Los Angeles Times Special Quake Report: One Year Later : Still Shaken / Challenges : The Comeback Trail / Twists and Turns on the Road to Recovery : Protecting People <i> and</i> Buildings

It might seem odd to find any cheer in the Northridge earthquake last year. Not with 57 people killed and billions of dollars in damage. Yet, the toll could have been horrifically higher if the quake had hit during midday and, experts stress, had building codes not been tightened after the 1971 Sylmar temblor, particularly in requiring the strengthening of old masonry structures.

Now, as occurred 24 years ago, a slew of safety changes are in the works or under study in an effort to limit damage and injuries when the next large quake rocks Southern California. Those include such simple steps as having inspectors better monitor the proper use of nails in single-family residences, to improvements to steel-beam welds in high-rise office towers.

But amid arcane details on better connections between walls and roofs of tilt-up warehouses, a new philosophy is taking hold.

Current and previous construction and safety codes sought simply to save lives--allowing houses, garages, shops and office buildings to bend and twist without collapsing on people. With some spectacular exceptions, such as the Cal State Northridge parking garage and the Northridge Meadows Apartments, those rules worked reasonably well.

Now, in light of the lasting economic disruption of the 1994 quake, many experts and state officials want to ensure that buildings emerge as undamaged as possible so business can resume quickly after a quake.

“It is in California’s best interest to develop seismic provisions that not only protect public health, but also the economic welfare of Californians,” declared a recent report by the state Seismic Safety Commission.

The cost of such proposed changes is debated. Structural engineer Nabih Youssef, chairman of the mayor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Seismic Hazard Reduction, estimates that such better seismic construction techniques would hike overall costs by only 3% in commercial structures and 5% in single-family houses. That’s a bargain when compared to the costs of destruction, he states.

“In the past, the technologies were limited and the damage was taken as an act of God. Now, with recent technologies, the industry is thinking about better levels of performance for buildings,” Youssef said.

Other engineers and architects believe costs could be much higher and prove to be political obstacles for any tougher mandates. More efficient, they contend, would be to better enforce the rules already on the books and examine more closely soil conditions of each property.

Yet another possibility is emerging under pressure from insurers and lenders who fear future losses. A non-mandatory code might offer property owners the option of new designs or retrofits to help their buildings survive a quake with the activities inside barely halted. Insurance companies would be urged to offer reduced rates on those buildings, and mortgages presumably would be easier to obtain.

At the same time, there is some interest in rezoning areas at the most seismic risk. But in fact, the city of Los Angeles has moved in the opposite direction, allowing rebuilding of destroyed structures at their old densities even if otherwise forbidden by current zoning. City Planning Director Con Howe defends this decision, arguing that the Northridge quake, in revealing previously unknown faults, has shown that the entire region is at risk.