Talk:Sampoong Department Store collapse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Facts regarding the collapse[edit]

I'm a little confused on a couple of facts regarding the collapse:

1. There are articles mentioning the incident occurring in either the Kangnam-gu/Gangnam-gu (강남구; 江南區) or Seocho-gu (서초구; 瑞草區) district of Seoul. Both districts happen to be side-by side, which makes it difficult for those unfamiliar to the city to know exactly where the collapse happened.

2. The death toll ranges from 501 to 502. Is there an exact figure? ++ 25 29 June 2005 01:42 (UTC) ++

  • I'm pretty sure it is. this place says 501: link -- WB June 29, 2005 07:21 (UTC)
  • 501 people died, 937 were injured and 6 person was missing in the collapse. It happened in this place: Seocho-Dong Seocho-Gu Seoul. you can find this information here[1], but it is in Korean.--Kay someone 15:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused[edit]

On the show that it was shown on (The Discovery Channel) it said that there was a new floor suppose to be adding which would make a indoor skating rink, but since the consctructors did not agree to it they fired them. Which do I believe? Wikipedia or the show?

  • Lost*
It's difficult to verify much of the information in Wikipedia, considering that we have been referring to several online pages for information prior to the show, and some of them provide conflicting info about the details.
What Discovery Channel's Blueprint for Disaster did though, is provide use with a number of new info regarding the collapse, and may be creditable, given that it has real interviewees to explain the situation, but I won't jump the edit wagon too soon, we have to verify them first. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 17:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Blueprint for Disaster[edit]

Here are a number of new information I've managed to pick up from Discovery Channel's Blueprint for Disaster on the collapse:

  1. The fifth floor was indeed intended to be a skating ring. However, it was the executives that changed the plans, while Lee Joon fired the initial contractors for refused to follow orders. The restaurant was believed to be added before the store's opening, and not after. Also, there was no mention of the building previously intended to be an office building.
  2. The concrete mix, and foundation have been ruled out as the cause of the collapse. They had also considered the possibility of a terrorist attack by North Korea, but that had also been rule out.
  3. Columns near escalators were cut to allow for the placement of fire shields, not the escalators alone.
  4. The columns on the upper floors were not thick enough, and were not providing proper top and bottom reinforcement.
  5. The stress placed on the floor supporting the restaurant was created by the installation of heaters beneath the floor, industrial strength kitchen equipment, and the water towers that were moved from the bottom of the building to the roof. There was no mention of any crane moving any air conditioning unit.
  6. The concrete slabs of the upper floors, forced down by the weight, had been punched through by the columns, which eventually resulted to the collapse.
  7. One civil engineering expert was sent to investigate the cracks of the building on June 29, but he was shown to have downplayed the incident, and even suggested that the damages can be repaired.
  8. It appeared that only one wing of the store collapsed; the other wing remained intacted.
  9. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 17:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]
I'll back you up on what you wrote, I'm watching the same show right now. What's even more strange is I work in the neighborhood in Seoul where the collapse happened. If that's not strange enough, one of my students told me that he and his mother were outside the store when it collapsed in 1995. Davidpdx 14:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but if you want to write an article, you need better sources than a (albeit good) television show. 134.117.163.60 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Wing of Sampoong Department Store's Fate[edit]

As we all know, the south wing of the Sampoong Department Store collapsed, while the north wing remained intact. Does anyone know what happened to the north wing after the disaster?!

This article mentions that a residential and commercial high rise was built over the site of the store. Presumably, the rest of the department store may have been demolished not long after the collapse, but clarification from a local may help clear things up. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Given and Family names[edit]

I'm not sure about this, but it seems that Lee Joon's family name is Lee, NOT Joon, and refering to someone by their given name is generally a faux pas. His son is Lee Han-Sang which only seems to agree with my statement. I know that in Japan family names are first and given names are second. If someone can confirm that this is also the case in Korea I suggest that someone change every reference to Mr. Lee's given name. --StarkRG 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You're right. Korean names usually come surname-first, unless they're printed in English papers/books, in which case, you get the confusing situation of having the surname come last in some sources, and first in others. Of course, this usually isn't a huge problem, because of the structure of typical Korean names (one-syllable family names and two-syllable given names), but there are some unusual names that can cause a bit of confusion. Anyhow, it's most likely that the family name in question here is 'Lee' rather than 'Joon', especially seeing as his sone seems to have a family name of 'Lee'. --Zonath 05:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Why isn't there any mention of a similar event in Singapore, the collapse of the hotel/bank new world? I saw it on TV. There were fewer casulties, but there isn't an article on it. Should there be one? Also, the name of the store can be spelt differently. Should there be redirects? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Hotel New World disaster? ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 08:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Yeah, I think so, thanks. However, why didn't I find it on the "New World" disambiguation page? Should it be added? AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure, but you are free to add it as you please. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]


Photo[edit]

Could any body say me where can I find a photo of sampoong before the collapse please? --85.71.211.66 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"hoax"?![edit]

Hi. An anon added the prod template earlier today with the reason hoax. Obviously the article is not a hoax. I'm not sure if you're allowed to remove prod templates like this, can someone look into this matter, and cleanup the article if nessecary? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Someone from ip 118.128.114.130 removed most of the article, including the aftermath and trial, without commenting or giving reason. I have restored to an undamaged version. -- Laura Burchard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.202.224 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable survivors[edit]

12 or 17 days for Park Seung Hyun? There's no citation for either, and the numbers conflict.

501 or 508[edit]

In the article text it says 501 people died, but in the box on the right it says 508. Which number is correct?78.70.252.81 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did stress start in the building? I need help because I have a report due next monday!!!!!! ---- MEE TOO (AOL)

Citations needed!![edit]

This article is amazingly light on citations. Facts are repeatedly given with no supporting references. 73.213.13.215 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please update - TRIAL[edit]

Please update. "His son Han-Sang" is not anymore working for religious causes in Mongolia. --Ser Pouncalot (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AC Unit Weights[edit]

The article references 45 tonne (50 ton) AC units. This is very likely incorrect. AC unit tonnage refers to the cooling capacity, not the unit weight. It is likely that the units had a 45 ton (540MBH) cooling capacity, not weight. This is confusing especially in an article about structural engineering. A unit that weights 45 tonnes would be massive, much larger than anything that would be used on a roof and have a significantly larger capacity than would be required to serve a 5 story shopping center. Sources should be provided for these weights if they are correct. DM 2021-06-01

AC Unit Weights (Response)[edit]

It's been a year, roughly, since someone noticed the air conditioning system discrepancy. I'm removing mention of them being, "four times the design limit alone" and linking to the Ton of Refrigeration page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitomon (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse&oldid=1200880593"