Pattaya Better Wih The Bars Closed

[harleyclarkey]

I personally have not seen any brutalisation of women in Thailand. The ones I meet are all free women and free to go, where and with whom, as they wish at any time. I do accept there are some who are not so free, but I have not seen this and would not be interested in any establishment where the girl did not have the right to choose her own path.

Although I agree far more with your line of reasoning than the rather infantile dreams of the OP, I would here comment that many of the girls one meets in bars, discos, wherever, are coerced into their profession by their idle, layabout husband / boyfriend / family.

That they don't show this during their time with you speaks well of their professionalism, but there is a dark side.

But Pattaya will never develop as a high-class commercial centre for the sophisticates. It just ain't that sophisticated, thank goodness.

Hi HB....I agree totally with you. They do, in nearly all cases, tell me the story behind their being in the bar. I actually like to chat, to get to know the girls and what is behind them. The truant "husband"/BF is nearly always the one pushing them in the direction of the bright lights and the money pockets of Farang in Bkk/Pattya/Phuket. I know of cases where even the father has encouraged this to feed his lazy habits and pay for his car/beer/gambling. I would consider these to be far more guilty than ,for example, me.

Yes....there is a dark side I guess to all things off the normal roads of life. I still like to go to places, mainly Phuket, where I know the girls can depart with an hours notice and are completely free.

I have to confess that I have been to Pattaya, where this thread started, only once and didn't take to it.

[britmaveric]

Alcohol bans even in Pattaya are loosely enforced, but its a real bore when even the image is presented that things are closed. Pattaya is a resort town - where FUN is being sold. This is what its best at, and this is what makes its successful.

Had a good chuckle when HBear posted the brit tourism bit - great beaches????? (worst beaches in thailand - unless you hit nearby islands)

[Humphrey Bear]

Alcohol bans even in Pattaya are loosely enforced, but its a real bore when even the image is presented that things are closed. Pattaya is a resort town - where FUN is being sold. This is what its best at, and this is what makes its successful.

Had a good chuckle when HBear posted the brit tourism bit - great beaches????? (worst beaches in thailand - unless you hit nearby islands)

Yes, give me the Mumbles any day!

(But only to sit and picnic - no swimming!)

[ProfessorFart]

It's interesting just how scared and uncomprehending some people are of impending change, when they think their "interests" will be threatened (Which they won't be - they will always be able to get some somewhere, and as has been repeated, that's fine and inevitable, just away from downtown areas).

Of course Pattaya is a city - it's the second largest in Thailand and the wealthiest by tourist income. The council is called Pattaya City council, not "town council".

And who cares what it was founded on - I don't give a monkeys about what went on before. Why can't you embrace positive change for the future?

It sounds like a lot of people wish to deny the Thais an opportunity to improve themselves, the city and the country. Why is that I wonder?

Dude,

If you think Pattaya is a 'City?'

Could you reference me in here please? Would love to see your evidence? I can call myself a fish. Pattaya is NOT a city. N

Much to your surprise, Thailand ideed has many towns and cities very worthy of a visit from your grace, free from fat farangs and bars.

Love to see ya there.......not

Pattaya is NOT the 2nd city in Thailand. It it not even a city.

Any more points before You look even more stupid?

Anyway,.....Troll post dudes!!!! Wake up!!!

[Jingthing]

I am looking out my window right now at a skyline of tall buildings and lights. It is a city. You might not like what kind of city, but it is a city. Next you will be saying that Acapulco, Rio, and Miami are not cities because they are also beach resorts.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Jingthing

[chanman]

It's interesting just how scared and uncomprehending some people are of impending change, when they think their "interests" will be threatened (Which they won't be - they will always be able to get some somewhere, and as has been repeated, that's fine and inevitable, just away from downtown areas).

Of course Pattaya is a city - it's the second largest in Thailand and the wealthiest by tourist income. The council is called Pattaya City council, not "town council".

And who cares what it was founded on - I don't give a monkeys about what went on before. Why can't you embrace positive change for the future?

It sounds like a lot of people wish to deny the Thais an opportunity to improve themselves, the city and the country. Why is that I wonder?

Dude,

If you think Pattaya is a 'City?'

Could you reference me in here please? Would love to see your evidence? I can call myself a fish. Pattaya is NOT a city. N

Much to your surprise, Thailand ideed has many towns and cities very worthy of a visit from your grace, free from fat farangs and bars.

Love to see ya there.......not

Pattaya is NOT the 2nd city in Thailand. It it not even a city.

Any more points before You look even more stupid?

Anyway,.....Troll post dudes!!!! Wake up!!!

Wrong, it was given City status about 3 years ago.. I said about so don't shoot me if the timing is wrong but it is definately a city

Edited February 26, 2008 by Pattaya_Fox
Flame removed from quote

[sbk]

It's interesting just how scared and uncomprehending some people are of impending change, when they think their "interests" will be threatened (Which they won't be - they will always be able to get some somewhere, and as has been repeated, that's fine and inevitable, just away from downtown areas).

Of course Pattaya is a city - it's the second largest in Thailand and the wealthiest by tourist income. The council is called Pattaya City council, not "town council".

And who cares what it was founded on - I don't give a monkeys about what went on before. Why can't you embrace positive change for the future?

