.
Gul Plaza was not built as it was meant to be built. That much has now been admitted by SBCA. The building violated its approved plan, yet it was regularised, certified and allowed to function for years. If anything, this admission only confirms the fact that such violations are not exceptions, they are the rule.
Across Karachi, buildings rarely resemble the plans they are approved on. Extra floors appear where none were sanctioned. Open spaces meant for ventilation or safety are turned into shops. Parking areas disappear. In many cases, even basic safety measures are ignored. And yet, completion certificates are issued without hesitation. It is a pattern. The SBCA’s position that its responsibility ended shortly after issuing a certificate raises serious questions. A regulator cannot wash its hands of a building once paperwork is complete, especially when that paperwork itself masks violations. The claim that maintenance later becomes the responsibility of a management committee does not absolve the authority of ensuring that what was approved is what was actually built.
More troubling is the role of regularisation. Amnesty schemes have repeatedly been used to legitimise what should never have been allowed in the first place. In the case of Gul Plaza, even the number of shops exceeded what had been approved, yet this too was regularised. The gaps do not end there. SBCA has admitted it did not assess whether the building was fire-resistant. There was no coordination policy with the fire department. Records are missing, leaving uncertainty about even basic details such as the number of floors.
This cannot continue. There must be a large-scale inspection of buildings, not just in Karachi but across major urban centres. Any deviation that compromises safety must be identified and addressed without delay. On top of that, regulatory bodies must be made answerable beyond paperwork through strict and harsh punishments.
