|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLES: New contractors liable for ghost building collapse | Top 10 billion-dollar projects in Abu Dhabi | The 10 greatest engineering feats of the decade
Entering into a new era of economic stabilisation, the GCC construction sector is optimistic about a wave of developments set to move its regional markets forward. From Abu Dhabi to Saudi Arabia, developers, contractors and consultants are preparing for a successful, albeit gradual upturn.
On the contrary, in Dubai, attention is turning to those projects that were cancelled or delayed during the downturn. Seeking new revenue streams and more work, developers and contractors from across the GCC are looking to the skeleton structures or 'ghost buildings' that populate the Dubai skyline with a view to resurrecting old projects and improving their profits.
Story continues below 
However, it is yet to be seen whether these ghost sites, with their degrading structures and rusty scaffolding, will yield any commercial value for contractors when balanced against a high number of risks. Indeed, without any realistic analysis of the possibilities, companies could be stepping into a financial and legal danger zone as the economic viability and regulatory risks of these projects remains difficult to quantify.
Structurally speaking, ghost buildings present a variety of difficulties that could later transpire into significant legal and financial problems, whether they jeopardise the adequate provision and observance of health and safety policies, or the overall commercial success of a project.
“The main problem with stalled buildings is structural deterioration,” says Meinhardt MENA principal structural engineer, Tanmay Biswas. In his view, the level of degradation of a ghost building depends on the stage at which construction was stalled, the quality of early building work, the duration of exposure to degradation triggers and the extent to which the building is protected from external forces.
“As we live in an aggressive environment,” he adds, “the deterioration is fast and deep-rooted. As an example, an incomplete structure will have lots of exposed and unprotected rebar or structural steel work which is likely to have started rusting. Depending on the duration of exposure, airborne salts may also have caused deterioration of the concrete, or ‘concrete cancer’.”
And, as is often the case with ghost buildings, if the developers and contractors decide to change the use of the building, this is only likely to exacerbate risks, the old design structure being unable to support the new use.
As regards the knock-on effects of a high level of degradation, the first problem arising for contractors will be the high repair costs. Should the de-watering have been turned off at a site during the ‘silent’ period for example, the costs of reviving the flooded structure could easily be prohibitively expensive.
A second concern revolves around health and safety. According to Biswas, where a site has been deserted for a long period, shoring failure or falling cladding is likely to compromise contractors’ health and safety policies and leave them liable for workplace injuries or deaths.
But perhaps the biggest problem for a new contractor resurrecting a degraded, partially constructed building, is associated with its partial or total collapse. In this case, the new contractor and architect will be held strictly liable, with no burden on the previous contractor.
Next page: Who's liable?
| Articles | |
| Companies | |
 |
Site Map
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  |
\
FEATURED COMMENT
Please note that prior to a ghost building being resurrected again the building has been exposed to the risk of subsiden