Like many natural disasters, earthquakes can be violently destructive, leaving buildings, infrastructure, and land vulnerable to intense damage. However, understanding how earthquakes actually affect the ground and buildings they hit, knowing what to look for, and how to retrofit them, can create a much safer and more resilient built environment. 

Why earthquakes affect buildings differently 

There are multiple factors that can contribute to the collapse or damage of a building or structure. Often, damage depends on the materials used, the type of earthquake wave, and the ground on which the infrastructure is laid.  

The South Carolina Earthquake & Education Preparedness Program details that “Wood structures respond to earthquakes differently than brick or masonry structures, because wood can bend, and masonry tends to shatter.”1 Similarly, a structure reinforced with steel is likely to fare better than unreinforced structures during an earthquake.  

Because seismic activity moves the ground in a multitude of ways, buildings in earthquake-prone areas are designed to withstand vertical and horizontal seismic forces. Sudden side-to-side movements place an extreme amount of stress on the structure, including beams, columns, walls, floors, and connectors that hold these elements together. If these forces become too powerful and your infrastructure is ill-equipped to withstand the impact, it can cause the building to collapse or endure severe damage.2  

Furthermore, the impact your building sustains during an earthquake is also dependent on the ground that it was built on. Structures built on bedrock, which provides a firm base, are more likely to withstand these forces. However, those built on soft or filled-in soil are more likely to fail. For instance, when loosely packed, waterlogged soils behave like liquids, a process known as liquefaction, the ground can sink or slide, taking the building with it.3 

Earthquakes and how they’re monitored 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serves as a primary source for information on natural hazards and monitors earthquakes and their effects on the built environment. According to the USGS, more than 250 structures throughout the United States are equipped with seismic sensors to help specialists understand earthquakes and how buildings respond to them.4 These sensors provide data that engineers can use to assess the structure’s safety and functionality following an earthquake while grasping how structural and non-structural components perform during these events. 

This information can also help engineers evaluate earthquake-resistant design techniques, predict how structures may perform during future seismic events, and improve future designs.5 

What does earthquake preparedness look like for buildings?

Preparing for an earthquake is more than strapping down heavy furniture. It’s about strengthening the building’s integrity and having a Forensics and Restoration (FR) expert who understands seismic codes, how the building is expected to perform, and how to identify vulnerabilities. 

New construction must meet seismic requirements established by the building code adopted by the local jurisdiction. For many commercial and multifamily buildings, those requirements come from the International Building Code (IBC), while certain residential construction falls under the International Residential Code (IRC).  

Over time, however, codes change, and an older building may have been designed under the requirements in place when it was constructed. It doesn’t mean the building is unsafe or violating code; it just means expected seismic performance may differ from a building designed under today’s regulations. In cases of seismic work, the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) recognizes that the existing building was built under different codes, thus providing requirements for how engineers evaluate and strengthen the existing structure.  

An FRBE consultant can help perform seismic evaluations and retrofits, assess existing deterioration, the structural system, connectors, facade/enclosures, nonstructural components, potential seismic vulnerabilities, and document previous repairs/alterations made.  

The City of Redondo Beach Harbor 

For example, Redondo Beach, California, is no stranger to seismic activity. Since 2012, Walker Consultants has been providing maintenance programs for the City of Redondo Beach to assist with planning and budgeting and providing repair designs for the City’s parking structures.  

Walker performed visual and non-destructive evaluations to assess the overall condition of three of the City’s Oceanfront Parking Structures, built in the 1960s and 1970s. Those being the South Pier, North Pier, and Plaza parking structures.  

Forensics specialists directed destructive evaluation to determine the extent of damage to the concrete of the two- and three-level structures, verifying the “as-built conditions” and piled foundations. Specialists discovered deterioration and delamination of the structures’ concrete beams, columns, and floors. They examined the exposed, rusted slab and mild steel reinforcement at several locations. Experts identified soffit slab deterioration and spalls with exposed and corroded reinforcement. Additionally, these evaluations and assessments revealed waterproofing system deficiencies throughout the structures, including seismic deficiencies in the North Pier parking structure.  

After completing Tier 1 and Tier 2 seismic evaluations, Walker provided a Condition Appraisal and a 10-year Asset Management Plan Program to help the client make cost-effective repair decisions.  

Beyond seismic evaluations: How Forensics, Restoration, and Building Envelope (FRBE) experts can help

An FRBE consultant can also document the current conditions of a building so that they can be monitored and compared to post-earthquake distress to assist in identifying the damage caused by the earthquake. The same data can also be used to monitor and compare damage resulting from a construction activity at or near the site. 

