Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Some Sound Arguments for Retrofitting

Why did some buildings fail in the Northridge earthquake and what can be done to make structures better able to withstand another temblor? There have been calls from some Los Angeles City Council members for stricter building codes for new structures and new requirements for retrofitting older buildings.

*

Should the city pass ordinances requiring that structures built before the codes were tightened be reinforced and strengthened?

Hal Bernson, City Council member:

I’ve already proposed that and we’ve sent it to our Building and Safety Department for recommendations on what the ordinance should say. . . . It doesn’t make sense to continue to allow buildings to remain unsafe when we know the type of threat we have here in Southern California and we know eventually we’ll have more earthquakes. . . . It’s like those old mechanic’s ads you used to see--”You can pay me now or pay me later.” The cost of retrofitting will not only savelives, but it will save the property so people won’t lose their property in the future.”

Bill Iwan, director of Caltech’s Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory and chairman of the State Seismic Safety Commission:

“The city of Los Angeles has really been a pioneer in the retrofitting of older buildings. The unreinforced masonry ordinance they passed (in 1981) has really been a model for the rest of the state. I would hope they would continue that pace-setting role. We have to find a way to deal with the older structures that are not up to standards of performance.

Charles Isham, executive vice president of Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles:

“Two problems arise from this. First, the sheer finance of it. An owner of four units of more, to obtain any type of loan, you have to charge rents in that building to pay the operating expenses and the debt services. As a result of the savings and loan fiasco of years past, the government will not allow new loans to be given to negative cash flow buildings. Santa Monica allowed a dollar-for-dollar pass-through to the tenants. The city of Los Angeles will not do this for political reasons. . . . L.A. wants you to spend the money first. How you get the money, they don’t talk about. Apartment owners are willing to do this, but they don’t have that kind of money.”

Larry Brugger, chief of the city’s Earthquake Safety Division:

“There are a lot of issues to look at. . . . What needs to be done is analyze the risk. How many structures are out there? What is the method of fixing that type of building? Once we’ve got that data, then it can move to the political arena. I think this is a real good time to analyze what happened to these type buildings and find out why they failed and look at whether these buildings need to be retrofitted or not.”

Samuel Aroni, professor emeritus and former dean of UCLA’s Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning:

“There’s no doubt that retrofitting structures that are not adequate for earthquakes is needed. . . . Ordinances alone will not solve the problems because ordinances alone will not address the economic problem and the educational problem. In addition to saving lives it would be so much cheaper to retrofit and save structures before a disaster. There should be some incentive at the federal level . . . so that funds would be made available before the disaster. Earthquakes in Southern California are a certainty. So planning by the federal government and trying to encourage by tax credits or providing actual resources is actually economical.”