File photo.

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has launched the demolition process for the contentious Aetas Ruamrudee building, following years of delays. The BMA has started fencing off the area with temporary barriers, but permanent fencing awaits financial approval. This action follows the Supreme Administrative Court's final order for demolition issued in November 2025.

The Consumer Council reported that the BMA will form a committee to evaluate materials and select a new contractor, as Thamlay Thai Thammachat Co Ltd, the previous contractor, is under court receivership. The Council is pushing for swift action from the BMA, emphasising the importance of enforcement to uphold consumer rights and public trust in the legal system.

The BMA had promised to begin preparations in December 2025, but timeline adjustments delayed the fencing process.

The controversy surrounds the hotel's location, built on a road less than 10 metres wide, breaching the Building Control Act, despite residents' protests since 2005. The Administrative Court first ordered its demolition in 2012, with the BMA issuing an official order in 2016. In 2021, Larppratharn Co Ltd, the hotel owner, sued district authorities for negligence, but the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the demolition order in 2025, reported the Bangkok Post.

The BMA is determined to swiftly appoint a contractor to initiate the demolition process. The Council vows to monitor the progress closely, ensuring the BMA adheres to the court's directive. The outcome of this long-standing dispute could significantly impact public perception of administrative and legal processes in Bangkok.

Key Takeaways:

• The BMA has started the demolition process for the Aetas building after years of legal delays.

• The legal ruling in 2025 requires demolition due to violations of building regulations.

• Public and consumer trust in local governance and legal enforcement is a central issue.

Related stories:

Bangkok governor Under Pressure to Enforce Demolition of Aetas Condo

Bangkok Building Dispute Ends in Court Ruling

  

Adapted by ASEAN Now from Bangkok Post 2026-01-07

 

 

On 1/7/2026 at 7:41 AM, webfact said:

"The controversy surrounds the hotel's location, built on a road less than 10 metres wide,"

Couldn’t this have been resolved in some other way? Destroying both money and the environment like that, just because of building a road narrower than stipulated, makes little sense.

I did not expect this day to ever come.

As for the road width, that was to accommodate fire trucks capable of reaching high floors in case of fire. Ruamrudee is too narrow for such a truck, so if there was a fire at this building, there would potentially be a lot of casualties since the guests could not be reached. The other buildings are on the other side of the road so they have access from Wireless road, but this one doesn't.

Widening that road to accommodate such trucks would be possible, by demolishing other, smaller buildings, which are legally built.

I see there's currently construction underway of a new 32 storeys high rise InterContinental Residences, located on Sukhumvit Soi 16, its a bit of a mystery how such a tall building is permitted, but then I looked at the sales promo on CBRE and in the images it shows Sukhumvit Soi 16 as this wide four lane road , not the narrow two lane road that is the reality.

Of course there's a disclaimer.

"The property is developed and sold/leased by the owners/landlord. CBRE (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“CBRE”) has not confirmed the accuracy of any of the statements or representations made herein. CBRE is not an investor or partner or developer of the property. Neither CBRE nor its affiliates, or employees make any warranties or representations in respect of the property and its content."

https://property.cbre.co.th/property/intercontinental-residences-bangkok-asoke-rsp0178

Incompetence + corruption ➞ endless waste of resources

A seriously juicy fine of an eight or nine digit amount would teach everyone in the Land of the Semi-Divine a lesson, the BMA would have an interesting cash fall, the case would be closed and do not even start on the environmental difference between fine and knock-down.

That, of course, would mean unbiased courts, proper law enforcement and common sense - tick those points which would apply - if any ;-)

On 1/7/2026 at 7:41 AM, webfact said:

File photo.

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has launched the demolition process for the contentious Aetas Ruamrudee building, following years of delays. The BMA has started fencing off the area with temporary barriers, but permanent fencing awaits financial approval. This action follows the Supreme Administrative Court's final order for demolition issued in November 2025.

The Consumer Council reported that the BMA will form a committee to evaluate materials and select a new contractor, as Thamlay Thai Thammachat Co Ltd, the previous contractor, is under court receivership. The Council is pushing for swift action from the BMA, emphasising the importance of enforcement to uphold consumer rights and public trust in the legal system.

The BMA had promised to begin preparations in December 2025, but timeline adjustments delayed the fencing process.

The controversy surrounds the hotel's location, built on a road less than 10 metres wide, breaching the Building Control Act, despite residents' protests since 2005. The Administrative Court first ordered its demolition in 2012, with the BMA issuing an official order in 2016. In 2021, Larppratharn Co Ltd, the hotel owner, sued district authorities for negligence, but the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the demolition order in 2025, reported the Bangkok Post.

The BMA is determined to swiftly appoint a contractor to initiate the demolition process. The Council vows to monitor the progress closely, ensuring the BMA adheres to the court's directive. The outcome of this long-standing dispute could significantly impact public perception of administrative and legal processes in Bangkok.

Key Takeaways:

• The BMA has started the demolition process for the Aetas building after years of legal delays.

