The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building-Case Analysis Assignment

The Canterbury video (CTV) Building-Case Analysis - Assignment ExampleMost of the earthquakes witnessed in late(a) times have had devastating effects. Therefore, architects are advised to pick up that modern buildings meet the building standards capable of withstanding seismic waves of reasonably high magnitude. New Zealand is one of the European countries that have suffered from a series of earthquakes in the fresh past. One much(prenominal) earthquake occurred on 22 February 2011 in Christchurch killing 184 individuals. Investigations conducted after the incident showed that the building collapsed due to poor design and construction. In addition, a number of players and stakeholders were associated with the incident, a number of them culpable. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Key Role-players and Stakeholders 4 3. Management and Organizational Factors Associated with the Incident 9 4. Summary and Conclusions 10 5. Recommendations 10 References 11 The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building-Case Analysis 1. Introduction Natural disasters such as earthquakes have become a common occurrence in recent times. Earthquakes have particularly been common in Southern Asia and parts of Europe. Most of the earthquakes witnessed in recent times have had devastating effects. In New Zealand, the Canterbury Television (CTV) Building was the most affected by the earthquake that hit Christchurch on 22 February 2011, according to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery ascendance (2012) report. The building collapsed to the ground prima(p) to the death of cxv of the 184 people who perished in Christchurch. The collapse of Canterbury Television (CTV) Building in Christchurch on 22 February 2011 was one of a kind. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2012) indicates that the building collapsed when an earthquake, 6.1 in magnitude, hit Christchurch in New Zealand. However, it took many by surprise to learn that only the CTV Building collapsed due to the earthquake, leadin g to the death of 115 people (Wright & Greenhill, 2012). This hinted to the fact that at that place was something amiss in the design of the building. It was argued that there was no reason for the building to be the only one affected whereas there were many other buildings adjacent to it. Investigations have identified a number of key role players who were responsible in one way or another(prenominal) for the collapse of the building. Most of the role players in the incident double up as stakeholders. This report seeks to identify the key role-players and stakeholders linked to the CTV Building and its consequences. In addition, the piece will provide an analysis and evaluation of the key management and organizational factors linked to the incident, both prior to and after the incident. 2. Key Role-players and Stakeholders 2.1 David Harding David Harding, the architect who designed CTV building, is the counterbalance role-player blamed for the collapse of the building. According to Wright and Greenhill (2012), the building did not meet standards when it was built in 1986. Investigations showed that Harding worked beyond his level of competence since his structural plans had several flaws that an experienced actor would otherwise not have committed. Vervaeck and Daniell (2012) also indicated that Harding, the designer of the CTV building, had no tangible experience in designing multistory buildings like CTV. According to Vervaeck and Daniell (2012), the building had sickly designed joints between the columns and beams. As a result, the reinforcement holding the beam and columns together were too weak and did not comply with building standards set in 1986. The concrete used in making the columns also had inadequate steel reinforcements, making them brittle and too weak to withstand high tension such as that of produced by an