300 Quetta buildings ‘put lives at risk’

Local administration fails to implement building code in provincial capital


Our Correspondent August 17, 2020
PHOTO: REUTERS

QUETTA:

Geologists in Quetta have revealed that approximately 300 buildings in the provincial capital were built against building code, putting hundreds of lives at risk as the city is in a high-seismic zone of earthquakes.

According to Muhammad Qasim, in-charge of the cell, more than 300 shopping malls, markets, plazas and shops have been constructed in Quetta against the building code.

“The British rulers, after a deadly earthquake in 1935 that toppled the mountainous city, set a height of 30 feet for all the buildings in order to minimize the damages during the earthquake,” Qasim explained, adding that the Quetta Metropolitan Corporation (QMC) has failed in implementing the building code in Quetta city as the department didn’t monitor the buildings during their construction.

Dr Din Mohammad Kakar, a well-known geologist, said that Quetta is in the red zone when it comes to earthquakes.

“We have so far taken action against the owners of 40 buildings in Quetta, Geologists have warned of strong earthquakes in Quetta and other parts of Balochistan in the future,” he said.

Kakar further said, almost all areas of Quetta and Balochistan are prone to natural disasters in general and earthquakes in particular, taking into account the future risks.

“The British immediately decided on a building code in Quetta to avoid future human losses in case of any natural calamities and during the British rule, people strictly followed the building code, but gradually went against it,” he added.

Haji Salam, a local businessman, said the violation started without any check from the concerned circles, adding that “if you have the money, you can pass the plan for construction of any tallest building”.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2020.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