pattayadude

4 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

 

The lofts have high ceilings(empty space of a floor)and they would not have counted a part of the 38.000sqm total  if the developer didn't sell them by the sqm. They built 38000 PLUS these empty spaces and sold them. This was the red flag.

Another reason was, space allocated for parking somehow turned into(stolen) living space and the building ended up with less( 90 instead of 150) parking space and more sellable living space. City Hall discovered these violations

the developer reimburses these unit owners and case closed

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That was already explained. If the "hotel" was originally apartments, by eliminating the kitchen etc more hotel rooms can be fitted in the same space.

You can't put more than 1 liter liquid in a 1 liter bottle...

15 minutes ago, newnative said:

 For example, the blueprints might have shown a building of 315 rooms with a big rectangular hole in it but when they built the building, in order to get the 85 extra rooms, they filled in the hole

The lofts have high ceilings(empty space of a floor)and they would not have counted a part of the 38.000sqm total  if the developer didn't sell them by the sqm. They built 38000 PLUS these empty spaces and sold them. This was the red flag.

Another reason was, space allocated for parking somehow turned into(stolen) living space and the building ended up with less( 90 instead of 150) parking space and more sellable living space. City Hall discovered these violations

2 hours ago, champa said:

I am not on Pattaya city side. I just try to update the fact. Pattaya city can not issue the construction permit for 400 rooms building bases on 315 room blueprint

If the total space has already been divided to 400 rooms which it has, it's  impossible to go back and redesign them to larger spaces to reduce the total of rooms to 315 to match the plans.

The only way out is to forget the hotel and either demolish or keep it but vacant in order  to be legal.

But this question still hurts my brain..How can one overbuild in a previously allowed and approved shape at a certain height and width? You can't put more than 1 liter in a 1 liter bottle...

You need to build it wider or higher to have extra 5000 sqm space

Can someone explain???

Just now, pattayadude said:

you must be smoking some of Columbia's finest

The last I checked, they don't produce weed in the University of Columbia..but they do in Colombia, the country and I don't smoke.

How is that medical marijuana working for ya?...

1 hour ago, pegman said:

If you think what appears on the surface is what is actually happening in Thailand you must be smoking some of Columbia's finest. Demonstrating lawyers don't have much sway with a mafia run city hall. Here is the wiki on the ex-mayor's father. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somchai_Khunpluem

All bets were then off though when the jaunta too over. Anybody that thinks they know what truly went on with this building can think again. 

Hmmm..the rules of the jungle...huh!

if you're suggesting lawlessness is the norm in the country, then nobody should question the legality of the Waterfront.

We might as well close these forums and not even waste time on concepts such as right, wrong, legal and illegal.

Nothing can change the fact that this construction of a 50 floor building   WAS APPROVED and ALLOWED to be built by the City Hall between approx. 2008-2014, unless someone can convince me that during that period the entire City Hall was taken hostage at gunpoint while this project was forcefully built to its entirety...

Champa . You seem to be concentrated too much on how the 50 floor building ended up with 415 rooms or divisions (some 100+illegally) instead of 315 divisions developer was permitted to build.

You seem to forget that the demonstrations were about how a 50 floor building was allowed there and not how it was divided within.They couldn't care less if it was divided to 888 or 8.

The City Hall seems to be concentrated on technicalities and illegalities within 50 floor building and NOT the actual 50 floors which they allowed and the public is not interested the illegalities within the building  but the view-blocking of the entire 50floors.

You see how step by step I connected the City Hall to this mess, responsible for allowing a height of 150m which was the reason people flocked the streets.

This is so messy that 10 year litigation would be a conservative estimate.

It cost so much and reputation can be so badly tarnished that the developer won't give it up without a legal nuclear war.

I would not be surprised if some of the buyers are already considering to ALSO sue the City Hall at the end which  inadvertently could  cost the taxpayers  billions.

12 hours ago, DMC1 said:

 

Plus this one was in Sriracha not Pattaya

I understand but this took place not too far from Pattaya regardless. I was quoting post #12 above.

"Thais were shooting each other in the street in Pattaya.

Something has really changed in Pattaya, and not for the better."

  "was the developer allowed to build that many unauthorized rooms? " would be the next!

4 minutes ago, newnative said:

Would the developer build that many unauthorized rooms?

stop right there as you are onto something!

but that's a 2 billion baht question nobody seem to know the answer of.isn't it!

and probably will never know...

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm pretty sure on this, but I don't think that in the 90s Thais were shooting each other in the street in Pattaya.

Something has really changed in Pattaya, and not for the better.

I know everything changes, but I don't understand why it's always for the worst, as happens now.

