Earthquake Reckoning: West End Towers and the People Who Call Them Home
On a narrow block in Vancouver’s West End, a row of concrete towers shades a street of small shops and apartment lobbies where mailboxes bulge with notices. The word earthquake hangs over conversations here: it appears on study headlines, in city briefings and in the quiet checklist of renters who depend on these mid- and high-rise buildings for shelter.
Earthquake risk in older West End towers
A study by Preetish Kakoty (UCL) and Carlos Molina Hutt (University of British Columbia) found that many of the West End’s concrete apartment buildings—built rapidly after a 1957 decision to lift an eight-storey height limit—are now considered seismically vulnerable. Over the two decades after that zoning change, more than 300 mid- to high-rise concrete apartment buildings were constructed, some exceeding 30 storeys. These towers form a backbone of downtown housing and include much of what remains relatively affordable.
The study estimated a significantly high risk of major damage if a strong earthquake were to strike the region. When many of these buildings were designed, seismic requirements in Canada’s national building code were rudimentary. Since then, earthquake science and engineering have advanced and building codes have changed; seen through today’s lens, buildings that were compliant when built are now recognized as vulnerable.
How construction and demographics amplify the hazard
Most vulnerable buildings in the West End were built with non-ductile reinforced concrete, a construction form common before modern seismic detailing requirements. That material and detailing can permit sudden, brittle failure under strong shaking, whereas modern engineering explicitly designs concrete to be more ductile and to absorb seismic energy.
Vulnerability is not only technical. The people who live in these towers are disproportionately renters, and many are lower-income or elderly. Those demographic realities increase the human stakes: renters have fewer resources and face greater barriers to preparing for, responding to and recovering from disasters. The concentration of older, higher-risk buildings downtown and in the West End concentrates both physical risk and social exposure in the same neighbourhoods.
Responses, limits and the path forward
City of Vancouver and Natural Resources Canada have previously highlighted that a small number of older mid- and high-rise concrete buildings drive a large share of regional seismic risk. After the 2023 earthquake in Turkey, where similar construction suffered severe damage, local experts urged mandatory seismic assessments of these older buildings. Since that moment, no citywide mandatory program has been established; instead there have been a handful of voluntary retrofits, largely in commercial buildings where individual owners chose to act. The city has been actively exploring policy options to address the complex problem of reducing seismic risk posed by privately owned buildings.
The study authors place the technical findings in a social frame: the towers under scrutiny provide critical housing supply. Any pathway to greater seismic safety will intersect with affordability and tenant protections. The challenge laid out by researchers and officials is therefore dual: upgrade or manage structural risk while protecting residents who are most vulnerable to displacement and disruption.
There are paths governments can take and engineering practices that reduce future vulnerability, but the study and related institutional analyses make clear that many existing buildings predate modern seismic practice. That means risk reduction will require coordinated policy action, targeted engineering work and attention to the residents who would bear the brunt of a major event.
Back on the West End block, the same mailboxes that carried notices about building inspections also hold flyers about emergency kits. The study’s findings have given new urgency to both: the technical assessment of towers, and the social preparation of the people who live inside them. The towers still provide essential housing; the question now is whether the city and its institutions will move from exploration to the sustained programs that could protect both structures and the communities within.
