Standing but unsafe: Venezuela faces major structural assessment challenge

More than two weeks after the powerful earthquakes that struck Venezuela, the emergency response is moving from search and rescue toward structural assessment, temporary housing and recovery planning. The earthquakes, reported as magnitude 7.4 and 7.2 events, caused widespread damage across Caracas, La Guaira and coastal communities, killing thousands and leaving many more injured or displaced.

Engineers working in the affected areas have reported a wide range of damage, from non-structural failures to partial and complete building collapses. La Guaira appears to have been particularly badly affected, with strong shaking, vulnerable building stock and soft soil conditions combining to amplify the impact.

The priority now is to determine which buildings can be safely occupied, which require restricted access and which must remain evacuated until detailed investigation or repair is completed. This is a critical stage after any major earthquake because many buildings that remain standing may still contain serious hidden damage.

Early engineering observations point to several recurring vulnerabilities. Older reinforced concrete buildings, structures designed to outdated seismic provisions, soft-storey layouts, poor detailing and irregular structural forms appear to have performed less favourably.

Maintenance also matters. Buildings weakened by corrosion, cracking, water ingress or previous deterioration often have less reserve capacity when strong shaking occurs. In some cases, past modifications or changes of use may also have changed the original load path without proper structural verification.

This is especially dangerous in seismic regions. Removing walls, adding floors, increasing loads or changing internal layouts can unintentionally reduce a building’s earthquake resistance. During shaking, the structure may no longer behave as originally designed.

By contrast, more recent buildings designed and constructed to modern seismic principles reportedly performed better, especially in Caracas. Some sustained local or non-structural damage, but many maintained overall structural integrity. This reinforces a fundamental lesson: good seismic design cannot prevent all damage, but it can significantly reduce collapse risk and loss of life.

The earthquakes also damaged important heritage structures, including churches, colonial buildings, hotels and historic monuments in La Guaira and Caracas. These buildings are often highly vulnerable because they combine age, brittle materials, limited reinforcement, humidity damage and long-term maintenance issues.

Historic structures require a different assessment approach from modern buildings. Engineers must check cracks, wall displacement, roof movement, timber elements, foundations and the risk of further damage from aftershocks or rain. Emergency stabilisation may be needed before restoration can even begin.

The disaster shows that earthquake recovery is not only about rebuilding collapsed structures. It is also about quickly identifying unsafe buildings, protecting displaced residents, stabilising heritage assets and deciding where reconstruction must follow stronger seismic standards.

The country must assess thousands of damaged buildings, provide safe shelter for displaced families and begin reconstruction in a way that reduces future risk. The earthquakes have exposed the cost of ageing structures, poor maintenance and limited seismic upgrading. The recovery must not repeat those weaknesses.