Construction work on Taipei’s Dazhi Street damaged seven neighboring buildings and caused one to partially collapse. The Taipei City Government has been managing the incident based on its regulations for handling such disputes.
However, these regulations have been criticized as allowing the construction company to simultaneously act as player and referee, to the detriment of public safety.
In addition to revising those regulations from an institutional aspect, the government should stop favoring development companies in disputes.
Regulations stipulate that when the Taipei Department of Urban Development is notified about construction possibly having caused damage to adjacent buildings, it should investigate whether the construction endangers public safety and compile a report. The department should also examine whether the damage to adjacent buildings was caused by the construction and compile another report on who should be held accountable.
However, these two reports are assessed by the construction company and its supervisors. In other words, those responsible for the construction are the ones who inform the adjacent buildings’ residents of their own safety problems and their liability for damage. This inappropriate and unprofessional system has been in place for years.
After a construction incident affects adjacent buildings, the construction company responsible tends to believe it has done enough and yet wonders why affected residents still demand so much.
To be sure, the company asks professional engineers and architects to evaluate the construction site, but it tends to neglect that the residents are highly unlikely to trust the company after the fact. The company should recognize that lack of trust, and it matters little how much damage control it tries to do or how many reviews it provides for residents.
These regulations should be amended thoroughly. When the Department of Urban Development receives a claim of damage to adjacent buildings caused by construction, it or the residents should be the ones to designate a third party to assess safety and liability. Everything should be based on social propriety and professional standards, so that a foundation of trust can be established.
With the public’s trust, a professional investigation and proper communication are possible, and the government, public and construction company can all win.
Any excavation inevitably leads to subsidence damage and changes the structure of neighboring buildings, just as one bleeds when undergoing surgery. There is always a price to pay. The issue is to what extent the surface will be damaged and whether changes will affect public safety. With this in mind, urban development companies should budget in advance for anything that might occur to adjacent buildings, so as to make good neighbors and do damage control.
Furthermore, the government should follow a deposit mechanism concerning soil and water preservation: Whenever an excavation project is under way, a proportion of the overall cost should be charged as a deposit to be used if the excavation affects public safety or nearby buildings.
Such a mechanism would also contribute to a virtuous cycle built upon professionalism. If a construction company that forfeits fewer deposits can sell its project better than others, the engineers and architects involved would be more respected and the emphasis on making connections and socializing with construction companies would be lessened.
This is the lesson we should learn from the Dazhi Street incident.
Johnson Kung is a civil engineer and a board member of the Taiwan Professional Civil Engineers’ Association.
Translated by Emma Liu
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
The topic of increased intergenerational conflict has been making headlines in the past few months, showcasing a problem that would only grow as Taiwan approaches “super-aged society” status. A striking example of that tension erupted on the Taipei MRT late last month, when an apparently able-bodied passenger kicked a 73-year-old woman across the width of the carriage. The septuagenarian had berated and hit the young commuter with her bag for sitting in a priority seat, despite regular seats being available. A video of the incident went viral online. Altercations over the yielding of MRT seats are not common, but they are
The party of former Czech prime minister Andrej Babis this month won 80 out of 200 seats in parliamentary elections. Combined with the 15 seats of the Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) party and the 13 of the Motorists for Themselves (AUTO) party, the result paves the way for the populist leader’s return to power. In addition to Babis’ populist ANO party, the anticipated coalition is expected to include the two anti-system parties, which campaigned on discontinuity with central aspects of the EU policy framework. While the two smaller parties’ main domestic priorities differ — with the SPD focusing on immigration control
RSS