Construction of high-profile structures like Dharahara, Damak View Towers, and other buildings, makes us wonder how viable these structures are for our country, which is in short supply of basic infrastructure, such as well-equipped hospitals, affordable schools, standard roads, and hydropower projects. Therefore, Nepal's recent investment in these structures and government-built buildings warrants a closer scrutiny. Although the newly rebuilt Dharahara has attracted public interest and generated revenues, others have so far become a burden on the state. Rebuilt after the 2015 earthquake at a total cost of Rs 3.48 billion, the iconic tower reopened to the public in September last year. Despite an entry fee of Rs 200, over 150,000 individuals climbed up the tower, bringing over Rs 30 million in revenue. These figures indicate real public interest and possible sustainability if the historic tower is managed efficiently. Projections indicate that longer operating hours—say, from 8 am to 8 pm—would boost daily revenues by about Rs 500,000, which would allow the historic 9-story tower to not just conserve heritage but sustain itself as well.
The same, however, cannot be said of the Damak View Tower. The 18-story structure, which was completed more than a year ago in the town of Damak at a cost of Rs 2 billion, has been languishing unused. It faces operational issues as it is located six kilometers from Damak Bazaar and does not have foot traffic. Though it incurs maintenance expenses of more than Rs 200,000 a month, the building has not been opened to the public yet. It has raised a question: Beyond its symbolic role, what purpose has this building served? Along with Damak View Tower, the Butwal Exhibition Centre, the International Convention Centre at Rupandehi, and the Sunrise Hall at Godawari, which were developed at an exorbitant price, have proven to be more burdensome as they have not been fully utilized to their best capacities. Despite this, the government’s decision to bring these structures under its development committee reflects a desire for their smooth administration. However, if operational clarity, strategic planning, and economic viability are not properly addressed, such centralization can delay action, further piling operational costs on the authorities. A resource-strapped Nepal cannot afford to keep these facilities merely as ornamental ones. They must be useful, productive economically, and of use to the common good. There must be strict administrative control, timely appointment of senior leadership, and clear models of operation to make them beneficial to all. Handing over some facilities to private commercial operators on performance-based contracts can help increase income, sustainability, and operation at a faster pace.
Campaign to save wild elephants gathers momentum in eastern Nep...
Nevertheless, there is one basic quandary: should a nation like Nepal be investing billions of rupees in high-maintenance structures while rural hospitals have no medicines and students walk for hours to school? Public infrastructure must respond to people's immediate needs and planners, policymakers, political leaders and those who occupy the high offices must get out of their centralized mindset and turn their focus to areas away from Kathmandu, regional and district headquarters and urban centers to the hinterlands. Our governments, policymakers, and politicians need to understand that monuments, high-profile structures, and buildings, though important as cultural and historical symbols, cannot take the place of development that makes people's lives easier. Schools, roads, hospitals, and uninterrupted power supply help our nation achieve development and well-being for its citizens. Investments in megastructures should therefore come after all necessary service delivery. Constructing such structures without evaluating their future utilization is a mistake, just like an idle, unused view tower is a total waste.
