CRUNCHER

42 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

 

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???

 

You make some good points.

I have always been skeptical that the overbuild is as much as 5000 square meters. 13% for heaven sake. The removal of 5 floors that allegedly City Hall accepted would not account for that much floor space. I have speculated before about usable/non-usable floor space leading to a technical overbuild.

You will recall all the false allegations that have been made before. Too high - it is not; too close to the sea - it is not; too close to the road - it is not; land titles not in order -  they are; encroachment - yes a small one by the sales office that will eventually be demolished.

One allegation not made is that the footprint is bigger than permitted.  Without this I cannot see how a 5000 square meter overbuild is possible.

It is a big shame that City Hall refuse to give their version.  Do they have something to hide??

24 minutes ago, newnative said:

       Agree.  City Hall was all for it.  I'm still not getting the supposed 5000 sqm overbuild and the possible unit discrepancy of over 100 rooms.   From the beginning, the project's been called 'Waterfront Suites and Residences'.  Why would they call it that if it was just condos?  There's always been the condo component in the tower and the hotel part in the low wing on the other side of the building's bridge.   I really don't think the developer would build 100 unauthorized rooms knowing, at the end of construction, the building would be inspected and would need to get an occupancy certificate. 

I can't provide precise details, but originally the building was only a condo.  The hotel only came into the equation when Park Plaza bought the project in, I think, 2011.

The low block was originally about 40 units, mostly one bedroom units. Park plaza changed this into 100 rooms of "hotel room" size.  There was also some changes in the high block, but I am not sure what.  Somewhere in these changes came the overbuild.

Whether the overbuild is as much as 5000 square meter I am not sure. As I said in an earlier post I have never seen an authoritative source for this.  I do know that there are some issues over usable and unusable floor space, but the details I do not know.  It is just possible that some of the overbuild is technical. 

I am not 100% sure of everthing I have said, but I am not far out.

5 hours ago, champa said:

 

In Thailand, Pattaya city do not check any construction if there is not complaint. 

For a house, small commercial building or village, there is the developer responsibility to check the construction. There is a regulation, every construction should has its own civil engineer who has license  for Professional Practice. The professional engineer inspectes the construction. The professional engineer will sign on construction permit and the blueprint. 

 

Once you get the construction permit for small building, it is your responsibility to build base on blueprint. Pattaya city will keep the blueprint to check the building if someone complain the building.

 

Basically the construction permit has the period. Some project does not finish in the period. The developer has to renewal the permit. In this case, Pattaya city will inspect the construction. Former mayer claimed that the developer requested the construction permit renewal then Pattaya city inspected the construction and found that the developer violenced  the construction code. The mayor order the suspension of the construction.

 

In case of public building such as entertainment venue, hotel, condominium, school ,department store, shopping plaza, cinema or theater. Pattaya city will issue the building opening certificate. Pattaya city must inspect the finished building for certificate issurance.

 

The professional engineer and Pattaya city will take the responsibility of the public building. For example, in case of fire, if someone dead because of unstandard of fire exit. The professional engineer and Pattaya city are both guilties. 

 

Thank you Champa for the comprehensive reply.  I appreciate it.

The mess that Waterfront is now in clearly shows that Thailand needs to look at its construction laws and procedures. It is sad for the buyers and sad for the people of Pattaya who face the prospect of looking at this shell for the next 10 to 20 years.

6 hours ago, champa said:

The permitted constrion plan is based on the blue print. Basically the developer should build the building base on the blueprint. 

 

The importants of the blueprint are safety and regulation reasons. 

 

In thailand, EIA is about the environmental impact management. In the EIA report , there is statement, and contains a detailed plan for managing and monitoring environmental impacts both during and after implementation. This is why the number of the units(room) are serious condition. Because the number of the residents are based on the number of the units. The more residents, the more pollution effects. 

 

The developer would like to have more unit in the building. They have to enpand all facilities such as parking area,rubbish, wastewater treatment, elevators, fire exits and etc. 

 

Thank you Champa for a helpful and logical explanation.

You seem to know more than any one else on this thread about such things, including me.  Do you happen to know at what stages City Hall should have checked the construction. In my country once a building has reached certain points the builder/developer cannot proceed further until the building inspector has signed off that construction is being done in accordance with plans and regulations. Does this apply in Thailand.

The reason I ask is that, no matter that the developer has done wrong (and he has) it took City Hall two years, when the building was topped off, to find that construction had been done contrary to the permit.  In this time buyers put a lot of money into the project. It would seem that City Hall has done little to help people who bring money into Thailand to invest in Pattaya. Not to mention Thai citizens who invested in the project.

In short, has City Hall failed in its responsibilities?

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree, but permission could be granted to complete it as long as enough levels were removed to restore the view.

Surely something is better than nothing?

 

Otherwise, I regret I will not still be around to see it collapse from deterioration sometime in the distant future.

 

I think people should get more imaginative. The city should sieze the building and use it to run a zip line attraction from the top, as they do from the high building in Jomptien.