• The legal ruling in 2025 requires demolition due to violations of building regulations.

• Public and consumer trust in local governance and legal enforcement is a central issue.

Related stories:

Bangkok governor Under Pressure to Enforce Demolition of Aetas Condo

Bangkok Building Dispute Ends in Court Ruling

  

Adapted by ASEAN Now from Bangkok Post 2026-01-07

 

 

Eecting a fence (but not yet erected), is NOT demolition of the building.

Expect more delays.

What a joke.

The building behind it doesn’t look that much smaller….

On 1/7/2026 at 1:41 AM, webfact said:

select a new contractor, as Thamlay Thai Thammachat Co Ltd, the previous contractor, is under court receivership.

Yeah, they went out of business waiting for the go-ahead which would have kept them going.

Note also ladies, gentlemen and genderees, the fortuitous formation of yet another committee to decide what's needed to demolish a building slated for demolition years ago whilst they actually had a contractor ...

A Bangkok Master Plan, might go some way to indicating the Future width of roads !

If the owner had more juice he could just measure the road diagonally. Problem solved.

Stayed there before and after a surgery at Bumrungrad some years back and one of the best hotel I have stayed at in Bangkok. Excellent service minded staff, quiet but still central location and just a km away form Lumpini park. Rooms with kitchen, washing machine and everything needed for short or longer stays.

Felt

12 years of ignoring orders and delaying compliance with court decisions.

A final ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court, ordered the demolition of the 2 buildings on Oct 30, 2014. The court found the structures violated Ministerial Regulation No 33 (1992), which prohibits buildings higher than eight storeys or 23 metres on roads narrower than 10 metres.

On 1/7/2026 at 9:00 PM, hanbla said:

Couldn’t this have been resolved in some other way? Destroying both money and the environment like that, just because of building a road narrower than stipulated, makes little sense.

The developer intentionally ignored the regulations, ignored the warnings during construction and contested every decision to stop and then remove the property. The strategy of non compliance relied on people like you saying, oh but surely they can compromise or find another solution. In effect, you wish to reward intentional illegal acts. Why then should anyone bother with complying with building or planning regulations if there is no enforcement? The building is too big for its location. This puts a burden on the service supply grid for that area. Ask the neighboring properties if they accept the loss of sunlight because of the building location. The road is too small to allow for proper traffic management. How do you propose responding to a fire at the location if fire response vehicles cannot respond effectively. Your argument is that all of the buildings neighbors should suffer because you do not believe the building should be removed.

The building owners knew what they were doing and expected that they could just force their project on the community. It is called bullying and this time the community said no.

10 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

12 years of ignoring orders and delaying compliance with court decisions.

A final ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court, ordered the demolition of the 2 buildings on Oct 30, 2014. The court found the structures violated Ministerial Regulation No 33 (1992), which prohibits buildings higher than eight storeys or 23 metres on roads narrower than 10 metres.

The developer intentionally ignored the regulations, ignored the warnings during construction and contested every decision to stop and then remove the property. The strategy of non compliance relied on people like you saying, oh but surely they can compromise or find another solution. In effect, you wish to reward intentional illegal acts. Why then should anyone bother with complying with building or planning regulations if there is no enforcement? The building is too big for its location. This puts a burden on the service supply grid for that area. Ask the neighboring properties if they accept the loss of sunlight because of the building location. The road is too small to allow for proper traffic management. How do you propose responding to a fire at the location if fire response vehicles cannot respond effectively. Your argument is that all of the buildings neighbors should suffer because you do not believe the building should be removed.

The building owners knew what they were doing and expected that they could just force their project on the community. It is called bullying and this time the community said no.

I know all this, I was thinking that it is a waste of money and materials. Not especially environmental friendly either.

2 hours ago, hanbla said:

I know all this, I was thinking that it is a waste of money and materials. Not especially environmental friendly either.

The materials will be recycled, if they haven't already corroded or deteriorated, as some construction is apt to do in Thailand.

On 1/8/2026 at 10:08 AM, tomazbodner said:

I did not expect this day to ever come.

As for the road width, that was to accommodate fire trucks capable of reaching high floors in case of fire. Ruamrudee is too narrow for such a truck, so if there was a fire at this building, there would potentially be a lot of casualties since the guests could not be reached. The other buildings are on the other side of the road so they have access from Wireless road, but this one doesn't.

Widening that road to accommodate such trucks would be possible, by demolishing other, smaller buildings, which are legally built.

You'd think they could come up with some kind of alternative where they add to the building the capability to reach the higher floors, hooking on with smaller pumpers that would fit down the road. Something along the lines of a roof (or side) mounted crane and a standpipe to the ground.

On 1/8/2026 at 3:20 PM, BusyB said:

Yeah, they went out of business waiting for the go-ahead which would have kept them going.

Note also ladies, gentlemen and genderees, the fortuitous formation of yet another committee to decide what's needed to demolish a building slated for demolition years ago whilst they actually had a contractor ...

But your missing the meeing to decide how to form a committee.