Changes were made after that, but those changes were insufficient for your 1994? quake.
Sweeping changes were made to the building code after the 1971 'quake. Laws were passed which established key organizations that tackled the earthquake problem from multiple angles, such as regulatory bodies to establish stricter standards for hospital construction, geological agencies whose sole purpose is to develop fault maps and statistical models, and requirements to provide seismic instrumentation in various locations across major cities. The decision to take a proactive approach is a crucial one, but what we lacked then (and still true today) is data. Without data, any changes you propose to the building code is analogous to shooting in the dark. If you noticed a trend that certain types of buildings were more damaged in the earthquake, how do you propose revising the code to mitigate that issue? This is a gross simplification, but do you tell engineers to use 2x larger loads when designing those kinds of buildings? Why not 3x? How large of an increase is enough? Without real data or research, the best you can do is guess and check. The only issue is that the "check" doesn't happen until the next Big One strikes. Unlike Boeing or other large mechanical engineering companies who can test to failure various critical components of whatever they make, most buildings don't have the luxury of large-scale shake table testing nor will most buildings fit on a shake table. Furthermore, revising building codes is always a tug-of-war between researchers, building officials, practicing engineers, and the public. If you propose a change that raises the cost of construction, you'll get pushback from at least one stakeholder, which is a sentiment I agree with. If researchers always had their way with revisions to the building code, we'd all be living in concrete bunkers.
Anyways, when the 1994 Northridge Earthquake hit, we suffered a ton of damage as well. We had residential multi-unit apartment buildings pancaking on their first floor (a "soft story" or a "weak story" deficiency) and a bunch of steel buildings had their welded connections fracture, which was the real surprise because those connections were designed such that the weld was NOT supposed to be the weak point. A FEMA program that was established shortly after to study and determine the cause of these weld fractures, which led to a bunch of lab testing in various universities to try and reproduce the failure mechanism. Long story short, that type of connection is now prohibited in high-seismic regions and an improved version suitable for high-seismic regions was rolled out in a subsequent version of the building code.
USGS Dr. Lucy... I forget her name mentioned in interviews yesterday that their building code is one with the US and the rest of the developed world. It comes down to technique and whether the material is strong. Concrete is concrete to most of us here but concrete quality is special to engineers who work with it. Was someone bribed?
Yes, Dr. Lucy Jones is kind of like a celebrity in these circles because she's become the face of the seismic community. Whenever there's anything newsworthy about earthquakes, you can be sure she'll be on the news.
I'd argue technique is more important than material strength. Strength is important, up to a point. Earthquakes deliver energy to buildings via acceleration, and force is simply acceleration times mass. More often than not, if you design a bigger, stronger building, you end up chasing your own tail because a bigger, stronger building tends to also be a stiffer, heavier building, which attracts even more force. Such an approach becomes not economical nor aesthetically pleasing (see previous mention of concrete bunkers). The more important indicator of seismic performance is ductility, or the ability of a material to yield and undergo large amounts of plastic deformation. As the structural engineer, your job is to designate a ductile fuse within the building structure and then design the rest of the system to be stronger than that fuse.
These quakes this week destroyed major manufacturing sectors and a port is in disarray. Should a 99 style quake hit but even worse due to the higher magnitude, it'll all but destroy their economy to less than a third or fourth of what it is now. Such a quake would also destroy a large portion of Greece. Both would need injections of trillions of dollars to recover.
Yeah, one thing the industry is heading towards is the concept of resilience, or the goal of minimizing downtime and economic loss between a seismic event and when the building is fully operational. When buildings are built with resilience in mind, it leads to better and more stable communities. Designing for resilience means reaching for a higher goal than what the building code prescribes, which is only to prevent the loss of life, not the loss of property. We have first-hand experience with a building's structural system performing admirably in a moderate seismic event only to have the internal components trashed because they weren't properly braced to the building structure. Internal components including dry wall, ceilings, furniture, and equipment like HVAC, electrical, and even hospital systems. Arguably, the guts of the building are just as important as the skeleton when it comes to getting the building back to full operation. The moment you need a hospital up and running no doubt coincides when disaster strikes. What's the point if the hospital didn't collapse but it's shut down for 6 months post-earthquake and it can't serve the community? Now take that mental picture and apply it to local businesses, etc. A lack of resilience is what happened to Christchurch in 2011. The city has never been the same since.
Alright, I've rambled long enough about my job. I hope everyone enjoyed my TED talk. Back to the computer forums I go.