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
RSS