On that fateful Sunday, a solemn commemoration took place at the heart of Los Cristianos to honour the memory of the seven individuals who tragically lost their lives in the collapse of the building located at 12 Amalia Alayón Street on the 14th of April, 2016.
Fátima Lemes, the mayor of Arona, led the emotional gathering, joined by various members of the Municipal Corporation, including Ánima Marrero, the former president of the building’s residents’ community. The event was also attended by representatives from the security forces, including the Civil Guard, National Police, Local Police, and Civil Protection, among others.
The remembrance ceremony included a moment of silence and the laying of flowers and candles by the wall surrounding the now-empty plot where the five-storey building once stood. The structure had shockingly collapsed at 9:31 a.m. on that tragic Thursday eight years ago.
Unveiling the Causes of the Collapse
Two expert reports commissioned by the Arona City Council shed light on the reasons behind the collapse of the building in Los Cristianos. The findings, which were presented during the ratification hearing on February 1st before Judge Sofía Elena Valdivia at Court Number 3 in Arona, confirmed the information previously reported by DIARIO DE AVISOS.
To ascertain the technical causes of the collapse, the City Council enlisted the expertise of the companies Atlante SLU and Intemac for independent forensic engineering assessments. The reports were submitted to the court on September 7 (Intemac) and November 7 (Atlante SLU) after the analysis of all samples, which necessitated the demolition of the remaining structure of the block in July. What were the pivotal points highlighted in the two reports regarding the events leading to the building’s collapse in Los Cristianos?
1. Intervention by Banesto
The Atlante study underscores that the actions taken within the building were crucial in causing its collapse, specifically pointing to the removal of walls as the key factor leading to its destruction, particularly the work undertaken at premises A (Banesto financial entity) in 2003.
The study presents concrete evidence supporting this conclusion: “Upon analysing the debris, it was evident that the metal lintels found were employed as replacements for the load-bearing capacity of the removed walls. These elements were not only poorly integrated into the ground, but their connection to the pillars was established using plastic plugs bought from a hardware store.” As expressed by one of the attorneys involved in the case, “the fasteners were of appalling quality, barely capable of supporting a painting.”
The study emphasises that “the structural assessment of such buildings should encompass not only traditional components like columns and beams, but also incorporate walls (partitions and façade enclosure) as integral elements of the structure”. The question arises: why did the building in Los Cristianos not collapse sooner and remained upright for 43 years?
This query is addressed in the report, linking it back to the previous argument: “All the indications of damage to the building stemmed from the interventions at the financial institution’s premises, signifying that the walls, in particular, were essential elements of the structure (…). The delay in collapse was due to the building being supported, on one side, by the structure and, on the other, by the walls.”
The study goes on to suggest that “had the walls not been removed and the metal elements been correctly installed, despite the substandard materials and design, the building would likely have remained standing.”
The second report, apart from highlighting the subpar quality of concrete used in the building, also associates Banesto with the incident, attributing the delay of over four decades to “alterations in the partition layout, such as those possibly undertaken at the ground floor premises (Banesto).” This could have acted as the triggering factor. The report, authored by five engineers, posits that “it is highly plausible that these partitions and enclosures, known for their rigidity, were inadvertently absorbing structural stresses despite not being designed for such a purpose.”
2. Inferior Concrete Quality
The analysis by Intemac suggests that “the collapse may have been triggered by the failure of a pillar due to poor-quality concrete.” It indicates that based on inspections, “it appears likely that the collapse originated with one of the pillars inside the building.” This failure, as per the report, would have initiated a chain reaction, causing adjacent pillars to bear excessive loads. According to the group of engineers, the subsequent renovations “would have had minimal impact had it not been for the concrete defect specified.”
Similarly, the evaluation by Atlante SLU points to the varying strengths of concrete, characterised by low density and inadequate cohesion between aggregates and cement. It describes the material as “underwhelming,” lacking coherence and composed of disintegrated aggregates. The report also mentions the “strangulation of nodes, a critical section of the structure requiring enhanced reinforcement and solid concrete.”
3. Neglected Maintenance
The Atlante SLU review notes that “only the persistence of cracks from the initial warning report to the eventual collapse 12 years later can account for the lack of remedial action by the Community of Owners. The deterioration over time would have been inescapable.” Consequently, the collapse is attributed to “the owners’ failure to fulfil their duty of maintenance, particularly the original owner of premises A (Banesto), who had caused structural alterations, leaving the building in a state of hidden instability.”
4. Renovations in 2016
Around the time of the collapse, internal renovations were underway in the premises at the Los Cristianos building for conversion into a perfume store. During the expert’s confirmation, it was noted that while these works may not have been overly intrusive, given the tools used, they were performed on a structure already weakened.”
