The fire in a 400 shop mall in Rawalpindi in which at least 18 persons are reported to have died is another reminder that all is not well in terms of fire safety in buildings. Reports indicate that most victims became trapped and could not escape. My experience in several countries is that retail, commercial and hotel buildings are commonly unsafe in relation to their design features to protect occupants from fire. Perhaps the most common problem in developing and developed countries alike is that egress doors have locks that cannot be opened in a fire and escape routes are cluttered with stored goods.
Was this the case in this latest tragic example in Rawalpindi?
Friday, January 2, 2009
Monday, December 1, 2008
Risks of property reports for vendors
Consultants’ reports for vendors of properties are fraught with risk. In my view, it is unwise for consultants to carry out property inspections and prepare reports on behalf of vendors. These types of reports could amount to representations by vendors that could be challenged by future purchasers leading to claims against the vendors and the consultants who prepared such reports for vendors.
In today's very litigious environment (especially in relation to the building industry in New Zealand), I think it is unwise for vendors to commission any reports. Any existing reports known to vendors, in my view, should be disclosed up front, on the basis that prospective purchasers satisfy themselves, without influence by vendors or their consultants, as to the suitability of properties being sold.
In disclosing these reports, the point should be made that prospective purchasers should commission their own reports as they see as being necesssary.
In summary, I think vendors should make full disclosure and take no steps themselves to contradict any existing reports. In my view, this is prudent advice nowadays to all vendors contemplating commissioning their own reports for the purpose of selling property.
This seems to fly in the face of the principles of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) that are in place in England and Scotland.
In today's very litigious environment (especially in relation to the building industry in New Zealand), I think it is unwise for vendors to commission any reports. Any existing reports known to vendors, in my view, should be disclosed up front, on the basis that prospective purchasers satisfy themselves, without influence by vendors or their consultants, as to the suitability of properties being sold.
In disclosing these reports, the point should be made that prospective purchasers should commission their own reports as they see as being necesssary.
In summary, I think vendors should make full disclosure and take no steps themselves to contradict any existing reports. In my view, this is prudent advice nowadays to all vendors contemplating commissioning their own reports for the purpose of selling property.
This seems to fly in the face of the principles of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) that are in place in England and Scotland.
Financial costs to New Zealand society of leaky buildings
The financial and social costs of this situation are unprecedented in New Zealand and they are growing. This means that the lives of many New Zealanders and the costs to society will be adversely affected beyond the next decade.
The Parliamentary Library, “Background Note, Information Briefing Service for Members of Parliament”, 2002 estimated that 6,000 to 12,000 apartment dwellings may have weathertightness problems and on the basis of an average cost of repair of $20,000 the total estimated cost could be as much as $240 million. They refer to a Consumer magazine article of October 2002 in which it was advised that 220,000 homes were built over the previous decade and of those up to 40% (approximately 90,000) could be at risk with estimated repair costs of between $120 million and $1.8 billion. I assume those figures include apartment dwellings.
The estimated $20,000 repair cost per unit for apartment dwellings is too low, in my opinion. That may reflect the fact that in 2002 there was a greater view that targeted repair would suffice, but in 2008 the dominant view in most cases is that a full reclad with a cavity system is required. I would therefore increase the estimated cost per unit as more like $70,000. The cost of repairing many detached or semi-detached houses is $300,000 to $450,000 and some costs are much higher than that. I would propose, therefore, an average repair cost per dwelling unit as being $120,000. Assuming 90,000 dwelling units at $120,000 each to repair then the total cost would be $10.8 billion.
It is common for claimants and respondents to engage legal representation whether that is in the Court system or the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. Some respondents are successful in being removed from cases and that could cost them up to about $30,000. Others have to endure the full adjudication process only to be found with no liability and that can cost up to about $80,000 in legal and technical expert fees. Most cases settle by mediation but the costs are still significant. It is a common situation for there to be many parties.
A scenario of total average legal and technical expert costs for all parties in both adjudicated and mediated settlements may appear as follows:
Five parties each expending an average of $60,000 = $300,000 in fees per case.
With 90,000 dwelling units from 1992 some of those would be statute-barred as they would not have commenced legal proceedings in time. Assume 70,000 dwelling units were not statute-barred. Some of these units represent terraced houses and body corporate situations where there will be just one action taken on behalf of a group of owners. The fee costs will increase significantly in these cases, such as to $1 million per claim, but the average fee cost per dwelling unit will reduce.
