Lessons to be Learned

The controversy about the collapse of very recent constructions is based on specific examples that do not generalize. Most buildings destroyed by the earthquake were constructed before the applicable current standards were in force, particularly after the 1999 earthquake. To avoid the collapse of these buildings, it would have been preferable to make anti-seismic reinforcements, which generate high costs but provide a satisfactory solution. Let's remember that in an earthquake-prone region like the south of France and, more particularly, in the Nice sector, the problem is the same: earthquake-resistant reinforcements of buildings that we know are vulnerable must be undertaken on a large scale.

The problem for the Turkish authorities will be to rehouse the populations who were displaced during the earthquake urgently. The strategy in place is, in particular, the creation of camps made up of tents and prefabricated buildings, which can temporarily compensate for the lack of accommodation. These two temporary solutions are the most suitable, thus avoiding the creation of a lasting precarious habitat. The emergency shelters used in third-world countries and ending up in unstable slum-type habitats are unacceptable solutions.

It is time to consider a real reconstruction strategy when clearing collapsed constructions and to demolish collapsed buildings on the ground floors. Reducing the height of buildings in seismic zones to a maximum of five storeys would be a reasonable solution and would make it possible not to increase urban sprawl too much. Moreover, identifying fault lines is fundamental to declaring these zones non-aedificandi. Indeed, it is inevitable that in the case of construction on identified seismic faults, it is only a matter of time before another tragedy occurs.

Of all the buildings affected by the earthquake, a large number of buildings have been affected but can be saved by appropriate anti-seismic reinforcements. This work is technical but quite feasible; it will be less expensive to do seismic support than to destroy and rebuild. This is one of the axes the partners helping with the reconstruction will have to address since it is economically fascinating. We can consider that an earthquake-resistant reinforcement of a building can cost 10 to 30%of the cost of constructing a new building, which must be added to the speed of the execution times, which is not a detail. When during this time, the inhabitants have housing difficulties.

Today, there are two emergencies; one is to rehouse as quickly as possible the populations who were affected by the earthquake, while the second is to warn of the next major earthquake expected in the Istanbul region by carrying out the reinforcements of the buildings which can be reinforced as quickly as possible to avoid the human losses which we imagine to be considerable This anti-seismic reinforcement campaign for buildings is an absolute priority It could save lives and reduce the cost of reconstruction in the event of future earthquakes.

Estimated cost of reconstruction:

Based on figures given by AFAD, there are approximately 47,000 buildings that need to be rebuilt or reinforced in a seismic manner. The reconstruction of the 24,921 collapsed buildings will cost about 16 billion euros; it is necessary to add the earthquake-resistant reinforcement of 22,080 structures for a total of approximately 5 billion euros, to which will be added the reconstruction of the 211,000 houses which are destroyed, i.e., for a total of more than 10 billion euros.

As a result, the total reconstruction cost that can be envisaged is 31 billion euros; this figure does not include school infrastructure, health infrastructure, roads, and bridges that must be rebuilt.

Patrick Coulombel

Co-founder of Emergency Architects / Architectes de l'Urgence

https:/ / www.archi-urgent.com/