# Japan earthquake: Tokyo loses skyscraper passion



## nouveau.ukiyo (Sep 20, 2007)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15024911



> *None of Japan's skyscrapers fell in the massive earthquake that hit the country in March, but they shook violently - and with experts saying a big quake under Tokyo is overdue, the city's love affair with the high-rise lifestyle may be coming to an end.*
> 
> When Emiko Yamamoto opens her curtains in the morning, she is rewarded with a spectacular view, right across Tokyo.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

I think there is no problem with highrise construction as long as it is built strong enough to withstand even big earthquake. This only proves how much is strength important when building a building :cheers:


----------



## nouveau.ukiyo (Sep 20, 2007)

Well I don't think it matters how strong you build the buildings here; the psychological impact of the 3/11 quake plus the fact that Tokyo WILL have a devastating earthquake in the near future is enough to spook people I think.


----------



## Crash_N (May 19, 2011)

If you take a look at the history of earthquakes in Japan, you will see that every 70-100 years a major quake hits the eastern part of the country. There was one in 1855, one in 1923, and the last one this year. So it's more or less safe to say that Tokyo won't have any worries about the quake until at least 2080. :cheers:


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

There is only so much you can do to built a tower strongly to "resist" earthquakes. If a big one happens, they will still topple over. Mother Nature is a good deal stronger than we realize.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

Crash_N said:


> If you take a look at the history of earthquakes in Japan, you will see that every 70-100 years a major quake hits the eastern part of the country. There was one in 1855, one in 1923, and the last one this year. So it's more or less safe to say that Tokyo won't have any worries about the quake until at least 2080. :cheers:


It's never safe to say something like this. It could happen in a milanium or it could happen in an hour. One has to always be prepered for the worst :cheers:

Btw, I don't think a building being a highrise has anything to do with it's strength. Both lowrises and highrises can be made to be strong, and can be made to be weak. It all depends on structural design. I'd feel much safer in a super strong steel and concret skyscraper than in an old clay lowrise like they have in northern Africa. The bad thing is, fear is always a strong factor for the masses and it can often lead them to believe in things that are not true hno:


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

Pretty much all japanese scientists agree that the march 11 earthquake this year *increased* the chance of a Tokyo earthquake, not decreased. Although this article is simply restating what Mori said a few months ago and is not based on any data. The real data shows that office and residential (condominium) vacancies are decreasing...so japanese continue to move into skyscrapers in Tokyo.

Akira Mori was never a big fan of high rises in the first place, but his brother is currently constructing the two tallest towers u/c in Tokyo right now..


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Considering that in Tokyo and most of Japan, any available land is already at a premium for development, what is a realistic alternative to skyscrapers and highrises?

In this case it is probably more realistic to design highrises to withstand large earthquakes and hope for the best. Even in Conception, Chile most buildings were able to withstand a 8.8 earthquake without collapsing.


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

Towers of twenty storeys or more are less prone to damage in earthquakes than shorter structures. The reason has to do with the fact that buildings of that height have to have enough structural strength to resist hurricane force winds and, therefore, will have a lot of stiffness. 

I believe that it is also due to the natural frequency of oscillation of the building (the time it would take to bend forward and back if it were pulled horizontally and let go) is very different from that of the shaking due to an earthquake and, therefore, resonance doesn't occur. (If an earthquake shakes a building at its natural frequency then it will amplify the movement of the building causing massive stress on the structure).


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yep, its not necessarily the force or strength of an earthquake that can do the most damage, but the frequency. For example some much smaller quakes will target only highrises with a specific ground wave, leaving midrises and lowrises virtually intact, or of course vice versa.

For example the catastrophic Mexico City quake of 1985 homed in on midrises, so violently many of them tore apart into two different directions, whist taller and shorter buildings next door were totally unharmed. The 1999 7.2 Taiwan earthquake was a rare one that targetted highrises, even earthquake proofed ones (read: 7.8 Richter) and toppling 13,000 apartment blocks (yes, *13,000*). Luckily only 2400 died due to the sheer strength of the buildings even as they keeled over, they didnt disintegrate or pancake down as would normal structures, thus saving hundreds of thousands of lives - it could have been the world's deadliest and most destructive ever quake otherwise, despite being *16x* weaker than the one that hit Concepcion, Chile in 2010. Its the frequency and of course the random amount of 'target-height' buildings in the area that decides the fate of the city.


----------



## jiheshenzhen (Sep 28, 2011)

C’est l’histoire d’un grand frère qui a tout fait pour ne pas ressembler à ses parents, et d’un cadet qui a tout fait pour ne pas ressembler à son grand frère. C’est l’histoire d’un gar?on mélancolique parce qu’il a grandi dans un pays suicidé, élevé par des parents déprimés par l’échec de leur mariage. C’est l’histoire d’un pays qui a réussi à perdre deux guerres en faisant croire qu’il les avait gagnées, et ensuite à perdre son empire colonial en faisant comme si cela ne changeait rien à son importance. C’est l’histoire d’une humanité nouvelle, ou comment des catholiques monarchistes sont devenus des capitalistes mondialisés.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

the spliff fairy said:


> yep, its not necessarily the force or strength of an earthquake that can do the most damage, but the frequency. For example some much smaller quakes will target only highrises with a specific ground wave, leaving midrises and lowrises virtually intact, or of course vice versa.
> 
> For example the catastrophic Mexico City quake of 1985 homed in on midrises, so violently many of them tore apart into two different directions, whist taller and shorter buildings next door were totally unharmed. The 1999 7.2 Taiwan earthquake was a rare one that targetted highrises, even earthquake proofed ones (read: 7.8 Richter) and toppling 13,000 apartment blocks (yes, *13,000*). Luckily only 2400 died due to the sheer strength of the buildings even as they keeled over, they didnt disintegrate or pancake down as would normal structures, thus saving hundreds of thousands of lives - it could have been the world's deadliest and most destructive ever quake otherwise, despite being *16x* weaker than the one that hit Concepcion, Chile in 2010. Its the frequency and of course the random amount of 'target-height' buildings in the area that decides the fate of the city.


