Mourning
for the Cradle of Civilization[1],
Cities of Heroes[2]
and Veterans[3]
By Fatma Ozdogan
On 6th of February, two earthquakes hit the city of Kahramanmaraş in southeastern Türkiye. First earthquake Mw7.8 was followed by another one only nine hours after with Mw7.7. The impact was enormous. 10 cities (Kahramanmaraş, Hatay, Gaziantep, Osmaniye, Adıyaman, Malatya, Şanlıurfa, Adana, Diyarbakır and Kilis) are terribly affected by the earthquakes. Home to 13,5 million people, including 1.7 million refugees from Syria, more than 39.000 people (based on the latest reported number in the 12th day of the disaster) lost their lives. The number is expected to increase with the removal of the rubbles in the coming days. We who are left behind are still in deep sorrow and mourning.
Like any border city, these cities carried
a remarkable cultural heritage from the past. Host to dozens of civilizations,
their stories go back to 100BC. They witnessed empires, wars, conflicts,
migration waves for centuries. The city patterns were reflecting their abundant
gastronomy blending many cultures, architectural assets and several languages
used in this geography. Two earthquakes and a corrupted system swept away this
cultural wealth, as are tens of thousands of our people who have died under the
rubble.
Essential infrastructure such as airports
and roads are damaged, which caused delay in humanitarian aid. In some cities,
search and rescue operations did not start until the next day. Cold weather
conditions worsened the situation for people under the rubble, also for the survivors
outside. Management of a disaster in this scale was not an easy task.
Authorities are still criticized due to the miscoordination. People desperately
waited for help for hours for their loved ones under the collapsed buildings.
We counted every minute. Minutes became hours, hours became days, days became
weeks. Time took our hope to save more people. We lost so many under the
collapsed buildings. Each of us who survived has left a part of ourselves under
those rubbles. Traces will never be erased.
Crying to the cameras, people expressed
their indescribable pain: I lost 5,6, 7..10 family members. I lost my
daughter, I lost my mother, I lost my father, my wife, my husband, my granny,
my cousin, my aunt, my uncle, my brother, my sister..
People buried their loved ones with their
bare hands. While thousands of people are still under the rubble, their
families are not leaving until the wreck removal so they can save the dead
bodies and bury them traditionally, at least.
Arial view
of Ataturk Street in Hatay
This geography has experienced similar pains
in the past. Somehow some lessons were taken from those incidents.
In 1999, Mw 7.6 earthquake hit Marmara
Region and caused more than 17.000 deaths. This became a milestone in Türkiye’s
risk perception, disaster preparedness and building codes. The country built
the disaster management system, strengthen the building codes and design
regulations, introduced a control mechanism to ensure the quality of the
constructions. Additionally, following another earthquake in 2011 in the
eastern Türkiye, Van, an urban transformation law is passed. The law was
supposed to lead to the modification / reconstruction of the buildings at
disaster risks based on the updated building codes. In this way, the government
was securing the transformation of old building stock and modifying them.
So, what happened? Why, 24 years after the
massive earthquake in the same country, are we seeing the same devastation,
even more severe than the past experiences? Why do ten-fifteen storey buildings
turn into grains of sands and become graves to people? Why did we fail to
prevent this disaster? Didn’t we know that it was coming? Weren’t we prepared
enough? Didn’t we learn from previous disasters? Or is it simply because we
forget quickly?
The response is complicated. Though,
answers to these questions are not secrets either.
First of all, we are aware of the risks.
We are quite familiar with the fact that Türkiye is vulnerable to earthquake
risks. We know that Earthquake doesn't kill, building does; or there is no
such thing as natural disaster, natural hazards become disasters if we are
exposed to them! But awareness doesn’t reflect on decision-making process
neither on the public demand.
Zoning amnesties as a political tool
before every election is a common application. Zoning amnesty means any
building, or an additional level or section to a building that did not receive
engineering services and are not certified by authorities can be forgiven and officialise
by the authorities. A few months before this disaster, another zoning amnesty
was proposed by the government, as an election is on the way. The announcements
of amnesties were always welcomed by the communities as they had chances to officialise
their informal buildings. Even though specialists and experts are emphasizing
the mistake in every amnesty, their voices are ignored totally. Twenty zoning
amnesty was applied since 1948, and millions of housing and commercial unites
are officialised with this method since then.
Secondly, the approach to urban land,
urbanism, right to housing has shifted completely over the last 20 years.