From earthquake damage to recovery  

Following an earthquake, buildings may experience structural weakening, damage to architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP), and vertical transportation (VT) systems, or reduced functionality. Structures that sustain significant damage may also become more vulnerable to aftershocks, increasing the risk of further deterioration or collapse. 

In such situations, forensic engineers and architects inspect the building to evaluate its structural condition, assess earthquake-related damage, and provide safety recommendations to support property owners in disaster recovery. With their findings, damage documentation, and failure analyses, forensic teams can identify the underlying causes of the damage. 

Depending on the building’s conditions, forensics and restoration teams may also review construction documents, plans, and permits to develop repair or retrofit plans that restore structural integrity and improve resistance to future seismic activity.  

2016 Cushing Earthquake 

In 2016, the Cushing Public School District sustained significant building damage following the magnitude 5.0 2016 Cushing earthquake. The district’s nine campuses, constructed between 1995 and 2015, consisted of one- and two-story buildings with unreinforced or lightly reinforced masonry walls, steel columns, and steel or precast concrete roof framing. 

Walker supported the district’s post-earthquake recovery and repair efforts through a forensic investigation. Forensic specialists analyzed seismic data collected from earthquake recording stations and conducted visual inspections using non-destructive evaluation tools to assess the extent of damage across the buildings.  

Earthquake readiness begins with understanding your building

You can’t control an earthquake when it hits, but you can make sure you understand your building before one does. Identifying structural vulnerabilities and understanding how your building may perform during a seismic event can help determine whether repairs, strengthening, or other measures should be considered before they are put to the test.  

If an earthquake does occur, that knowledge becomes vital in determining what changed, what damage may have existed before, and what needs the most attention.  

With the support of Walker’s Forensics and Restoration team, building owners can use those findings to make informed decisions about repairs, restoration, or retrofits and determine what the building needs moving forward.  

For more information about Walker’s Forensics and Restoration services, visit walkerconsultants.com.  

1 South Carolina Earthquake Education & Preparedness Program (SCEEP) 
2 How Earthquake-resistant Buildings Work 
3 How Earthquake-resistant Buildings Work 
4 USGS Earthquake Monitoring of Structures  
5 USGS Earthquake Monitoring of Structures  

This article was originally published in the November 2026 California Mobility & Parking Association newsletter. 

From payment transactions and permit records to occupancy counts, cities have more parking data at their disposal than ever before. These records can show how many people park, when they arrive, and how long they stay, but turning that information into practical decisions is not always so straightforward. The examples below, drawn from projects my team and I have worked on as parking consultants, show how taking a closer look at existing parking data can help cities better understand parking activity and make informed decisions.

How often does the peak occur?

The important question is not just how busy parking gets, but how often those conditions occur. In Carpinteria, we collected data during busy summer days to inform the downtown parking management plan, accounting for the possibility of higher demand during holidays and major events. The management plan distinguished typical demand from occasional peaks, which may require targeted measures such as event shuttles and shared parking agreements with private owners. Understanding how often these peaks occur helps cities determine whether parking challenges require ongoing management or strategies tailored to particularly busy days. This distinction can also help cities avoid investing in additional parking infrastructure that may sit underutilized for much of the year.

When do parking demands overlap?

We often see parking spaces empty when they’re reserved for just one use. In Mill Valley, we collected data on a major commercial corridor, where we found that employee parking spaces were rarely used, even during the weekday peak, while other areas of the corridor were highly utilized. Examining occupancy by parking restriction, rather than relying solely on overall occupancy, revealed opportunities to better manage the supply, improving access to existing parking spaces. The study recommended considering time-limited spaces that permit holders and visitors could share, rather than reserving spaces exclusively for employees.

What are we missing when we only focus on transactions?

Transaction counts provide insight into parking activity and revenue but only capture recorded payments. As a result, vehicles parked without payment may go uncounted, leading to an underestimation of actual parking occupancy. In Culver City, we examined transaction records alongside length of stay, occupancy, and revenue data to understand how parking activity varied across the system. Frequent short visits created a different usage pattern than longer stays, and visits during the free parking period did not generate parking revenue. Looking beyond transaction totals helped inform discussions about rates and validations.

Conclusion

For cities, the value of parking data lies in how it informs decisions about access, public resources, and downtown needs. Rather than relying solely on peak counts or transaction total costs, staff can examine broader parking patterns to distinguish everyday challenges from occasional surges, identify opportunities for shared parking, and evaluate rates and validations. It is helpful to have a clear question about what a city needs its parking system to do—not simply what data it has available.

This article was written by Tania Schleck, a parking consultant with Walker Consultants in its Los Angeles office. Tania specializes in parking and transportation policy and planning, working on projects across a range of geographic areas and scales. Her work examines how parking decisions intersect with land use, real estate, economic development, placemaking, and transportation alternatives.

