t24.com.tr
Hakimbey Apartment Collapse: Report Finds Multiple Parties Responsible
A forensic report on the collapse of the Hakimbey Apartment in Malatya, Turkey, during the February 6 earthquakes, which killed 78 people, found multiple parties, including the contractor and the municipality, primarily and secondarily responsible due to numerous design, construction, and regulatory failures.
- What specific design, construction, and regulatory failures led to the collapse of the Hakimbey Apartment building, resulting in 78 deaths?
- A new forensic report on the collapse of the Hakimbey Apartment building in Malatya, Turkey, during the February 6 earthquakes, which killed 78 people, has found multiple parties at fault. The report, prepared by Karadeniz Technical University academics, deemed the contractor, technical application manager, technical supervisor, site manager, static project author, and individuals responsible for project controls in the municipality's building permits as primarily responsible. The municipality's building control unit was deemed secondarily responsible.
- How did the discrepancies between the building's static project, architectural plans, and calculation reports contribute to the building's vulnerability?
- The report highlights several critical failures: the static project was prepared according to the 1975 rather than the 1997 earthquake regulations, core samples failed to meet minimum compressive strength requirements, and the building lacked a soil survey. These failures, along with insufficient reinforcement detailing and material quality issues, contributed to the building's collapse.
- What are the broader implications of this case for building safety regulations and enforcement practices in Turkey, and what steps can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future?
- This case underscores systemic failures in building construction and regulatory oversight in Turkey. The report's findings suggest a pattern of negligence throughout the building's design, construction, and permitting processes. Future investigations should focus on similar cases to identify and correct broader systemic issues to prevent future tragedies.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's headline and opening paragraphs immediately highlight the findings of the second expert report, emphasizing the culpability of various individuals and entities involved in the building's construction and approval. This framing sets a tone of assigning blame rather than exploring a more comprehensive understanding of the disaster. The inclusion of details about the basketball player's death, while tragically relevant, might serve to evoke strong emotional responses and potentially sway public opinion towards a more judgmental stance.
Language Bias
The article uses fairly neutral language in reporting the expert report's findings, using terms such as "asli kusurlu" (primarily culpable) and "tali kusurlu" (secondarily culpable). However, the inclusion of emotionally charged details, such as the description of the building as being "turned into rubble" and the mention of the basketball player's death could be perceived as manipulative or intended to elicit emotional responses from the readers.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the findings of the second expert report, but omits details about the first report and the reasons for its rejection. The article also doesn't elaborate on the specific types of deficiencies found in the building's construction, only mentioning general categories like 'insufficient reinforcement detailing' and 'insufficient material quality.' Additionally, while mentioning a request to investigate the building's response to the 2020 Elazig earthquake, the article doesn't provide the results of that investigation, if any were conducted. Finally, the article briefly mentions a survivor's plea to the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization but doesn't detail the Ministry's response beyond stating that they declared the building safe for habitation. This omission is significant because it directly relates to the loss of life.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of responsibility, primarily focusing on the contractor and the municipality. It implies a direct causal link between identified construction flaws and the building collapse, without fully exploring the complexities of contributing factors like unforeseen seismic events or other potential external influences. The narrative seems to frame the issue as a matter of individual culpability, possibly neglecting systemic problems.
Gender Bias
The article mentions the death of a female basketball player, but this detail does not seem to be used to reinforce gender stereotypes. The focus is on the loss of life, rather than on her gender. However, the article largely avoids mentioning the gender of other victims, which may also contribute to a potential bias by omission.
Sustainable Development Goals
The collapse of the Hakimbey Apartment building in Malatya, Turkey, resulting in 78 deaths, directly highlights the failures in urban planning, building codes, and construction oversight. The expert report identifies significant shortcomings in the building's design, construction, and regulatory approvals, all contributing to the building's collapse and the loss of life. This exemplifies the risks associated with inadequate urban infrastructure and deficient building practices, undermining the goal of safe and resilient cities and communities. The expert report explicitly points to the negligence of multiple parties, including those responsible for project approvals and construction, further emphasizing the systemic issues that led to the tragedy. The quote, "Apartman mevzuata uygun yapılmamıştır" ("The apartment was not built in accordance with regulations"), directly supports this assessment.