Therefore, say 70,000 units at $200,000 per unit in fees gives $14 billion.
Assuming these figures are in the right order shows that the total fees equate to almost one and a half times the cost of actual repairs to the dwellings. Naturally, both calculations are open to debate as the assumptions could be questioned, but even a sensitivity analysis would show that the total costs to society are enormous and this is a situation that has not been recognised.
The total health care expenditure in New Zealand was about $10.7 billion in 2002 (Ministry of Health, 2004). The above figures indicate that the total cost of repairing leaking homes could be up to about $24.8 billion; over two and a half times the annual health expenditure of New Zealand. This is a burden placed upon a large number of New Zealanders.
There are further flow-on costs that become more difficult to measure but could well cost more than the initial problem. They include the following:
- Funding of the Weathertight Homes tribunal, adjudicators and assessors.
- Additional regulatory costs of the DBH
- Additional costs of processing building consents
- Court costs
Many parties to litigation are covered by insurance policies and the leaky building syndrome is having a direct affect of increasing premiums where those policies are still being offered.
Reference
Parliamentary Library, “Background Note, Information Briefing Service for Members of Parliament”, 2002/10 06 November 2002, http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/464AB9F9-B197-4B53-BE9F-4F411CB67877/360/0210LeakyBuildings1.pdf
Cost of fixing New Zealand's unhealthy homes
The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has just announced that it will cost $20 billion over the next decade to fix the country's unhealthy and energy-wasting homes. That's all very well, but there needs to be a primary focus on their state of repair and extent of subfloor dampness.
Over the years I have found many older buildings with excess dampness and subsequent mould growth. One significant source of exterior dampness which has had little cognisance is that of subfloor ground leading to severe interior dampness. Another is that of internally-produced moisture from such things as clothes dryers vented to the inside, drying clothes on the inside and a lack of ventilation with windows not being opened. Another is that of unflued gas heaters.
The number one focus should be on dealing with subfloor dampness and lack of ventilation problems and also to try to educate home occupants in the ways in which they can assist in keeping homes drier and more comfortable.
Over the years I have found many older buildings with excess dampness and subsequent mould growth. One significant source of exterior dampness which has had little cognisance is that of subfloor ground leading to severe interior dampness. Another is that of internally-produced moisture from such things as clothes dryers vented to the inside, drying clothes on the inside and a lack of ventilation with windows not being opened. Another is that of unflued gas heaters.
The number one focus should be on dealing with subfloor dampness and lack of ventilation problems and also to try to educate home occupants in the ways in which they can assist in keeping homes drier and more comfortable.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Building collapse in Haiti
The building collapse of a school in Haiti this month is a further reminder of the problems facing many third world countries in which political and social norms are not serving their people well.
Extralegal capital in the form of shanty towns, squatter developments and illegal buildings is a large part of economies of some countries. An earlier article in this blog site cites the following characteristics of some of these economies:
- Houses built on land with inadequately recorded ownership
- Lack of property rights
- Lack of enforceable transactions on property rights
- Unincorporated business with undefined liability
- Non-compliance of building with building codes
- Illegal buildings
- Corruption at national and local government levels
Haiti appears to have these characteristics. Irrational adherence to outdated traditions, a disregard for any building codes that may exist, and dense populations of people all trying to compete for limited resources and opportunities, are just some of the reasons for the problem.
Haiti is a relatively small land-mass attempting to support about nine million people. A plundering of resources by deforestation is one characteristic of this society. It is typical of many countries where too many people are trying to eke out a living on impoverished land where there are increasingly diminishing resources.
As with many other poor countries, the resource base is simply inadequate to fulfil the needs of most people and this leads to building structures for shelter (or in this case in Haiti, a school) using the most rudimentary methods and with minimal use of materials.
The pressure on the planet is well understood to be leading to increasing shortages of food and water. While building technology and construction knowledge using rational engineering principles should be accessible to people anywhere in the world, perpetual poverty in some countries and diminishing access to appropriate building materials is going to lead to many more building failures and loss of life in the future.