This article was originally published in the October 2025 California Mobility & Parking Association newsletter.

Across the country, cities are rethinking their approach to parking. As local governments strive to meet ambitious goals around housing, economic growth, and climate action, many are reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements. The National Parking Association recently formally endorsed eliminating or reducing parking minimums.¹ But for communities worried about increased traffic and limited street parking, these changes can feel risky. Based on my experience working with cities on parking reforms, the following seven strategies can build public trust and show the benefits of reforming parking requirements:

1. Collect community-specific parking data. Often, the public perception of parking availability is misaligned with the actual conditions on the ground. The core parking areas are often highly utilized, while two or three blocks away, there are plenty of empty spaces. Quantifying actual parking conditions at different times of the day is important to justify policy changes. Having actual parking demand data in a community helps to make the case for updating the parking code. At a recent City Council meeting for a small Northern California town, the data presented showed that overall, the City had enough parking during peak times. Additionally, the private parking lots were underutilized, suggesting that even when parking is required, it may not be utilized.
2. Review parking management practices. Understandably, one of the top concerns about parking reform is that if fewer private parking spaces are built, more cars will park on the street, and people will struggle to find a parking space. It is important for cities to consider parking management while reforming their parking policies. For example, does a new residential parking permit district need to be established? Should the parking meter rates be increased? Should the meter zone be expanded? Does the community need a parking permit program for employees? Should the time limits be revised? Can the parking enforcement budget be augmented? Reviewing the parking code and parking management policy concurrently allows cities to balance mobility, land use, climate goals, and community needs.
3. Encourage transportation demand management (TDM) measures. Jurisdictions could consider conditioning minimum parking requirement reductions on developer investment in TDM measures that reduce overall parking demand, which is what was recently enacted the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Well-designed TDM policies and programs can reduce automobile travel often by 10–30%, and even more if integrated with major investments in non-auto modes and Smart Growth development policies.² Not everyone can or will take advantage of amenities such as carshare, bikeshare, and free transit passes. However, moving the needle for some with TDM measures frees up more parking for those who have no other options.
4. Cite examples of other cities with successful parking reforms: Decision makers and the public want to see how policy change affects similar cities. Hundreds of cities across the country have implemented parking reforms. The Parking Reform Network maintains a list of communities that have enacted parking reforms, ranging from citywide parking elimination to reducing parking minimums in certain districts.³ Some smaller cities may think parking reform is reserved for major cities with high-frequency transit. However, there are examples of parking reform in rural areas with populations of under 1,000 people.
5. Demonstrate how parking reform can benefit residents and businesses. It is important to state the benefits of parking reform in clear terms with little jargon. To illustrate economic development benefits, consider showing an example in the community of a business that could not have opened under the current parking standards, and the space would have sat vacant. For example, in a small Northern California City, a small business that wanted to open an ice cream shop in a vacant space downtown had to go through a variance process (which had a $5,000 application fee and took several weeks to get approval) because the property was short one parking space compared to what the Code requires. Planning staff presented this example at a public meeting, which resonated with elected officials who support small businesses and a vibrant downtown. Having specific examples helps to illustrate the proposed policies, as it can be hard for the public to relate to abstract policy concepts.
6. Clarify that parking isn’t being removed: Eliminating or reducing parking minimums does not mean banning parking from being built, but rather providing flexibility for developers. Late parking expert Donald Shoup emphasized how parking minimums are often based on limited data and are one-size-fits-all. Developers are incentivized to provide the parking that they need to attract tenants.
7. Align with established City goals: Many cities have already established policies that either directly or indirectly promote parking reform. For example, in California, Housing Elements must address barriers to constructing new housing. Climate Action Plans often include strategies that reduce vehicle miles traveled. To show consistency, consider reminding communities of these established city policies.

In conclusion, every community is unique, and parking is a highly localized issue. Successfully advancing parking reform requires building public and political support through clear communication, data-driven storytelling, and inclusive engagement. By emphasizing how outdated parking mandates inflate housing costs, limit flexibility, and undermine climate and mobility goals, policymakers can reframe parking reform as a tool for community benefit—not just a technical zoning change. Demonstrating local challenges and success stories, substantiating recommendations with local data, offering practical parking and transportation demand management solutions, and aligning reforms with broader city goals can help elected officials and residents see parking reform as a smart, forward-looking investment in their community’s future.

Tania Schleck is a parking and mobility consultant with Walker Consultants, based in the firm’s Los Angeles office. She works with public agencies, institutions, and private owners on policies and studies designed to serve the parking and mobility needs of multiple user groups. Prior to joining Walker, she was a city planner for Eden Prairie, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis, where she supported long-range planning efforts, coordinated entitlements, and updated the municipal code.