>The buildings themselves are not required to survive in habitable fashion
This is the norm for the pacific rim. It's just not economically viable to build for longevity in the face of tectonic movement. Saving lives however? We know how and those cities and citizens at risk that don't invest pay terribly for it. Given what we know about quakes these days, it's inexcusable any civil infrastructure or building should lead to loss of life.
I may be mistaken, but I believe in Japan the standard is "build to remain habitable." as a result, skyscraper building techniques there are very different to the US.
“The Japanese Building Code (BSLJ) explicitly requires that buildings withstand moderate earthquakes with almost no damage, while collapse prevention and life-safety is required for severe earthquakes. It is expected that a typical building will be subjected to several moderate earthquakes during their service life, while the likelihood of occurrence of a severe earthquake during the same period is rare.”
This is the norm for the pacific rim. It's just not economically viable to build for longevity in the face of tectonic movement. Saving lives however? We know how and those cities and citizens at risk that don't invest pay terribly for it. Given what we know about quakes these days, it's inexcusable any civil infrastructure or building should lead to loss of life.