I recently heard on the radio that the state has no idea how many apartment buildings have basements. The building register does not provide this information. Apartment associations are at a loss. On top of the fact that emergency sirens don't work and alerts don't reach our phones, now there's the issue of shelter spaces, too.

As an architect, I've been asking the same unanswered question in various working groups for decades: why, when applying for a building permit, must we fill out tens of pages of forms about the number of elevators, square meters of roofing felt, cubic meters of concrete, number of bathtubs, building length, width and height, underground and aboveground volume, eave overhang and the balcony's projection to the ground in centimeters? Does anyone ever actually use this data?

Government basements are full of folders and servers overflowing with data. And now we find out the truth: no one uses it. To clarify the situation with shelters, a new round of questionnaires will likely begin. A new software system will no doubt be created, staff will be hired to measure, analyze, process, systematize, store and catalog responses and results. Plus, there will be those who oversee and take responsibility. After all, there are tens of thousands of buildings.

Here's a suggestion: if we're going to do something, let's start with analysis. Why? For whom? How? And let's retain only the absolutely necessary information — and only the people needed to handle that information.

At the end of the last century, the explanatory note for a detailed plan was just a couple of pages long and so was the note for a construction project. It's a pleasure to look at archival drawings of buildings from the Estonian era — some of the finest examples of Estonian architecture were built from documents that fit on just a few pages. My own projects from 50 years ago are slim as well, but they underwent proper expert review.

Procedures exploded when we began operating on a case-by-case basis: one complaint would be generalized and the resulting procedure added — just in case — to all future cases. Legal provisions and exceptions started being copied into project documentation. This could be extended to planning more broadly.

We have the national spatial plan, municipal and city district plans, thematic plans and various analyses that have been processed for years — all of which set certain parameters. I believe that if the vision for a building or neighborhood complies with those parameters, there's no need for a detailed plan. It adds nothing new and only wastes time and resources.

But if there's a desire to make fundamental changes, then we do need thorough analysis and consensus. For that, the laws must be changed and procedures simplified. Laying off officials only leads to bottlenecks and despair — deadlines get extended, more complaints are filed and responses must be delivered on time. In reality, those responses often take the form of interim letters saying the deadline has been extended — sometimes by a year or two. Then the official is replaced, the thread is lost and the process starts all over again.

On top of that, various agencies developed software on different platforms that don't integrate with one another, creating further confusion and administrative paralysis.

Duplication. A pointless waste. If we could get rid of that — if we had the courage to make decisions and apply logical thinking to these processes — we wouldn't need layoff quotas or budget cuts. There would even be money left over. Common sense, please!

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!