As long as it wasn't used as a residence it would be better than nothing, and a restaurant at the top would be popular. Any profit used to tidy the site and paint the building, so it's not so much of an eyesore. 

Even with a "zip line" or restaurant the effect on the view would be the same.  It is only an eyesore because it is not finished.  It is not imagination that is required, but a will to get the construction completed.

"As long as it wasn't used as a residence..." - it seems your real beef is that you do not want any one to enjoy living in a quality building with good sea views.  Are you jealous?

1 hour ago, newnative said:

     Where did they go 'outside the original remit'?   I'm curious because nobody seems to be able to nail this down.  Documents that were posted on the Magna Carta website (which I think is or was representing some of the buyers) indicate that the lowrise sales office, the building next to Waterfront, intrudes slightly onto park land.  Seems it would be a simple remedy to tear that building down.  If I recall correctly, I think there was also something to do with the number of parking spaces.  Over the years I've also heard mention of possibly slightly more square footage being built than was approved. 

      None of these issues would have any impact on what caused the construction to be halted, namely views being blocked from the mountain.  Even if slightly more square footage was built, it wouldn't make a difference with the mountain views.  Taking down the top 10 floors would just expose a little more sky.  

 

I have been talking to a couple of buyers that I know and I have seen most of the blurb that Bali Hai have put out.  I wont accuse Bali Hai of lying, but I think they have been economical with the truth. Apart from the ex-mayor's press conference (which highlighted lifts and staircases/fire escapes) and the ex-deputy mayor's radio broad cast (which mostly dealt with the width of the road) City Hall have said nothing.

As I understand it Waterfront was approved for 38,000 plus square meters of saleable floor area, but this was exceeded.  Rumor has it that the overbuild was as much as 5,000 square meters, but there is no authoritative source for this. Bali Hai agreed to demolish 5 floors to deal with the overbuild issue and allegedly this was acceptable to City Hall. The demolition of 5 floors had nothing to do with the height or view as the height was legal.

The number of units was increase from just over 300 to 400, mostly, it seems to facilitate the hotel. I am not sure if this issue has been resolved.

As a result of re-designing the building the number of car parking spaces was reduced from the required 144 to about 90.  Bali Hai's idea was to use an automated hydraulic car parking system to provide about 150 parking spaces.  City Hall did not like this because such a system was not included in the sales contracts. As far as I know this issue has not been resolved.

The encroachment is only in respect of the sales office and since this will be demolished as and if Waterfront is finished this is not a big issue.

There are one or two other issues, but I do not know details. I believe they are solvable.

1 minute ago, pattayadude said:

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

No need to apologize; an easy mistake.

The important point is that the only entity amenable to the courts and authorities of Thailand is Bali Hai.  That is why the big international companies put so many layers in the cake. And that is why there will be no one to pay for demolition.

2 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

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

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.

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.

1 hour ago, KneeDeep said:

 

When you have actually visited the location, come back and talk to me again.

Funny, you both have Pattaya within your user names and neither have actually visited the location.

Pea on a pod. Impressive.

I have been there.  It has been widened and is now a dual carriageway.  Has been since the Navy Review.

Thanks Tontraveller

I have not done a 90 day report for several years, but will need to do one soon at Jomtien.

Apart from the TM 47 what documents (copies) do I need to produce?

Thanks

7 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

 

Yes. Many people happy with their results, but they can be a lot of more expensive than many similar offices.

Magna Carta are as good as it gets in Pattaya. As to price - you get what you pay for.

16 minutes ago, Foozool said:

Those reports were developed by Haliberton and Dick Cheney. 

Gold rush.

Whatever.  They were guilty of putting intelligence into the public domain that proved to be wrong at the time.   Whether lies or incompetence is not relevant. They can't be trusted.

Perhaps the current intelligence was developed by the Clintons. Can't say it is not possible.

Is this the same intelligence agencies that said Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and had chemical and biological weapons. Do you trust anything they say?

Bangkok Hospital  Bit more expensive, but they have good equipment, good service and easy to get appointment.

Can someone tell me, as an owner of rented property, how I can check when my tenant leaves and re-enters Thailand?  If I have an obligation as the house master to inform immigration within 24 hours of his return, is there a legal obligation on my tenant to inform me in sufficient time for me to comply with the law?

This is even more problematic if I am not in Thailand myself at the time.

1 hour ago, Banana7 said:

What happened to the original buyers deposits/progress payments?

Taken on board by the new owners of the project. 

Golden Tulip was being developed by the same people that messed up Waterfront.

The new developers are the same people behind Nova Group, so the is a good likelihood it will be finished to a good standard.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41728826

How they going to demolish Waterfront - 50 stories when they can't get 13 stories down????

Its a free world.  If you want to live life in a fish tank then FB is for you.

It is not just the loss of privacy that frightens me; it is that I will never know exactly who has got exactly what information about me.  Using Google is bad enough, but for me FB is a step too far - much too far.

If you have been the victim of identity theft you should also consider other things e.g. credit cards, banks etc.  The next thing is you will have debt collectors chasing you.

Thanks teddog.  I'll check them out