The smile went years ago, and it seems that whatever sanuk was left is fast disappearing as well.

selfish, self-centered, independent, disrespectful, lazy, glued-to-their-smartphone new generation of idiots who  can't see the sharp distinction between shooting enemy on the screen and in real life.

and nope, not only in Pattaya!

shootings are daily occurance in all major cities now From Amsterdam to Capetown and from Los Angeles to Angeles City/Philippines

 8 billion!  almost on top of one another topped with scarce resources is perfect recipe for violent crime . 8 billion is just way too many, even a few World Wars in a hurry won't even make a dent to that number..

3 hours ago, champa said:

One thing we know that the developer had violated construction permit

ok

3 hours ago, champa said:

No one can stop the construction if the developer stick on the regulation

ok

Champa. I believe your view on these 2 important points will bring some transparency on this very complicated issue. In your posts you have been fairly neutral and fact-oriented so far (even though you don't like this project which is ok). I appreciate your fairness and respect your opinion and knowledge on this issue.

So many opinions, speculations, perceptions have been flying all over the place for years on these threads on Waterfront .Anyone can speculate but I honestly believe many(if not all) members still don't know the exact answer to this all-important question. Obviously the City Hall isn't required to make any announcements and Bali Hai Co (right or wrong)are not being too transparent, avoiding fully honest disclosures  or simply they don't know either.

Just so we all understand once and for all,

Where exactly did the developer violate the construction permit, and as you say, didn't stick to the regulations?

Please name those violations one by one if you know.

19 minutes ago, CRUNCHER said:

And that is why there will be no one to pay for demolition.

I think thaibeachlovers would be happy to pay for it

15 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

Demolishing Waterfront in the next 10 to 20 years is not a viable option.  Who is going to do it?  Who is going to pay?

Who will still be around?

1 minute ago, CRUNCHER said:

I think you will find Bali Hai was ordered to do the demolition.

In any event, Park Plaza do not own Bali Hai any more.  They sold it to Red Sea Hotels.

my apologies. I have a bad habit of using either one of the two names by mistake when I mention of the developer. You are correct

14 minutes ago, newnative said:

Seems it would be a simple remedy to tear that building down

Park Plaza was ordered to partially demolish the sales office just recently

6 minutes ago, CRUNCHER said:

Demolishing Waterfront in the next 10 to 20 years is not a viable option.  Who is going to do it?  Who is going to pay?

 

You don,t have to go to Bangkok for examples; where there are many.  In Pattaya you only have to look at Batman Nightclub/Disco.

 

City Hall cannot demolish a small hotel in Soi VC. In Bangkok the BMA estimated that it would cost 200 million baht to demolish a smaller building (forget the name).

 

If Bali Hai goes bankrupt this will crawl through the courts for 10 years plus another 10 years to get the shell demolished. If Bali Hai is bankrupt they will not have the money to pay. If the bank ends up owning the land they will not do it; they never do.

 

Whether you like Waterfront or not we are where we are. There are only two ways forward:-

1. Finish the building.  It will at least look better than it does now
2. Leave in its present state for the next 10 to 20 years.

Bali Hao Co was formed with a 10million baht initial capital. That will not even be enough to pay for demolition plans and permits

5 hours ago, marinediscoking said:

The only good thing about the coup was it got rid of the former mayor

are you suggesting everything else about the coup was in vain?

2 minutes ago, JSixpack said:

Avoid projecting your own views onto Thais.

Power intoxicates men. When a man is intoxicated by alcohol, he can recover, but when intoxicated by power, he seldom recovers.

9 minutes ago, maxpower said:

They also require that said cash is fairly distributed and those making it pay a fair amount back to a system that don't stink of corruption.

corruption will never be eradicated and will get worse with overpopulation and chaotic conditions in Pattaya. Sense of community is lost in growing cities and it's proven fact that humans in general break the law a lot more outside their community where losing face is minimum to none.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why don't you read the post I responded to in the quote, before going off in erroneous directions due to disregarding the context?

I was using it as an example of how the rules change, not as a comment on what Thais can or can not do in their own country.

You look at development/growth/needs only as concrete and greed.

Developing countries need cash, not words.There are many social and cultural reason why they are underdeveloped.

They have growing populations  and growing needs.

I am sure deep down they don't like their behavior but they feel they must do whatever it takes to move on.

its my OPINION..not my wish, not my source of enjoyment and doesn't make me happy either

3 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

i don't get your point.

Your approach is a little socialist.

it's their country(Thais), their elected officials, their land, they decide what to allow and what to reject. they can build whatever they want, wherever they want as many as they want.

If we don't like any of the above, we exercise our right and leave

Thais can vote them in and out as they like.

Not up to us.

unfortunately!