Reconstruct, instead of Relocate

(By: Erik Sentosa – 10203073)

Earthquake happens as a result of a sudden release of energy in earth’s crust. Most of the time it happens in the ocean, but it also happens on the land sometimes. As the number of large city in the world increases, the number of earthquake-impacted also does. However, relocation of a city is considerably imprudent since its elements, such as economic and cultural value of a city often more important than its own value as an asset. Subsequently, an earthquake resistant construction apparently a modest way out for this problem.

When a city arises, it grew its elements. Economy is one of them, and economic growth requires long preliminary economic processes beforehand. The economic harmony assembled after those processes find their optimum compositions. This harmony is an absolute prerequisite to create a more solid economic and financial state. So the economic harmony doesn’t come for itself, it requires overture phases. City relocation would causes an economic degradation, bringing the establishment far backward. Which robustly conceive that city relocation is unwise.

Another element a city owned, culture, is like a statement of its citizen that distinguishes them from another city’s. Culture is a product of varied customs, trends, and opinions that affects citizen creating a certain characteristic among them. City relocation would cause a cultural transformation that is doubtfully comfortable nor acceptable by preceding citizen, since geographical position is a factor to culture.

On the contrary, earthquake resistant construction, which provides special techniques and structures to survive in an earthquake, promises more effective and economic way to avoid the danger of earthquake without affecting any fundamental value of a commonwealth. It costs way more economical and unlikely affects cultural manifesto at large. So the idea about rebuilding the city in an earthquake-resistant form seems to be more decent than an idea about relocating it.