At a glance, the massive blaze that engulfed a luxury residential building in Narathiwat Soi 18, claiming one life and causing six injuries, last Friday morning might make some believe that it was just another case of a forgetful resident who left burning candles and joss sticks unattended.
But if we look more deeply, we can see many flaws and legal loopholes which, if addressed, would have prevented casualties, including the wife of the building owner who suffocated. It's apparent that firefighters faced difficulty in getting to the location because it is on a narrow road and the building's height made it next to impossible to extinguish the flames.
But after an initial investigation, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) ruled out any breach of building control regulations by the owner. While the 1992 Building Safety Control Act requires structures over eight storeys to be fitted with sprinkler systems and fire escapes, this doomed building (nine storeys tall, 10 if rooftop area is counted) was an exception because it was constructed in 1991 and the law is not retroactive.
For the same reason, the building owner didn’t breach the clause prohibiting a building higher than 23 metres — or eight storeys — to be constructed on small roads or roads less than 10 metres wide. This tall building, situated on a street narrower than 10 metres, doesn’t violate the current law.
As the damages and casualties show, not violating the law does not ensure the building met current safety standards. In this tragic case, it’s unfortunate that City Hall failed to find ways to ensure the owner improved the safety standards of the building. EIT president Suchatvee Suwansawat suggested owners of tall building owners take the Feb 5 blaze as a lesson. In cases where tall buildings cannot be modified to improve safety there must be regular fire drills for the residents.
The fire on Narathiwat Soi 18 is a lesson, not just to building owners, but also the BMA.
I’m sure there are numerous other buildings in the city, many of them being used for business purposes, that fall into the same category and have the same safety problems — those that were built before the revised version of the building control law took effect.
There are grounds to be concerned given that the EIT instructed some 11,300 buildings — with certain features including those taller than 23 metres, larger than 10,000 square metres, accommodating more than 500 people and hotels with over 80 rooms to seek a yearly inspection by experts as a preventive measure.
At least what City Hall could do — like in many countries where there are old buildings that don’t meet current safety standards — is to require building owners to instal fire escapes outside the structure so residents will not be trapped inside the old structure in case of a fire or earthquake.
It’s unlikely that the BMA can inspect these buildings every year. Nor does it seem to want to educate the owners of old tall buildings about current safety standards.
This is not an exaggeration. The BMA was ineffective in dealing with a high-profile case involving a building that breached control laws and, according to a ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), was due to be demolished 14 months ago by allowing it to operate business-as-usual.
This involved the 24-storey Aetas Hotel Bangkok on Ruamrudee Road which was due to be torn down after an SAC ruling on Dec 2, 2014 because it violated the Building Control Act 1979 (amended in 1992). The court found that the building in question was constructed on a road that was less than 10 metres wide.
I’m not sure if City Hall is dragging its feet over the demolition because the luxury building, worth about 3 billion baht, is too expensive to demolish or the lives of the residents are too cheap.
No harm meant, but imagine how difficult it will be for fire engines and firefighters to access the building given that the small Ruamrudee Road is always congested with traffic.
It may be too difficult for the BMA to push for outright demolition of this 24-storey building, but at least it should immediately be made to cease operations. On top of that, the officials who “approved” the illegal building should be punished for seeing people’s lives as disposable.
Sirinya Wattanasukchai is an Assistant News Editor, Bangkok Post.