Quake resistant architecture

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/DH17Dh01.html

 The pagoda as a quake resistant architectural structure is explored at the above link.
 It seems the pagoda design is a good structure as the tiers are able to move independently in their joints in response to the shaking whilst being stabilized around the central column.

 Other traditional Japanese buildings with wooden block roofs are cited elsewhere on the net as having collapsed in quakes more readily than modern buildings. These roofs were likened to a small book placed on a house of playing cards. Too heavy for the structure to avoid collapse when shaken.   Also these buildings were not anchored or attached to the ground but merely self supporting structures placed upon the ground.

 Constructions which have air space under the building, have been cited as not quake resistant as they are on supporting posts, poles,pillars or columns which rely on the stability of the ground into which they are placed.

 Brick buildings readily collapse when shaken.

 Concrete has no ability to move with shaking and responds by crumbling, collapsing and breaking.

  This seems to leave wood as preferred option and it seems crucial that the building is able to move about in it's joints sufficiently when shaken.

 The pagoda link mentions an expressed opinion that ancient builders of this structure would not have known why the design was quake resistant.          This means they were making visual assessments about what looked stable when designing.         The pagoda base being larger than consecutive upper tiers does make the pagoda appear stable.       Pyramids also have this effect on the viewer and have probably survived quakes.          The pagoda like the pyramid, sometimes has been constructed with an underground story for tombs and relics.   Pagoda underground chambers were lined with stone and sometimes leaked water up to the surface from quake disruption, perhaps having some structural function to contain underground water displacement.

 The buildings in Tasmania for the most part do not seem particularly quake resistant in appearance. One exception might be the Scottsdale Ecocentre building which appears as larger at the base and tapering upwards. Although the exterior and interior materials might be hazardous if detached and falling.   I cannot guess what the buildings frame or scaffold would perform like if shaken. The appearance gives no indication.                       

 Other disasters such as floods have effected Tasmanian buildings badly in the case of those built directly onto concrete slabs.
 Fires are also a risk to houses built very close together as they jump from house to house.   Some countries are concerned about defining minimum distance rules. 10 feet between houses and fences is suggested as a minimum distance but it is not proven this is sufficient.   Houses in Australia are being built closer to the fence than this.
   Density has obvious implications in quakes and the death toll is obviously higher in built up areas as falling buildings are a risk and reduced open space means nowhere safe outdoors to flee to.
  * There is much speculation in this. Lux1930 is not a science site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_engineering
Earthquake engineering science is at the above link and largely applies to building standards for large structures which conform to quake resistance building regulations.       Domestic housing may not have to conform to such standards so the home builder has to make their own choices.