CTV Building in Christchurch Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

CTV Building in Christchurch - Essay Example This paper approves that it is clear from the above discussion that the CTV building collapsed due to the inadequate quality of the structure and design. Moreover, several issues such as lack of an effective decision making process, poor supervision processes and unethical business and operation practices are responsible for this collapse. After the 2010 earthquake government of New Zealand appointed the Christchurch City Council to inspect the safety standards of the CTV building. There was a chance for survival, but the Christchurch City Council appointed an inexperienced engineering supervision team. The owner and shareholders could have arranged for a better review process. This report makes a conclusion that the CTV building collapse was the major consequence of the Christchurch earthquake in 2011. From the above discussion, it can be stated that several reasons are responsible for this collapse. Inadequate design and quality of structure are the major reasons behind this incident. Government tried to arrange an investigation process in respect of the CTV building by appointing the City Council. However, inadequate decision making of the Christchurch City Council and the poor review process by the inexperienced engineers forced the council to give a green sticker. The Government of New Zealand along with IPENZ and the Royal Commission are trying to find out the real reason behind the collapse of the CTV building through several private investigation processes. ... It is true that the CTV building got a green sticker after the 2010 earthquake despite the critical situation of the building. Although the building was not eligible for a yellow sticker, signalling authorities and the group of engineers gave a green signal to the building in order to achieve a huge profit margin. In any earthquake prone zone, a building is to be designed according to the guidelines imposed by the government of that state. There were a number of people who were engaged in the designing of the building. There were chiefly three main entities: the designer of the building, the company that the designer represented, and the other management individuals of the company. The design component had two parts. The Structural Engineer was David Harding under the brand of Alan Reay Consultants Ltd and Alun Wilke Associates Architects was the architectural firm who had been employed for the construction of the building. Gerald Shirtcliff, who supervised the construction in the na me of William Fisher, did not have a degree in engineering. Harding used to work under the guidance of Alan Reay, the owner of the firm. During the establishment of the building, the CTV building did not meet the standards. On the other hand, the principle engineer and the owner did not follow the regulations or legal aspects during the review process. Alan Ray was the principle engineer of this building. He did poor supervision and passed the review report to the structural engineer. However, the owners and stakeholders did not even bother to review the building plans or rectify the challenges and issues accordingly. The government of New Zealand took one wrong decision by appointing the City Council for the investigation of the property. It was the key