As New Zealand has experienced with leaky buildings, even having what was considered a world-leading building code is not sufficient if there are not the appropriate social and political norms in a society.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Speedy enactment of payment for the construction industry
The Master Builders Association Malaysia (MBAM) is pressing the Malaysian government for new legislation to deal with speedy payments within the construction industry due to the looming worldwide financial crisis.
Malaysia has been formulating a proposed Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act (CIPAA) for some time as several other countries have a similar act. They include New Zealand, the UK, Australia and Singapore. It appears that much of their act will be modeled on that of the New Zealand Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA).
The Act covers every construction, demolition and maintenance contract in New Zealand including buildings, roads, energy and services reticulation, mechanical, electrical and civil projects: in other words the management of our total infrastructure system.
The key to working within the CCA is correct documentation and understanding what it means. It starts with the contract documents, which should state the number of progress payments, intervals between payments, amount of each payment and the date each payment becomes due, otherwise for commercial projects, if these are not covered, the default provisions of the Act apply.
The major instruments of the Act are the Payment Claim and the Payment Schedule. The Payment Claim is the written claim by a payee (contractor or subcontractor etc.) to the payer (owner or contractor) for payment for work done. This claim must be in writing, identify the construction contract and the relevant period to which it applies, indicate a claimed amount and due date for payment and state that it is made under the CCA. For a residential contract the claim must be accompanied by written explanations of the process and the consequences of not responding or paying. The Payment Schedule is the payer’s response to the payee. To be valid the schedule must be in writing, identify the Act, identify the Payment Claim to which it relates and indicate a scheduled amount. If the scheduled amount is different from the claimed amount, the schedule must indicate how the amount was calculated, the reason for the difference and the reason for withholding payment. The scheduled payment must then be made within the timescale of the contract. Engineers and project managers need to be aware of these details of the Act, lest they be taken to task for negligence.
A poignant lesson to all those involved with administering construction contracts is the case of Canam Construction Ltd and George. The latter party was the principal of the contract who engaged a representative to act on its behalf, as many building professionals are routinely engaged to do. A summary of the lessons to be learnt in this case is as follows:
Adjudication under the CCA is different from other existing forms of dispute resolution such as mediation, arbitration and litigation in the courts. It was designed to be neutral and confidential but also quicker, easier and cheaper than the other forms of dispute resolution. Adjudicators need to have a good understanding of practical building processes, how the industry operates, building law and general law pertaining to such things as evidence. This is why engineers, architects and other building professionals, with specific training often make good adjudicators. In practice there are very few building professionals who are not affected by the Act.
Although Adjudication is a relatively new process, there are now a number of trained Adjudicators throughout New Zealand. How you select a trained Adjudicator depends on whether the parties agree or not. If the parties agree, then whoever they agree on, can be simply selected by approaching that Adjudicator directly.
Malaysia has been formulating a proposed Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act (CIPAA) for some time as several other countries have a similar act. They include New Zealand, the UK, Australia and Singapore. It appears that much of their act will be modeled on that of the New Zealand Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA).
The Act covers every construction, demolition and maintenance contract in New Zealand including buildings, roads, energy and services reticulation, mechanical, electrical and civil projects: in other words the management of our total infrastructure system.
The key to working within the CCA is correct documentation and understanding what it means. It starts with the contract documents, which should state the number of progress payments, intervals between payments, amount of each payment and the date each payment becomes due, otherwise for commercial projects, if these are not covered, the default provisions of the Act apply.
The major instruments of the Act are the Payment Claim and the Payment Schedule. The Payment Claim is the written claim by a payee (contractor or subcontractor etc.) to the payer (owner or contractor) for payment for work done. This claim must be in writing, identify the construction contract and the relevant period to which it applies, indicate a claimed amount and due date for payment and state that it is made under the CCA. For a residential contract the claim must be accompanied by written explanations of the process and the consequences of not responding or paying. The Payment Schedule is the payer’s response to the payee. To be valid the schedule must be in writing, identify the Act, identify the Payment Claim to which it relates and indicate a scheduled amount. If the scheduled amount is different from the claimed amount, the schedule must indicate how the amount was calculated, the reason for the difference and the reason for withholding payment. The scheduled payment must then be made within the timescale of the contract. Engineers and project managers need to be aware of these details of the Act, lest they be taken to task for negligence.
