Atul Bhattarai

The Kathmandu skyline has witnessed a radical transformation in the past few years. Financed by a strong housing boom and driven by rising land prices, the construction of new high-rises across the city has become a common sight. Despite the benefits accorded by the new apartment and commercial complexes, several pressing issues about their design and safety remain.

These issues are usually unrecognisable to the average individual. Differentiating between well-constructed and substandard edifices requires an examination of minute or specialised characteristics of the building. Moreover, the aura surrounding these complexes further obscures their quality. Around the world, flats and shopping malls are typical middle-class amenities. An increase in wealth and a burgeoning bourgeoisie order in Nepal have created an intense demand for these luxuries. Boasting greater affordability than a full-fledged house, in addition to easier maintenance, additional security, and an attached set of amenities, apartments carry a distinctive appeal to the typical middle-class working household. The desirability attached to apartments makes the average person willing to condone possible structural shortcomings.

Bibhuti Man Singh, a prominent architect in Kathmandu, notes that most of these new structures are very well designed. “The structural design of the new buildings is done by very experienced professionals,” he says. “The theoretical aspect—what the structural engineer does— is very professional.” Singh emphasises, however, that design is not the crucial element of a building. The rigidity of the designing process is misrepresentative of the actual construction practice. “What happens on-site is a different story altogether,” Singh says. “There is a set of national guidelines for construction. Whether these are being followed strictly—that’s very doubtful.”

This negligence raises several fears about the high-rise buildings currently under construction. An important consideration is whether these buildings can survive the high-magnitude seismic disturbance that Nepal is inherently predisposed to. David Petley, a professor of risk and hazard at Durham University was quoted early last year saying “from a geological perspective, the risk seems to be very large indeed,” in reference to Nepal’s precarious situation. Researchers at GeoHazards International, a US research group, predict that Kathmandu is set to experience a particularly devastating quake after decades of tectonic reprieve, rendering safety considerations all the more important.

So what about the adherence to earthquake-resistant building codes? “As far as apartments are concerned, the government has in place a very strict design supervision regime,” says Singh, “the design is monitored according to the best international practices. But this alone does not ensure that it is built according to these guidelines.” Amrit Man Tuladhar, Senior Divisional Engineer in the Urban Planning Department says that the responsibility of checking the building plans thoroughly lies with individual municipalities. He notes that on-site monitoring, however, is more difficult to carry out. “Before, we sent out mid-level technicians to check if the foundation of structures was in line with the plans the owners presented,” says Tuladhar. He says that in recent years, the number of buildings constructed annually has become so high—around 1500 in the Kathmandu valley alone—that officials cannot visit all the sites. He cites a manpower shortage in municipality offices as the reason for this shortcoming.

This lack of on-site monitoring of structures paves way for parts of the original blueprint to be disregarded in the interest of profit. Investors’ attempts to “cut corners” are a problem in Kathmandu’s developer-driven housing market, Singh says. He highlights the power developers wield in the industry. The theoretical construction plan is externally scrutinised and brought to standard, but developers ignore it during implementation to raise the profit margin. Architects are hired hands that are oftentimes never called onto the construction site to verify if the building had gone as planned. This is reiterated by Tuladhar, who mentions how owners are likely to “economise” by substituting planned reinforcements with cheaper alternatives. He gives a prevalent and potentially dangerous example. “Developers are likely to say, no, we don’t need this strong pillar reinforcement, and instead build a weak set of pillars to cut costs.”

Another glaring example of investor materialism is the prominence of construction on leased land holdings. Developers construct housing on land that is leased to them for a 30 to 35 year period. Their vision for the structure does not extend beyond this. Within this time frame, Singh says, developers will have earned their profit and will abandon the site. “That’s one tendency that we have to control—leased developments,” he reaffirms.

Furthermore, in the case of residential apartment complexes, developers attempt to absolve themselves of any accountability for the building. Once the structure is completed, developers oftentimes completely sell their ownership, says Singh. They shed all responsibility for structural defects that may be found. This issue particularly affects buyers. Over time, initially undetectable defects or shortcomings may slowly crop up in the building, damaging consumer expectations that had been molded by developers during marketing. Substandard construction materials and structural deficiencies cause a variety of problems, from a lack of heat retention in rooms to leakage problems. If the developer has resigned its ties to the building, gaining proper compensation by holding it responsible for its compromising practices becomes very difficult.

“The responsibility shifts to the management committee, and the developers get out of site. The building deteriorates, and the developers are not held accountable,” explains Singh. “That is something that should be controlled. Developers must be held liable for what they do. A part of the responsibility for buildings should be retained by them.”

What about government regulations; are they comprehensive enough? They are evolving, he says. The regulations are much better than before, but improvements could be made. Tuladhar says individual municipalities should take a “very high responsibility to ensure every building is checked thoroughly”. He also mentions the need for a government training programme to ensure all employees in construction departments are qualified to check if buildings meet requirements, thus allowing more structures to be assessed comprehensively.

Singh asserts that most of the required government regulations to check for compliance with established standards are already in place. “It’s just like our constitution—everything is good on paper,” he jokes. “It’s just the enforcement that suffers.”

source: Bhattarai, Atul(2011),"A Multi-Storied Dilemma", The Kathmandu Post, 3 June 2011