ELAZIG GUNISIGI NEWSPAPER – February 2012
PERCEPTION OF URBAN TRANSFORMATION
Urban transformation is a concept with a very broad scope.
When we talk about urban transformation, we need to decide which specific issue we will address.
For example, along the road leading to the airport in Ankara, after Pursaklar, all the slums on both sides of the road were demolished, and modern living spaces are being created in their place. This is urban transformation.
In Van and Erciş, the earthquake resistance of buildings is being assessed, and strengthening or renewal works are being carried out; this too is urban transformation.
So, should we renew neighborhoods like Zafran and Karşıyaka? Or should we focus on renewing the central neighborhoods, which have a higher population density and minimal structural earthquake performance?
Urban transformation, which almost no political party included in their election manifestos, only emerged after the Van-Erciş Earthquakes.
In fact, I’d like to point out that the Kütahya Simav Earthquake wasn’t powerful enough to push urban transformation to the national agenda. This is because the loss of life was minimal, the intensity of the earthquake was low, and the warm weather made the citizens' suffering less significant.
The Van Earthquake made everyone remember the inadequate earthquake resistance of the building stock in Turkey, and the commonly expressed concept of urban transformation is nothing more than the elimination of the buildings with insufficient earthquake resistance.
Urban transformation is an essential part of Turkey's earthquake strategy. The Ministry of Environment and Urbanization’s efforts are focused on this direction.
I want to make it clear: Urban transformation should absolutely be carried out in neighborhoods like Zafran, Karşıyaka, and others, but should these areas be prioritized? This is a question worth considering.
As someone who has personally examined every earthquake in the region and knows Elazığ's building stock down to the smallest details, I still believe that the earthquake risk in Elazığ is not fully understood.
The reason I focus so much on urban transformation, earthquakes, and the renewal of the building stock is because I realize that we only have one chance. It is our collective moral responsibility to direct this opportunity correctly and hit the target as accurately as possible.
You might ask, why should we start urban transformation not in Zafran and Karşıyaka but in neighborhoods like Nailbey, Kültür, Izzet Paşa, etc. I would summarize my answer as follows:
- After the February 2007 Sivrice Earthquakes, around 200 heavily damaged houses were identified in Elazığ’s city center, and citizens are still living in these homes (perhaps we should wonder if they are living in their graves?). Maybe in time, these buildings will start to collapse on their own—shouldn’t this be reason enough?
- Even after the 2003 Bingöl Earthquake, there were buildings in our city that had cracked columns, but these damages were only repaired superficially. The authorities were not notified to avoid decreasing the property value of the homes, and these issues were not even included in statistical evaluations.
- Many buildings, including those on Gazi Street, had columns and beams cut, further weakening their already poor earthquake resistance.
- It is not difficult to predict the earthquake performance of stone buildings that were supposed to be a maximum of two stories high, but were instead built with four or five stories.
These points could easily be expanded. It is clear that in densely populated areas, there are multi-story buildings with narrow streets that may be impossible to even carry out rescue operations after a possible earthquake. These areas should be the priority for urban transformation.
As the Ministry also points out, teams should be created first, and structural risk maps for the cities should be drawn. With these risk maps and results, the situation we are currently in will be much clearer, and I believe that everyone will be convinced of the correctness of what I am saying.
The slogan and goal for urban transformation, earthquakes, and structural earthquake performance are clear. "Societies with a high level of civilization, looking to the future, with goals and great projects, are the ones where the safest places during an earthquake are their own homes."