The earthquake risk is everywhere in Japan, so that's a major point that all construction rules take into account. Those rules are revised regularly, getting stricter as technology permits it. A good chunk of the property owners fees go into renovation to make the building earthquake-safe, and an building decreases in value as it gets older because people know it won't be as strong in case of an earthquake.
On the other hand earthquake is not a problem in most places in US, even California doesn't compare to Japan in terms of earthquake risks - outside the Bay Area. So the whole country isn't thinking in terms of earthquake protection, and that makes a difference.
So San Francisco will certainly do much better than Turkey or Haiti, but I don't think it will resist as well as Tokyo.
Not completely true. There's a risk map established by the government in Japan and several areas are considered "safe". For example, Kyoto has not had major earthquakes for centuries.
> A good chunk of the property owners fees go into renovation to make the building earthquake-safe
That's not true either. Usually buildings have a "shelf life" in Japan and whenever they reach the end they end up being destroyed and replaced by newer ones (built with the latest standards). Besides, older constructions can be actually pretty solid, it's rather all the newer stuff with large window panes and less walls that tend to be more fragile.
A lot of the older Japanese construction, especially out of Tokyo, is poorly insulated and kind of flimsy. I was very surprised since I always thought of Japan as being rich. I'm sure the wood would do well in the earthquake, but that's the other problem: wood eventually rots and needs to be replaced (those Shinto temples are rebuilt every 30 or 40 years I think).
Hey man, I live in Kobe :) Kyoto was left largely intact after the earthquake in 1995. Of course they felt it, but nothing was devastated there. Kyoto is further up in the middle of the land, further from the seismic rifts, and relatively safe in terms of location.
> (those Shinto temples are rebuilt every 30 or 40 years I think
I think you are refering to Ise Jingu which is destroyed and entirely rebuilt every 20 years. But that's a very different thing. Most large temples no not get rebuilt very often, and their trunks can last centuries.
I think you are referring maps of the risks related to an earthquake (ex: tsunamis, landslides, rivers overflowing, wide range fires) and not the risk of getting an earthquake.
In Tokyo, the area of Odaiba would be a super high risk area due to the artificial soil and the proximity to the ocean for instance.
I've lived in both SF and Tokyo, and agree with this statement. Put simply, seismic danger is a Much Bigger Deal(tm) in the latter. It's on everyone's mind, and it's reflected in just about any and every building you enter.
I don't have hard data to support my case, but at least in terms of noticeable seismic activity there really is no comparison. I probably experienced more tremors during any given month in Tokyo than I did during a full year in SF.
Not really true. There are hundreds of companies in every city specializing in what Japanese call "Reform", which means making older houses/building more modern (either through maintenance, renovation, replacement of installations and so on).
Is that more or less than one would expect for one of the wealthiest & most technologically sophisticated countries in the world?
With earthquakes, fire is the greatest threat after the shaking stops.
Actually, the low average age of houses in Japan is not at all due to the war (it's much smaller than 60 years), but due to cultural/economical issues: http://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/vv3bf/why_do_japanese...