It should be noted that there are a few differences between those earthquakes. In Mexico City's case the city itself was built on a drained lakebed giving the soil a "Jello" like texture and many buildings back then were not designed to withstand earthquakes. It's not an even comparison when you analyze the different factors in play regarding the type of soil involved, the intensity of the earthquake, etc.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

diablo234 said:


> Considering that in Tokyo and most of Japan, *any available land is already at a premium for development*, what is a realistic alternative to skyscrapers and highrises?
> 
> In this case it is probably more realistic to design highrises to withstand large earthquakes and hope for the best. Even in Conception, Chile most buildings were able to withstand a 8.8 earthquake without collapsing.


It's actually the opposite. Land in the rural areas continues to be cheaper and more of it keeps opening up. More and more people continue to move into the dense cities. There's alot alot of forest land (even excluding the mountains) that could be cut down for more development. Unlike in most countries even the elderly prefer to retire in downtown Tokyo than the suburbs or a rural area (according to a poll anyways). Though if you only talk about the big cities then what you said is very true, the land is becoming more and more prized.

Anyway this is the real "test" to see if Tokyo will lose its "addiction" to new high rises for residential. 

*Tokyo Waterfront Condo To Make Delayed Debut*
http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110929D2909N03.htm


> TOKYO (Nikkei)--Nomura Real Estate Development Co. said Thursday that it will begin selling units at a Tokyo waterfront condominium in late November, a plan that was scheduled for spring but was postponed due to the March 11 earthquake.
> 
> Proud Tower Shinonome Canal Court, being built in Tokyo's Koto Ward, stands 52 stories and houses 600 condo units. It will be the first high-rise condominium in the Tokyo Bay area to debut since the earthquake.
> 
> ...


There's actually an even bigger project U/C on Tokyo's waterfront too. It is being built here:









http://bluestyle.livedoor.biz/

Here is the render of one of the towers


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

There were worries after 9/11 that New Yorkers wouldn't live in tall towers either but two years later, developments like Time Warner Center were selling out ahead of completion. While I doubt that survivability during an earthquake is an issue in new Tokyo skyscrapers, the costs of insuring property and replacing lost valuables could dampen the market. Otherwise I think things will be back to normal in a year when the vast majority of aftershocks are over.


----------



## ender650 (May 11, 2011)

I haven't noticed this attitude at all but I do know someone who is moving from a 4 story building built in the 70's or early 80's to a recently built 11 or 12 story building partially because of the earthquake.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

Skyscrapers aren't going away because of an earthquake. As others have noted, pundits said similar things about New Yorkers shying away from skyscrapers after 9/11. As long as there's money to be made, skyscrapers will continue to be developed. 

As an aside, much of the casualty toll from earthquakes isn't from collapsing tall buildings, it's from downed power lines electrocuting people, and gas lines catching on fire.


----------



## CCs77 (Jul 30, 2008)

Crash_N said:


> If you take a look at the history of earthquakes in Japan, you will see that every 70-100 years a major quake hits the eastern part of the country. There was one in 1855, one in 1923, and the last one this year. So it's more or less safe to say that Tokyo won't have any worries about the quake until at least 2080. :cheers:


The thing is that this year's earthquake epicenter wasn't in the Kanto region where Tokio is. It occurred 370 kilometers away from Tokio and primarily affected the Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures, but it was so powerful that it felt strong in Tokio. Last Kanto earthquake was in 1923, another one is still to hapen.


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

I think that it is much more traumatising to experience an earthquake in a tall skyscraper than in a house with a few storeys, even if the skyscraper has been made very strong. The building will shake a lot, because it has to absorb the earthquake. Even if you know that the building is capable to endure the shocks, it must be a very frightening experience. When you stand on top of a skyscraper, you can already feel the building moving a little bit in the wind. The feeling during an earthquake must be so terrible.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

I saw a recent Japanese article about all the major construction companies working on solutions for the liquefaction problems that are caused by earthquakes. The trend of developing safer high-rise buildings is probably bigger right now then the trend to say that Tokyo shouldn't do high-rises anymore. 

With all the waterfront and reclaimed land high-rise projects that have been announced or have gone U/C the last couple of months it's safe to say that the developers still see a market for these towers. 

Eventually the economy will decide on this matter and not the opinion of just 1 of the major developers. And it's also good that there are also enough new low-rise developments within and around the city. There's always a choice, especially for the people that can actually afford this Tokyo high-rise lifestyle since it's not social housing.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

Has there ever been a case of a skyscraper collapsing due to an earthquake? I don't mean a mid-rise, but a very tall building.


----------

