Delhi’s unsafe buildings: Disaster is round the corner

Delhi’s recurring building collapses expose gaps in enforcement, emergency access and disaster preparedness. The article argues for identifying high-risk structures, strengthening safety regulations, using technology for monitoring, and training local communities so that disasters can be prevented rather than managed afterwards

A building has collapsed in Satya Niketan, there have been casualties, and rescue operations are on in full swing. But soon enough, as always happens in such situations, debris will be cleared and media attention will shift to something else. However, what needs to be asked is: “Does the risk apply only to the collapsing building, or does it also involve all the other buildings which still stand strong?”

In case another building were to collapse, or in case another fire or earthquake were to occur in this area, would Delhi’s emergency services machinery be able to respond in time to save those caught inside? This is precisely what went through my mind when I visited Satya Niketan after the last incident. What I saw was very disturbing indeed: densely populated buildings, narrow pathways which appear to be obstructed, and no open ground where fire engines, ambulances or any other emergency vehicle can rush to the spot. The tragedy, thus, may not just be one of a collapsed building but much more than that.

Building collapses, fires and other disasters of the kind have been happening too frequently in our national capital. From our analysis of several such disasters in the past that took place in the Delhi/NCR region, we know that the same story keeps repeating itself — the lack of authorisation in construction, alterations in the structure, extra floors, poor-quality materials, overcrowding, lack of fire safety measures and, most importantly, the failure of enforcement. While each such incident brings about shock, statements from politicians, investigations and promises, the truth is that the risk does not stay confined to the particular structure.

The issue is not that there are not enough rules in Delhi. There are the Unified Building Bye-Laws, the Fire Safety Regulations, the Planning Provisions and the Disaster Management Act. There are municipal corporations, development authorities, fire services and other organisations charged with responsibility for the respective urban security issues. However, the frequent emergencies demonstrate a critical lack of correlation between the written laws and their enforcement. It may happen that a construction begins without appropriate permission, a building is given extra floors, a residence is turned into a business place, or structural modifications are done without the necessary technical assessment. Sometimes, complaints have been filed and notices have been sent, but there is no effective reaction. The outcome is a dangerous situation in which the private gain from hazardous construction is achieved by a few individuals, while the threat itself is faced by residents, students, neighbours, firefighters and the whole community.

The problem is much more acute in crowded areas. A building may look sturdy under ordinary circumstances, but could become highly susceptible under the effect of fire, rain, an earthquake or any such sudden impact. Narrow alleys or crowded roads could exacerbate the situation. An emergency vehicle such as a fire engine, an ambulance or heavy machinery would not be able to access the building in time. If there are no available exits, or stairways are insufficient or crowded, then even a minor incident could cause a catastrophe. The crucial minutes at the beginning are those that could be lost because of a lack of proper planning and preparation.

This is precisely why Delhi needs to shift gears from the reactive mode to the preventive mode. Emergency operations are required but should not be the primary means to address the problem of unsafe buildings. It is impossible to fix an unsafe building by conducting a better rescue operation once people get stuck inside. What needs to be done is to pinpoint the potential risk areas prior to any accident. High-risk buildings and clusters of high-risk populations need to be identified and tested for structural soundness and fire safety standards. Defective buildings will need to be either fixed, strengthened, modified or even demolished. These assessments should not degenerate into just another paperwork exercise. There has to be accountability and timeliness attached to them. These processes can become more streamlined with the use of technology. Plans and permissions granted for construction must be digitised and easily verifiable. Any construction that violates the approved plan must attract an immediate inspection. Where negligence can be proven, liability must extend beyond the owner of the property to include the approving agencies, among others. Enforcement cannot be selective or based on the level of media interest after an accident.

But there is one more aspect that cannot be neglected - the community. In every disaster situation, local residents become the first responders. Before the arrival of fire services, policemen, ambulances or any rescue team, local residents may be involved in rescuing people, giving first aid, informing the services about the situation and finding out who could still be trapped. Their reaction in the initial minutes of a disaster can determine whether people will survive. But the preparations of communities to respond to disaster situations in most vulnerable localities remain mostly informal and disorganised.

Thus, Delhi needs to build the capacities of community-based organisations, local residents, volunteers, market associations and other local networks in disaster-prone areas. They do not need much equipment in the beginning. What they require is some basic training in evacuation, first aid, dealing with fires, emergency communications, identification of vulnerable people and coordination with services such as policemen, firemen and health professionals. They should practise emergency drills in schools, markets, residential colonies and other crowded places. Volunteers should be aware of the emergency numbers, access roads and safe assembly points in their area. This is a relatively inexpensive but effective measure.

The government should not only focus on individual buildings but also consider neighbourhood risks. In cases where new high-density developments and activities need to take place, the local authorities should consider some very basic questions: Can emergency vehicles reach the building? Are there any safe means of evacuation? Can firefighters go up the floors in case of an emergency? Are the buildings strong enough to withstand the stress? What will happen if more than one building is affected in the event of an earthquake or fire?

Satya Niketan is not merely an example of yet another collapse; it is also a reminder of the type of urban growth we are seeing in Delhi. The city cannot afford to accept hazardous buildings as a part and parcel of urban growth. Economic growth and safety are two entirely different concerns; in truth, there can never be any economic development without structural and fire safety measures.

Disaster readiness is not about how quickly we manage to rescue people from a collapsed building; it is about preventing a disaster before the collapse. Satya Niketan should not end up being another entry on Delhi’s list of tragic stories. It should be a lesson that results in change. The next building should not collapse before we find out its dangerous condition.

Satya Niketan is not merely an example of yet another collapse; it is also a reminder of the type of urban growth we are seeing in Delhi. The city cannot afford to accept hazardous buildings as a part and parcel of urban growth. Economic growth and safety are two entirely different concerns; in truth, there can never be any economic development without structural and fire safety measures; Views presented are personal.

The writer is Former Executive Director, National Institute of Disaster Management, Government of India; Views presented are personal.