Construction became the main industry to develop the economy for the government
instead of seeing it as a way to providing services and infrastructure to the
public. Contractors became the main leaders of the construction industry, not
specialists nor the experts. Expert involvement in the planning and decision
making is totally ignored, their voices are suppressed over the years. The
control mechanism of chamber of engineers and architects are canceled by using
the delay they cause during the review as an excuse. Even, contractors have right
to hire their own auditors and pay them directly. The whole process leads the
lack of third-party control both in the planning and application processes. Not
surprisingly, this conflict of interest between the contractors and auditors led
to negligence of the technical requirements. Eventually, two-three years of
residences collapsed in the latest earthquakes.
Similarly, mentioned urban transformation
law was managed by the contractors. A great chance was missed to rebuild the
areas at risk by giving the power to the contractors. Individual
reconstructions prioritizing the benefit of the contractors deepen the spatial
inequalities and exposed more people to disasters rather than reducing the
vulnerabilities. Tackling the disaster risks on the individual building level
caused missing the bigger picture in the neighborhood or city level.
From the land management point of view,
land-use restrictions are rarely applied in the city centers due to the
economic value of the land. The urban transformation and zoning laws does not lead
to the construction ban in the lands prone to disaster risks. Instead,
engineering solutions are imposed even for the lands with high disaster risks,
and even when the land is directly affected by a disaster and buildings are damaged
there.
Another reason is the quality of
university education. Almost every city in Türkiye has at least one university.
The number is more in mega-cities like Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir. Architecture,
engineering, and urban planning departments exist almost in all of them.
However, not every department has the same quality level of education. Lack of
qualified academics and services cause the non-qualified graduates.
Furthermore, there is not a professional qualification system for graduates to
be authorized to approve/sign a project. Any person graduated from the bachelor’s
degree immediately obtain the right to approve a project. Considering the
geographical risk factors, frequency of the disasters and the scale of the
impacts, education quality and professional qualification system must be
prioritized, and investments should be directed to the universities aiming
higher quality.
The role of unplanned migration movement
and the social, environmental and economic pressure as a result can be named as
another reason to exposure to disaster risks. Rapidly increasing urban density and
uncontrolled urban sprawl challenged the governance of the affected cities.
Especially Gaziantep and Hatay were already struggling to provide urban
infrastructure to the increasing population before the earthquakes.
Finally, shortcomings in the risk
perception and its consideration in the disaster management system is critical.
Currently, investments and expertise focus on disaster intervention and
post-disaster recovery, while still there is a great need for improving the
capacities in the disaster preparedness.
Post-disaster reconstruction is a complex
and sophisticated process. As listed above, it has many dimensions, and it
cannot be done without addressing the root causes of the damage. An
interdisciplinary, inclusive approach is the key to address the needs, reduce
the pre-disaster vulnerabilities and avoid similar pains in the future.
Although this complex process requires
time, upcoming election in 2023 makes the situation challenging politically for
the current government. As a result, in the first week of the disaster,
President Erdogan announced his promises to complete the reconstruction of the
affected cities in one year. By acknowledging that the management was not
impeccable, he claimed that no country in the world could manage a disaster
of this scale perfectly, because it was the disaster of the century. This
phase he used; disaster of a century; became iconic among the
government. It is used as an excuse for any miscoordination or shortages in the
management.
There is no doubt that the scale of the
disaster is enormous. But there is no doubt that it could have been prevented
and it could have been managed better.
Some decisions have been highly criticized
by large majorities. For instance, as a quick solution to the housing needs, university students staying in the dormitories were
told to evacuate immediately. Some of the earthquake victims were placed in
these dormitories in all cities of Türkiye. University education is converted
to remote. While quality of education was on the target of the disaster impact,
this action was called into doubt. Especially while most of the current
students lost already a few years due to the pandemic, mostly in applied
sciences.
Another criticized decision was closing
the primary level education in all cities until 20th February, and
indefinitely in the 10 affected cities (decision will be revaluated on 1st
March). Pedagogists state that closing the schools can only deepen the trauma
of affected children and emphasize that in the 1999 Marmara earthquake
education never stopped in any level.
With the given promises to rise these
cities from their ashes, starting the wreck removal in the first week of
disaster was another subject of critics. While people still had their hopes to
save more people from the rubbles, rescuing more people alive during the wreck
removal created another trauma in our minds. Additionally, as recommended by
lawyers, collapsed buildings are evidence of crimes and a legal process should be
followed before starting to clean the rubbles. Lastly, a tender process should
be followed to award the companies for wreck removal which is not the case
today.
