The egg-shaped Taipei Dome is capable of hosting baseball and basketball games, filled to the brim with fans, hosting events back-to-back without issue.
Many people these days are asking: Why is it any different from using the same venue space, with the same spectator seating, entrances, exits and emergency equipment, now that some people want to hold a pop concert? Why is the Taipei Dome suddenly not capable of hosting sports and music events?
The answer to this question could be found in the spectator seating being built underground.
The arena is under the following restrictions and regulations found in Paragraph 127 of the Taipei City Architectural Technical Regulations (建築技術規則): “For [performance venues] situated on a floor below an evacuation level; the floor containing spectator seating shall not be situated more than 7m below the street level or beneath building foundation; its surface area shall not exceed 200m2.”
The level of the Taipei Dome’s spectator seating area was built at a depth of 10m underground. Simply put: The arena does not meet the existing regulations for entertainment venues.
However, this regulation was enacted in 1974 and was last amended in 2001.
Half a century ago, nobody could have predicted that a building like the Taipei Dome would one day be built, let alone that several tens of thousands of spectators would be seated under one roof, watching performances and matches, or that spectator seating would be built so deep underground.
Outdated laws cannot possibly keep up with the pace of constantly evolving social developments.
Amending the law again would take time, money and effort.
Despite having a legislature that seems reluctant to properly discuss revisions to laws, it ought to be a simple matter to make changes. This is a common occurrence in countries with rule of law.
In light of this, the National Land Management Agency, under the Ministry of the Interior, made an interpretation of the law in 2017.
“When the Taipei Arena [predecessor to the Taipei Dome] is used provisionally for non-athletic events, none of such use shall subject the building to the specified technical regulations found in Chapter 2, Articles 121 to 128 of the Technical Regulations,” it said.
Meanwhile, the agency made a broad interpretation that “when venues are temporarily used in a non-athletics capacity, such usage shall be applied for in accordance with the Taipei City Large Crowd Event Safety Management Ordinance [台北市大型群眾活動安全管理自治條例].”
When the Taipei City Government issues a use permit, it is doing so largely in accordance with the agency’s interpretation.
Why does anyone need to reapply for a permit according to Article 29 of The Taipei City Regulations on Usage Permits?
It says: “When accepting applications for work plans for large-scale mass events, a review must be applied for in accordance with Article 127 in the chapter on Architectural Designs and Construction of the Architectural Technical Regulations [建築技規則建築設計施工篇].”
This regulation was supposedly annotated and given an addendum in the early years of former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) administration.
The use permit was only issued as per the regulations. The issuing of the construction permit happened in the middle of the saber rattling between Ko’s Municipal Urban Development Bureau and the administrators for the Taipei Dome.
Just as well, nobody knows which regulatory unit has the final say.
The final portion of Article 29 states: “Or the safety of fire escape and evacuation has been verified through a performance design review by a professional organization [or others permitted to do so].”
For the moment, the Taipei City Government and Farglory (the contractor for the Dome) seem to be heading in this direction.
Who exactly is going to carry out the inspections and how they are going to do them, are entirely new questions.
Can we hold a concert?
If we put aside the professionals and the cumbersome building management, and look through the perspective of spectators, then the answer is crystal clear: There are no problems when it comes to hosting a baseball game, so why would a concert not be okay?
These questions were raised, because of a concern that superstar performances might be too rowdy for structural safety.
Is it due to dangers from pyrotechnics? Have past sporting events ever cut back on those?
Additionally, the regulatory review approved the venue holding large-scale events attended by more than 55,000 spectators.
If there truly are any concerns, could they not have been raised during the application period and protections bolstered retroactively?
From its inception, the Taipei Dome has long been a contentious issue.
Yes, it is the first time something like this has been attempted in Taiwan. Yes, we have come up against antiquated rules and regulations.
If we add on political calculations, the hatched-up result was heavily reduced from its initial designs after the “gestation” process.
These problems are not outliers in the field of architecture.
The decision to literally interpret the law during investigations and the implementation process is really quite ridiculous.
How many Taiwanese hope to go to the Taipei Dome and experience something that used to only be experienced through international media?
Experts hope that there is a reasonable way to apply the regulations to the whole of the Taipei Dome. They do not want a repeat of all the controversy and fighting from the time of its construction.
Leu Chin-wen is an architect and a board member of the Organization of Urban Re-s (OURs).
Translated by Tim Smith
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS