Metro Vancouver shares the many of the seismic realities as Japan, so why aren’t we doing anything about it?
By Erick Villagomez, re:place Magazine
I was ten years old and visiting my family in Quito, Ecuador when it happened. There we were, a pile of kids lying across the bed, fixated on a small colour television, when the bed began to shake. Irritated, I turned to give someone an earful about jumping on the bed when I realized no one was moving, but the entire room around us was jumping and bouncing as if possessed.
“Temblore!!!!” one of my cousins screamed as all the kids jumped off the bed and tried to make their way to the nearest doorframe. As the only kid from Ontario, it took me the longest to make sense of what was happening. I tried to follow my cousins, shocked at how difficult it was to move across the room that now resembled more of a funhouse – with pliable floors and walls moving in all directions. Of course, after what felt like several minutes (it was actually only several seconds) the shaking stopped and, as the calm settled in, we all began to chatter and debrief about what we had experienced. Local news reports exploded shortly thereafter, with the devastating account of the earthquake that measured 6.9 on the Richter scale centered about 100 km north-east of the city.
The memory of that earthquake is forever engraved in my mind. As I stare at the North Shore Mountains, I am reminded of the fragility of the built world we have around us here along the Pacific coast. With the most recent devastation in Japan, I am vividly brought back to my childhood experience of the earthquake and left wondering what is to come. The recent natural phenomenon brought Tokyo – an urban superpower known for its attention to detail at all levels – to a standstill within seconds. As such, it would be worthwhile to reflect on our own urbanism in the face of an uncertain seismic future, a topic that is not often given the attention it warrants.
As we are bombarded with images and videos of the destruction in Japan, it is important to recognize that, of all the countries in the world, Japan is arguably the best prepared to deal with earthquakes of higher magnitudes. As a result of the many mid-range seismic events that occur every year – Tokyo, itself, having between 1-2 quakes with a magnitude 5 and greater annually – the Japanese are constantly reminded of the impending danger of an earthquake and act accordingly. From pioneering designs and structural techniques that help buildings both new and old withstand quakes to their nation-wide (public) searchable database that allows people to locate one another after a natural disaster, Japan seems to have virtually every base covered when it comes to thinking about earthquakes. Although much work still has to be done, strict engineering codes are applied and upheld for buildings; elaborate earthquake drills are held regularly in preparation and public awareness is constantly maintained.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for those of us in Metro Vancouver. Whether it’s because we lack experience with major earthquakes on a regular basis or just plain laziness, we are extremely passive about the risks we face. This is particularly surprising given how similar the geology of both regions are. It is well known that British Columbia’s fault zone, separating the Juan de Fuca and North American Tectonic Plates, is capable of producing quakes the likes of those seen in Japan (with a magnitude of 9.0 and greater). As a result, we share the same vulnerabilities and, ultimately, the same future. So, approaching our seismic dilemma with the same aggressiveness as our Japanese neighbours should be unquestionable.
Although respect must be given to Mayor Robertson for publicly admitting that buildings constructed to older building codes are at risk to the effects of natural disasters and that the city must begin to seriously address the issue of updating codes for aging building stocks (especially in the many institutional buildings, like schools and hospitals, that are vital for protecting our young and emergency services, respectively), problematic issues don’t stop here. Even the new buildings, for example, have risks associated with them.
In a recent interview, Perry Adebar – professor at the University of British Columbia’s Earthquake Lab – discussed a study done on the effects of Chile’s 2009 Megaquake. According to the findings, many of the buildings most affected by the powerful quake were newer buildings – apartment and office towers – that used thin six-inch concrete walls as structure. Interestingly, the same type of construction is used locally to build the towers in and around Vancouver.
This underscores an important issue, given that densification is the theme of the current planning approach across the region. Simply put, increasing the number of occupants within compact forms of development raises the potential risks (in terms of injuries and casualties) if structural failure were to occur. As such, a higher responsibility should be taken to protect against these failures – including more stringent building codes, better overall preparation planning and (dare-I-say-it) serious discussion about growth and development limits in areas prone to greater hazards.
Such limits, for example, should be considered for cities like Richmond and Delta, Pitt Meadows, Chilliwack, and portions of Vancouver and North Vancouver, to start. Despite seemingly persuasive propaganda by some of these municipalities that state that the effects of earthquakes in these sediment-based lowlands will not necessarily be severe, Adebar’s research clearly indicates that the effects of the earthquake in Chile were exacerbated in areas characterized by soft alluvial soils.
Not only is the risk to people increased due to structural failure, but also architectural components perform differently under such conditions. Windows, for example, should be of particular concern since such conditions may result in glass shards showering the streets below. Furthermore, most, if not all of the infrastructure that supports these low-lying regions (dykes, bridges, etc.) are not engineered to withstand the earthquakes our closest fault line is capable of producing. This adds to the potential catastrophe if we don’t start putting our geological realities to the front of our planning decisions and approaches.
But perhaps the most important aspect lacking is public awareness. Although certain programs are in place – such as Vancouver’s Neighbourhood Emergency Preparedness Program – they are not well publicized. As a result, basic knowledge, like what goes into an earthquake kit and the location of emergency shelters (in Vancouver, this is its 23 community centres and the land around them) are not known. Nevermind the significance of the E-Comm facility – Emergency Communications for Southwest British Columbia Incorporated – at the south-west corner intersection of East Hasting St. and Highway 1. Located strategically, it has been built to the highest standards to ensure survival during a major disaster. This type of information should be commonplace, but it isn’t…and shows a large lack of responsibility on behalf of our leaders that are in charge of ensuring our safety, above all else.
As parks board commissioner Loretta Woodcock recently stated, residents are ill-informed about emergency preparedness plans since they are often made behind closed doors. As she rightly points out, they should be a “normal part of our daily lives.”
In the end, we can only truly do justice to the plight of Japan and its people by learning from their approach – and even its shortcomings, as few as they may be – to ensure that we are ready if, or perhaps when, it’s our turn.
***
You can learn more about emergency preparedness in Vancouver here and here.
