No, not necessarily so. The newer buildings which had irreparable damage also had flaws in their construction. Or there was a problem with soil liquefaction (a major problem in the Christchurch NZ earthquake) as in Huechuraba where more than one decently built building suffered major damage. An ex-secretary of my DH managed to run out of her building in Ñuñoa (probably the one you saw) and it collapsed behind her. The builders have been charged with various things but it will be a while before the owners (she rented) will see their money back. Those who had paid cash fared the worst. Those with mortgages and insurance, slightly better.I got the clear impression that the older buildings, even as far inland as Santiago, withstood earthquakes better than many of the newer ones.
A lot of factors come together to cause damage: location and depth of the quake, duration, as well as how well things are built. The last 7 point whatever it was here did no damage yet the under 6 in Italy was very bad.