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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS