πŸ“‹ Report & Facts

Official inspection findings, flood risk analysis, and breakdown of 10 critical issues. From planning flaws to management failures.

🌊 ANKAPARK Built on High-Risk Land!

⚠️ "I DID IT, SO BE IT" Mentality

ANKAPARK was constructed at the confluence of three streams, in a high flood risk zone. Existing trees at Ataturk Forest Farm were also cut down for ANKAPARK.

🌊 Ankara Stream 🌊 Sâğütâzü Creek 🌊 Dikmen Creek
πŸ—ΊοΈ
Flood Risk Map
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Data

In the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's "Ankara Basin Flood Management Plan", the ANKAPARK site is designated among "high risk" and "very high risk zones".

🌳 Hundreds of trees cut down at AOΓ‡ β†’ πŸ—οΈ Construction in high-risk zone β†’ πŸ’Έ $801 million spent β†’ 🚫 Open for only 11 months

πŸ“Ž Report Visuals: Flood Risk Evidence

Ankara Stream line and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry risk classification layers can be seen in the two original images below.

Map showing the relationship between the Ankapark site and the Ankara Stream flood line
Area where the Ankara Stream flood zone overlaps with the Ankapark site.
Map showing high and very high risk areas according to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report
High-risk and very high-risk areas highlighted in the report.

πŸ“‹ The Facts: 10 Critical Issues Identified

Prior to Ankapark's construction, starting from the planning phase, no methodology, strategic action plan, insurance, or warranty protocol had been prepared for such a massive project. As a result...

1
No inventory list found. There was no comprehensive inventory list or operational program for work, transactions, machinery, or equipment. All handovers, current assessments, needs, and risk analyses had to be created from scratch.
2
Excessive number of tenders. The high volume of attraction items, equipment, structures, units, and line items in tender files complicated current status analyses.
3
Matching could not be conducted. Matching the inventory acquired through tenders with physical assets on site proved difficult, and in some cases products could not be located.
4
Public safety was at risk. The report found that operating attractions with damaged, missing, or worn components would endanger public safety and that approval from the manufacturers was required before they could be operated.
5
Spare parts no longer produced. Certain manufacturing firms no longer produce the relevant products or spare parts. Unobtainable data exists for robots and plastic ride-on toys lists.
6
Overpaid by 3 times. Procurement resulting from 2013-2015 tenders cost approximately 3 times more than 2021 market quotes.
7
Reprocurement highly costly. Reprocurement, maintenance, repair, and spare parts sourcing for units were reported to take extended time, with costs approaching original 2013-2015 amounts.
8
Warranties expired. Various materials were kept in storage for prolonged periods unused, leading to warranty expirations. Materials were exposed to weather elements, degraded, and ruined.
9
Landscaping uncompleted. Landscaping operations remained unfinished, or prolonged waiting caused drying, decay, and loss of vegetation.
10
Electrical infrastructure collapsed. Disconnection of electrical service resulted in structural, electrical, and mechanical damage requiring high-cost repairs across attractions and buildings.

Conclusion: Considering the identified costs, allocating the massive budget required to restore Ankapark would override other critical city priorities and generate new financial burdens.

πŸ“Œ What Is Being Done Now?

βœ…
Completed
A comprehensive damage assessment and inventory audit of Ankapark was completed. A technical team working alongside TMMOB and 86 ABB personnel conducted field inspections.
πŸ”„
Ongoing
Technical reports and price quotes are being requested from original manufacturers. Detailed repair costs for electrical, water, gas, security, and mechanical systems are calculated to decide what can be saved or salvaged.
πŸ“’
Decided
In 2022, Ankara Metropolitan Municipality asked residents, β€œWhat do you think ANKAPARK should become?” Approximately 80,000 people took part in the survey, and 95 percent wanted the site converted into a recreation area.
Ankara Residents Chose a Recreation Area
ANKAPARK's future was determined through public participation in 2022
β‰ˆ80,000
Survey Participants
95%
Preferred Recreation
2022
Decision Year