A poignant lesson to all those involved with administering construction contracts is the case of Canam Construction Ltd and George. The latter party was the principal of the contract who engaged a representative to act on its behalf, as many building professionals are routinely engaged to do. A summary of the lessons to be learnt in this case is as follows:
- A Payment Claim (in accordance with the CCA) submitted by a contractor must be paid by the principal, or if disputed, that must be done by way of a Payment Schedule as described above. No amount of correspondence that may be seen to be correct in terms of the conditions of contract is acceptable in the absence of a valid Payment Schedule.
- Based on the “pay now and ask questions later” principle any associated disputes that lead to the principal not wanting to pay the full amount of the Payment Claim would have to be dealt with separately, possibly by going to adjudication as described below.
- To have these disputes brought in as an integral part of the payment in question, they would need to be properly written into the Payment Schedule.
- In the event of not accepting the amount claimed in the Payment Claim the Payment Schedule must indicate a scheduled amount that the payer proposes to pay. Valuation certificates and the like are not acceptable. These only form part of evidence to justify a Payment Schedule.
- Building professionals need to note that a Payment Schedule must be issued by the payer, usually the principal to the contract – the party to the contract that is liable for the payment. This flies in the face of standard contract procedure whereby the Engineer to the contract acts on behalf of and signs all documents on behalf of the principal. In practice, this would mean continuing to do all the usual preparation work and filling in the details of the Payment Schedule, but submitting the Payment Schedule under the name of the principal (which has to be the payer) and with the signature of the payer.
Adjudication under the CCA is different from other existing forms of dispute resolution such as mediation, arbitration and litigation in the courts. It was designed to be neutral and confidential but also quicker, easier and cheaper than the other forms of dispute resolution. Adjudicators need to have a good understanding of practical building processes, how the industry operates, building law and general law pertaining to such things as evidence. This is why engineers, architects and other building professionals, with specific training often make good adjudicators. In practice there are very few building professionals who are not affected by the Act.
Although Adjudication is a relatively new process, there are now a number of trained Adjudicators throughout New Zealand. How you select a trained Adjudicator depends on whether the parties agree or not. If the parties agree, then whoever they agree on, can be simply selected by approaching that Adjudicator directly.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Earthquake in Pakistan – October 2008
Another major earthquake has occurred; this time in Pakistan, of magnitude 6.4, on about 29 October 2008. As with many reported earthquakes, it caused death and devastation to an impoverished region.
Death and suffering from these earthquakes have a direct social and psychological impact on survivors. Economic consequences follow as a result of direct losses and there are enormous costs of organising the rescue operations and additional unbudgeted expenditure for rehabilitation. These outcomes eventuate due to political and social norms overriding knowledge and technology in earthquake mitigation.
In most of these earthquakes such colossal loss of life and damage to property could have been minimised if structures were designed and constructed in a manner to withstand seismic loads. Similar conclusions have been drawn in reports on devastation caused by other major earthquakes around the world, including New Zealand from the 1931 Napier earthquake.
Sufficient information is currently available worldwide to be able to construct buildings to withstand earthquake forces. Professional engineers and scientists, even in most developing countries, possess the necessary expertise, knowledge and skills to design and construct earthquake–resistant structures. There are many highly skilled earthquake engineers in New Zealand, the US and Japan, and in other countries, yet people do not always benefit from this sea of knowledge.
It is possibly a little known fact that the Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE) was hosted by India, and Indian delegations and speakers have actively participated in these conferences held every four years. In the Twelfth WCEE held in 2000 in Auckland, New Zealand, Prof. Anand S Arya contributed a paper titled “Non-engineered Construction in Developing Countries”.
“The safety of the non-engineered buildings from the fury of earthquakes is a subject of highest priority in view of the fact that in the moderate to severe seismic zones of the developing world more than 90 percent of the population is still living and working in such buildings, and that most losses of lives during earthquakes have occurred due to their collapse. ...
The present disaster management policies of the governments in the developing countries do not address the issue of preventive actions for the safety of such buildings toward seismic risk reduction… ... and the building by-laws of municipalities and corporations are silent about earthquake resistance in buildings. The Codes and Guidelines developed through the standard making bodies remain recommendatory documents of good engineering practices, and their implementation depends upon the decision of the Heads of Agencies, Departs (sic), Organisations, Institutions owning the buildings and structures in the public and private sectors. Private individuals have by and large remained uninformed” - Arya, 2000
Unfortunately, reports and recommendations of experts seem to have collected dust and got buried in the archives. Hence, the wealth of knowledge and experience available in most developing countries remains far from effective realisation for the benefit of the society.
Application of codes and standards is generally confined to the design of major industrial structures, bridges, power stations, water supply and wastewater disposal facilities, and other similar structures. These are mostly designed and supervised by private consultants or other specialist structural engineers having the required expertise and skills. However, the process of obtaining building permits and enforcement of codes and standards for design and construction of the majority of buildings in most developing countries is lax.
In smaller towns in India, for instance (characterised by Bhuj in Gujarat which was the worst affected area), seismic requirements are almost non-existent in building regulations for obtaining building permits.
In India and some other developing countries owners sometimes pay bribes to obtain building permits.
It appears that as time passes, people tend to forget the devastating effects of individual earthquakes. The value of good engineering practices also fades with time. Non-compliance of the building codes due to inadequate legislation continues to become a major factor in the construction of unsafe buildings.
It is common knowledge that Pakistan, India and many other developing countries are located in high seismically-active zones. It is also well known that New Zealand, like many other countries, falls in a high seismically active zone. The earthquake that hit Kobe (1995) in Japan and several earlier earthquakes in Japan show that the probability of damage to buildings and infrastructure on areas of reclaimed land due to a major earthquake can be devastating. It is far more alarming in densely populated cities. New Zealand’s seat of government, Wellington, is clearly a city that is situated in an extremely hazardous location and is at potential risk. The 1855 earthquake is an indication of the risk. Refer to http://www.gw.govt.nz/council-publications/pdfs/The_1855_Wairarapa_Earthquake_Symposium_Proceedings_Volume_Web_Version.pdf
It is a difficult task to enact legislation to deal with seismic design of buildings in developing countries and seismic evaluation of existing buildings and strengthening of buildings found to be unsafe. The recent earthquake in Pakistan and the major earthquakes of recent years such as in Gujarat, India and in Sichuan, China (2008), and other major earthquakes, have been far too tragic to be ignored. Lessons need to be learnt by the public, and particularly by the policy-makers (including engineers and scientists) and law-makers of all countries in seismic zones, as well as those of developing countries, who should act without delay.
Not only should the buildings of high importance factor be designed and constructed by competent engineers but seismic detailing should be provided in all types of structures including non-engineered buildings such as residential dwellings. There needs to be a sensible balance of responsibilities between those affected such as the central government, state governments, local authorities, individuals and businesses.
As an example of what is being done in New Zealand, visit these websites:
http://www.nzsee.org.nz/PUBS/2006AISBEGUIDELINES_Corr_06a.pdf
http://www.nzsee.org.nz/PUBS/ADE2007.pdf
Having experienced the aftermath of an earthquake and seen the terrible damage in human terms – the pain and suffering, the economics of lost livelihoods, bankrupt businesses and the fear and guilt – we must realise that the investment in enforcing seismic codes on a nation-wide basis and strengthening unsafe structures in risk areas is a smaller price to pay.
A worthwhile initiative is the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) http://www.globalquakemodel.org/
http://www.globalquakemodel.org/RossSteinsVisionSpeech.html
Death and suffering from these earthquakes have a direct social and psychological impact on survivors. Economic consequences follow as a result of direct losses and there are enormous costs of organising the rescue operations and additional unbudgeted expenditure for rehabilitation. These outcomes eventuate due to political and social norms overriding knowledge and technology in earthquake mitigation.
In most of these earthquakes such colossal loss of life and damage to property could have been minimised if structures were designed and constructed in a manner to withstand seismic loads. Similar conclusions have been drawn in reports on devastation caused by other major earthquakes around the world, including New Zealand from the 1931 Napier earthquake.
Sufficient information is currently available worldwide to be able to construct buildings to withstand earthquake forces. Professional engineers and scientists, even in most developing countries, possess the necessary expertise, knowledge and skills to design and construct earthquake–resistant structures. There are many highly skilled earthquake engineers in New Zealand, the US and Japan, and in other countries, yet people do not always benefit from this sea of knowledge.
