In China, a building and a bridge collapse, controversy over building safety
Experts comment that the pillars were poorly constructed. They should have imbedded deep in the ground, given that it was unstable and close to a water source, resulting in the building being "uprooted". Xinhua agency has pointed the finger at the manufacturer Meidu Shanghai Real Estate, which is now subject to strict controls. The planners and constructors of the building are under investigation. The company has been stopped from selling other buildings and its bank accounts were frozen. In the apartment block of 13 floors, they had already sold 489 of 629 apartments and now owners are asking compensation.
Meanwhile this morning a bridge on the river in Tiel (Heilonjiang)collapsed. Immediate relief efforts rescued people who ended up in the water with their vehicles. Mayor Zhang Yang explains that the bridge had been inspected and restored in 1997 and says that the collapse was caused by the excessive load on a truck carrying construction material.
Controversy is tense surrounding the safety of buildings in China, which sprout like mushrooms, but are increasingly subject to serious disasters that show construction deficiency. Many experts accuse corrupt officials of pocketing the money for public buildings, allowing the use of shoddy materials and neglecting security checks. The problem first emerged in 1976, when the Tangshan earthquake caused over 240 thousand dead. Strict rules for the building safety were introduced, but this did not stop hundreds of schools collapsing like tofu puddings in the earthquake in Sichuan in May 2008, killing thousands of students. Parents of victims have noted that the buildings around were still standing in the aftermath and accused the authorities of having pocketed funds destined for the construction industry. Beijing, having promised serious investigation subsequently concluded that the collapse depended on the violence of the earthquake, without disclosing the outcome of its investigations.
The system of sub-contracts is also under scrutiny, where major construction companies snap up lucrative contracts, but then in turn contract smaller companies that build on the cheap, but are protected by the good name and expertise of the well-known company.