In the heart of downtown Los Angeles, the towering 749-foot Gas Co Tower stands as a gleaming symbol of the city’s ambition and growth. Yet, beneath its shimmering glass and steel façade, deep concerns are simmering about whether this 52-story skyscraper could become a tragic casualty if the long-dreaded 'Big One'—a massive earthquake predicted to strike Southern California—finally hits.
According to The Daily Mail and Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County officials have recently come under fire after refusing to release seismic safety reports that detail the Gas Co Tower’s ability to withstand a catastrophic earthquake. The county bought the building in 2024, intending to relocate hundreds of its employees into what is now Los Angeles’ fifth tallest building. But as the move-in date drew closer, so did the questions: just how safe is this skyscraper, and why are the details being kept from public view?
At the center of the controversy is the building’s structural history. The Gas Co Tower, completed in 1991, was constructed with a steel-moment frame design. At the time, this engineering method was considered cutting-edge, relying on horizontal beams and vertical columns welded together to form a robust skeleton. But just three years after the tower’s completion, the 1994 Northridge earthquake—clocking in at a magnitude of 6.7—revealed alarming flaws in this very design. According to city officials in Torrance, another Los Angeles County city, the quake caused many of the connections between beams and columns in steel-moment frame buildings to crack or even completely break. "Experts discovered that these buildings suffered from a wide range of flaws resulting from shortcomings in established design and construction procedures, including poor basic connection geometry, poor connection welding materials, and inadequate quality control, among other factors," Torrance officials wrote in their own building repair program, as reported by The Daily Mail.
Despite these warnings, a recommended $230 million retrofit that would have updated the Gas Co Tower to modern, earthquake-resistant standards was suspended due to financial constraints. The county’s decision to halt the retrofit has set off alarms among structural engineers and local residents alike, especially as the city faces an ever-present risk of seismic disaster. "I don't think it's going to collapse — that's just my opinion," said structural engineer David Cocke, as quoted in Los Angeles Times. "But I can say with a lot of confidence, in a major earthquake, they're not going to be able to use the building unless they do the retrofit."
The stakes could hardly be higher. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a chilling simulation in 2008 of what a magnitude 7.8 quake—the so-called 'Big One'—might do if it erupted along the San Andreas fault beneath Los Angeles. The results were sobering: an estimated 1,800 deaths, 50,000 injuries, $200 billion in damages, and about 50,000 buildings either destroyed or deemed uninhabitable. The simulation also warned that older, unreinforced structures and high-rises with brittle welds—like those built with the steel-moment frame—were particularly vulnerable.
Los Angeles County officials, however, have offered reassurances. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath stated during a county counsel meeting, "Safety is nonnegotiable, and my understanding is that the building already exceeds safety requirements. In fact, it would have the highest standards of any county building at this present moment." Yet, the refusal to release the seismic safety reports has only fueled public skepticism. Officials cited ongoing contract awards for construction at the site as the reason for withholding the documents, noting that the original seismic report is "being updated with new findings."
Meanwhile, the debate over the Gas Co Tower’s safety is not happening in a vacuum. The broader context is one of mounting anxiety throughout California. The region is no stranger to earthquakes—indeed, Los Angeles alone experienced nearly 2,500 tremors in a single year, according to seismic monitoring agencies. The specter of the Big One looms large, with experts warning that it’s not a matter of if, but when such a disaster might strike.
City officials in Torrance, whose own building stock includes several steel-moment frame structures, have publicly acknowledged the risks. "Many of these buildings have not been retrofitted and may be susceptible to similar severe structural damage or even building collapse in a major earthquake," they explained. The 1994 Northridge quake exposed the vulnerabilities of these buildings, leading to widespread calls for upgrades and stricter building codes. In the years since, California has indeed updated its regulations to better account for seismic stress. But the Gas Co Tower, at 34 years old, remains a relic of an earlier era—one whose safety is now under intense scrutiny.
The county’s decision to suspend the retrofit, citing financial problems, has not sat well with many observers. After all, the cost of inaction could be catastrophic. The USGS’s Great California ShakeOut scenario painted a grim picture not just for downtown Los Angeles, but for the region’s entire infrastructure. Roads, pipelines, and rail lines crossing the fault would suffer significant damage, and the economic ripple effects could be felt nationwide.
Despite the reassurances from county officials, structural engineers and seismic experts continue to sound the alarm. They argue that without immediate upgrades, the Gas Co Tower could become a focal point of disaster if the Big One strikes. The building’s status as a modern steel structure does offer some advantages over older, unreinforced masonry buildings, but the lessons of Northridge are hard to ignore. The very design that was once touted as a breakthrough has since been revealed to harbor critical weaknesses under the intense stress of a major quake.
As the debate rages on, the fate of the Gas Co Tower remains uncertain. County officials maintain that safety standards are being met, and that updated seismic reports will eventually be made public. But for the workers, residents, and passersby who traverse downtown Los Angeles every day, the question lingers: is this skyscraper a safe haven, or a ticking time bomb?
With the memory of past earthquakes still fresh in the minds of Angelenos, and the ever-present threat of the Big One casting a long shadow over the city’s skyline, the call for transparency and decisive action has never felt more urgent.