It is certain that decisions need to be
taken urgently due to the nature of the conditions; however, long-term impacts
should be considered in a sensitive situation like that. Impetuous decisions
usually neglect people’s voices. Identifying the needs of communities and planning
based on the conditions require time. Post-disaster reconstruction has a
responsibility to rebuild these cities by respecting historical and cultural
values. While millions flee to neighboring cities, when they come back, destroying
the traces of the past can only deepen their trauma and make the adaptation
impossible. We need to keep in mind that we own a proper recovery to the cradle
of civilization, and cities of heroes and veterans.
A graffiti
in the City of Hatay, also known as Cradle of Civilization: Do not lose your
hope Hatay, we will come back. (Credit: Barış Atay)
First of all, solutions for housing,
infrastructure, waste management, food security, livelihood should be planned
in three time periods: Short-term, middle-term and long term. Short term
solutions are ongoing for repairing the basic infrastructure. Planning for the
longer periods should start immediately with the contributions of stakeholders.
Revisiting the previous experiences and predicting the long-term impacts of
applied solutions is critical at this stage.
Considering the reconstruction of these
cities is not possible until the completion of damage assessment. The extent of
the destruction varies in different provinces and districts. While destruction
occurs at the city level in some districts (Elbistan, Defne, İslahiye, Nurdağı)
and provinces (Hatay, Adıyaman, Kahramanmaraş), there are also provinces where
the destruction is relatively low. Various solutions should be produced and
should be developed with the participation of communities, specialists,
scholars, experts, and decision makers.
The planning studies should be designed
within the framework of the principles that will reduce these risks and take preventive
measures. The plans to be made during the reconstruction process of our cities
must necessarily include a holistic disaster prevention policy. Solutions
should be in urban scale.
A comprehensive post-disaster
reconstruction planning with social, environmental, and physical dimensions is essential
in order to build resilient cities. While a similar size earthquake is expected
in Istanbul in the next thirty years, reconsidering all the aspects of this
damage is vital, to be prepared for future disasters not only in the affected
cities but in every city of Türkiye.
Ancient and historical value of affected
cities should be in the center of planning and decision-making. Principles
should be designed according to these assets and integrated in the solutions in
different levels.
The state of building inventory (even
though they were not damaged) should be revisited in cities prone to disaster
risks.
Urban transformation law should be revised
with more consideration of the current disaster risks, land management and
vulnerabilities. Most vulnerable regions should be prioritized during the
renovation.
Observing the impacts of applied solutions
is essential. A lessons-learned mechanism should be integrated in the disaster
management system. Reconstructed areas should be analysed in various period of
times in the future. We need to ensure that lessons are taken from this
experience.
I sincerely hope that the reconstruction
process will produce broad solutions, including the problems that existed in
the region before the disaster. A human-oriented urbanism, inline with the
local needs and using the modern technologies, recovery will lead to tackle the
deepening injustice through spatial solutions, and reduce pre-disaster
vulnerabilities.
References:
Cumhuriyet Gazetesi, 2023. Depremin ardından
Hatay'daki yıkım havadan görüntülendi. [En ligne]
Available at: https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/galeri-depremin-ardindan-hataydaki-yikim-havadan-goruntulendi-2048787
[Accessed on 17 February 2023].
Author: Fatma Özdoğan
As an architect based in Türkiye, Fatma
Özdoğan has international professional experience in Türkiye, Azerbaijan,
Qatar, research experience in Colombia, Lebanon and Türkiye. After completing
her studies in Türkiye, she was offered a scholarship at Oxford Brookes
University, UK to study the MA Development and Emergency Practice programme. She
improved her knowledge on the interrelationship between sustainable urban
development and natural/man-made crises. She recently began her doctoral
studies at the faculty of planning at the University of Montreal, Canada. Her
research interest is disaster management with a particular interest in
post-disaster reconstruction. She studies the relationship between the
country's responses to disasters and development. Her current research aims to
understand the needs of communities as architects and to propose sustainable
solutions to bridge the gaps between the needs and the services provided.
[1] Hatay has a historical importance for Türkiye,
as the last city joined to the Turkish lands with ambition and dedication of
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The name of the city, Hatay, is given by Atatürk.
[2] Kahramanmaraş (Compound Name, Kahraman –
Maraş) – The forename, Kahraman which means hero, is given by the Turkish Grand National Assembly
(TBMM) in 1973 with respect to their efforts in the Liberty
War (1919-1922)
[3] Gaziantep (Compound Name, Gazi-Antep)) The forename, Gazi which means Veteran, is
given by the Turkish Grand National Assembly
(TBMM) in 1921 with respect to their efforts in the Liberty
War (1919-1922).