It is possibly a little known fact that the Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE) was hosted by India, and Indian delegations and speakers have actively participated in these conferences held every four years. In the Twelfth WCEE held in 2000 in Auckland, New Zealand, Prof. Anand S Arya contributed a paper titled “Non-engineered Construction in Developing Countries”.
“The safety of the non-engineered buildings from the fury of earthquakes is a subject of highest priority in view of the fact that in the moderate to severe seismic zones of the developing world more than 90 percent of the population is still living and working in such buildings, and that most losses of lives during earthquakes have occurred due to their collapse. ...
The present disaster management policies of the governments in the developing countries do not address the issue of preventive actions for the safety of such buildings toward seismic risk reduction… ... and the building by-laws of municipalities and corporations are silent about earthquake resistance in buildings. The Codes and Guidelines developed through the standard making bodies remain recommendatory documents of good engineering practices, and their implementation depends upon the decision of the Heads of Agencies, Departs (sic), Organisations, Institutions owning the buildings and structures in the public and private sectors. Private individuals have by and large remained uninformed” - Arya, 2000
Unfortunately, reports and recommendations of experts seem to have collected dust and got buried in the archives. Hence, the wealth of knowledge and experience available in most developing countries remains far from effective realisation for the benefit of the society.
Application of codes and standards is generally confined to the design of major industrial structures, bridges, power stations, water supply and wastewater disposal facilities, and other similar structures. These are mostly designed and supervised by private consultants or other specialist structural engineers having the required expertise and skills. However, the process of obtaining building permits and enforcement of codes and standards for design and construction of the majority of buildings in most developing countries is lax.
In smaller towns in India, for instance (characterised by Bhuj in Gujarat which was the worst affected area), seismic requirements are almost non-existent in building regulations for obtaining building permits.
In India and some other developing countries owners sometimes pay bribes to obtain building permits.
It appears that as time passes, people tend to forget the devastating effects of individual earthquakes. The value of good engineering practices also fades with time. Non-compliance of the building codes due to inadequate legislation continues to become a major factor in the construction of unsafe buildings.
It is common knowledge that Pakistan, India and many other developing countries are located in high seismically-active zones. It is also well known that New Zealand, like many other countries, falls in a high seismically active zone. The earthquake that hit Kobe (1995) in Japan and several earlier earthquakes in Japan show that the probability of damage to buildings and infrastructure on areas of reclaimed land due to a major earthquake can be devastating. It is far more alarming in densely populated cities. New Zealand’s seat of government, Wellington, is clearly a city that is situated in an extremely hazardous location and is at potential risk. The 1855 earthquake is an indication of the risk. Refer to http://www.gw.govt.nz/council-publications/pdfs/The_1855_Wairarapa_Earthquake_Symposium_Proceedings_Volume_Web_Version.pdf
It is a difficult task to enact legislation to deal with seismic design of buildings in developing countries and seismic evaluation of existing buildings and strengthening of buildings found to be unsafe. The recent earthquake in Pakistan and the major earthquakes of recent years such as in Gujarat, India and in Sichuan, China (2008), and other major earthquakes, have been far too tragic to be ignored. Lessons need to be learnt by the public, and particularly by the policy-makers (including engineers and scientists) and law-makers of all countries in seismic zones, as well as those of developing countries, who should act without delay.
Not only should the buildings of high importance factor be designed and constructed by competent engineers but seismic detailing should be provided in all types of structures including non-engineered buildings such as residential dwellings. There needs to be a sensible balance of responsibilities between those affected such as the central government, state governments, local authorities, individuals and businesses.
As an example of what is being done in New Zealand, visit these websites:
http://www.nzsee.org.nz/PUBS/2006AISBEGUIDELINES_Corr_06a.pdf
http://www.nzsee.org.nz/PUBS/ADE2007.pdf
Having experienced the aftermath of an earthquake and seen the terrible damage in human terms – the pain and suffering, the economics of lost livelihoods, bankrupt businesses and the fear and guilt – we must realise that the investment in enforcing seismic codes on a nation-wide basis and strengthening unsafe structures in risk areas is a smaller price to pay.
A worthwhile initiative is the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) http://www.globalquakemodel.org/
http://www.globalquakemodel.org/RossSteinsVisionSpeech.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)