because it's feasible to inspect every single building
for compliance, as opposed to inspecting every single auto driver and
passenger).

~~~
Semiapies
_"designing a building isn't the kind of thing where you just forget an
important step"_

Nor is having a building built much like getting into a car and "forgetting"
to put on a seatbelt. If anything, I think your point makes the example less
relevant.

 _"ín part because it's feasible to inspect every single building for
compliance"_

Absent corruption of the inspection process. Turkey had building codes _and_
many wrecked buildings after the last major earthquake that had "passed"
inspection due to money changing hands under the table.

~~~
brazzy
No, it is _your_ example that is made less relevant.

~~~
Semiapies
The only example here is yours - I didn't bring up seatbelts.

~~~
brazzy
You brought up people not wearing seatbelts despite laws, apparently implying
that building codes would not be followed as well.

This point is invalidated by my observation because with seat-belt laws, the
entity passing the law cannot realistically inspect compliance in every case
while with building codes, it can.

Additionally, while seat-belt laws have not achieved 100% compliance, they
_have_ raised rates of seat-belt use from from 11% in 1981 to 68% in 1997

~~~
Semiapies
_"You brought up people not wearing seatbelts despite laws, apparently
implying that building codes would not be followed as well."_

I pointed out that seatbelts were a bad example for your argument. All you've
done is emphasize that seatbelts _are_ a bad example that don't fit what
you're trying to say about building codes.

As as per the Turkey example, one would hope you're willing to acknowledge
that even with the ability to inspect every structure, such factors as
corruption, poor inspectors, bad inspection practices, plain human error, etc.
mean that the we _cannot_ assume universal compliance.

As important as building codes are, there are factors entirely separate from
the codes themselves that determine how well they're actually followed.

" _while seat-belt laws have not achieved 100% compliance, they have raised
rates of seat-belt use_ "

I'm afraid you can't firmly demonstrate that relationship; 1981-1997 was also
a period of extremely heavy propagandizing to _get_ people to wear seatbelts.

------
noonespecial
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.

------
vaksel
from what I read, it wasn't the building codes that made the difference, but
the soil type

~~~
martian
Curious if you have a reference for that?

~~~
freetard
Here it goes: <http://wpparty.com/tag/lucky-this-time/>

Not only the soil was different but the depth and location of the epicenter
were not comparable:

"Saturday’s quake was centered offshore an estimated 21 miles (34 kilometers)
underground in a relatively unpopulated area while Haiti’s tectonic mayhem
struck closer to the surface — about 8 miles (13 kilometers) — and right on
the edge of Port-au-Prince, factors that increased its destructiveness.

In terms of energy released at the epicenter, the Chilean quake was 501 times
stronger. But energy dissipates rather quickly as distances grow from
epicenters — and the ground beneath Port-au-Prince is less stable by
comparison and “shakes like jelly,” says University of Miami geologist Tim
Dixon.

Survivors of Haiti’s quake described abject panic — much of it well-founded as
buildings imploded around them. Many Haitians grabbed cement pillars only to
watch them crumble in their hands."