It sounds like a lot of people wish to deny the Thais an opportunity to improve themselves, the city and the country. Why is that I wonder?

Dude,

If you think Pattaya is a 'City?'

Could you reference me in here please? Would love to see your evidence? I can call myself a fish. Pattaya is NOT a city. N

Much to your surprise, Thailand ideed has many towns and cities very worthy of a visit from your grace, free from fat farangs and bars.

Love to see ya there.......not

Pattaya is NOT the 2nd city in Thailand. It it not even a city.

Any more points before You look even more stupid?

Anyway,.....Troll post dudes!!!! Wake up!!!

suggest you get some facts before accusing people of being a troll, otherwise, it might be you on the receiving end of the "troll" label

Pattaya City has been administered under a special autonomous system since 1978. It has a status comparable to that of a municipality and is administered separately by the mayor of Pattaya City, who is responsible for making policies, organizing public services, and supervising all employees of Pattaya City Administration.

Source: Information by Tourism Authority of Thailand

[Jingthing]

Not only a city, but it is on its way to being the best city in Thailand and SE Asia for expats and tourists alike.

[kopite]

It's interesting just how scared and uncomprehending some people are of impending change, when they think their "interests" will be threatened (Which they won't be - they will always be able to get some somewhere, and as has been repeated, that's fine and inevitable, just away from downtown areas).

Of course Pattaya is a city - it's the second largest in Thailand and the wealthiest by tourist income. The council is called Pattaya City council, not "town council".

And who cares what it was founded on - I don't give a monkeys about what went on before. Why can't you embrace positive change for the future?

It sounds like a lot of people wish to deny the Thais an opportunity to improve themselves, the city and the country. Why is that I wonder?

Dude,

If you think Pattaya is a 'City?'

Could you reference me in here please? Would love to see your evidence? I can call myself a fish. Pattaya is NOT a city. N

Much to your surprise, Thailand ideed has many towns and cities very worthy of a visit from your grace, free from fat farangs and bars.

Love to see ya there.......not

Pattaya is NOT the 2nd city in Thailand. It it not even a city.

Any more points before You look even more stupid?

Anyway,.....Troll post dudes!!!! Wake up!!!

oh dear god.

and with a username like that

[harleyclarkey]

without the bars pataya would die

No. It would change, and be better for it. And maybe if people invested in proper businesses instead of go go bars and beer bars, maybe the Thais themselves would benefit by going into newly-available careers and proper jobs instead of selling themselves into - what shall we call it on this "ooh you can't say that" forum - "alternative services". And who could argue with that - unless you think sexual exploitation is the only reason to live or come on holiday here?

You do not like the noise, the beer bars, the go go bars, the tourists, the "alternative services" (available in almost every city in the world) and you deplre the morality of coming for "sexual exploitation". Just who do you think are being exploited? The local girls, and boys, or the unfortunate foreigner who in many cases has his life ruelly stripped away from him both financially and emotionally.

You like it....... "with the bars closed, no tarts hollering at you, no blaring music, no staggeringly drunk Western European idiots falling all over the place, and a generally more enjoyable ("upmarket", if I was a developer) feel to the town."

Why are you there??

In relation to summarising my position, I've heard of a broad brush but yours is a roller.

But yes, the overwhelmingly exploited group are the boys and girls who, because their government cannot afford to pay for a decent education, are herded into Pattaya's bars, and that is a shocking waste of a country's resources.

If we - sorry, you - advocate sexually brutalising a population of a country, how can you criticise them for striking back. They know no better, but if they were better-educated and had better careers open to them, they would know better.

Why am I here? To live a very happy life, than you for asking.

You choose to make your position very clear. The rerason I ask is that you seem to have chosen a place to live that clearly does not please you. Very odd indeed.

As to sexual exploitation and your absurd charge that I ...."advocate sexually brutalising a populatiuon of a country" ?..are you serious, or you for real??? What a stupid ill thought out remark. Where exactly in my reply did I advocate this?

Let me deal with your thoroughly discourteous remarks by referring back to your own presumably enlightened and well-thought out question posed in your earlier post:

Just who do you think are being exploited? The local girls, and boys, or the unfortunate foreigner who in many cases has his life ruelly stripped away from him both financially and emotionally.

The question is phrased by you so that I can agree that only one of these two groups is being exploited, and if I presumably agree with you that it is the latter, then the former aren't. You know by my posts that I think it is the former group.

If you instead think it is the poor foreigner being exploited, then you are, on the terms of your own either/or question, agreeing that the boys and girls are not being exploited, and I stongly disagree. Had you used "and" it would have been different, but you chose to use "or", and you seem like a clever bloke, so there must have been intent.

I think the status quo (and advocating it) brutalises a whole slice of Thai life, and there is a price to pay for that. Sadly we see it every week in the press and on TV.

Discourteous remarks of mine?? You are surely joking? Your reply/remark to me was disgraceful. My reply to you was surprisingly polite and far less than I would have liked considering your appalling and unfounded remark (and indeed accusation) to me that I "advocate sexually brutalising a population of a country". This stated by you about me on a public forum without any basis in fact. You have NOT shown anywhere in my original reply that I advocate anything like such behaviour and you will not be able to show it as it is not there. Wherever you got such bizarre and whacky ideas it did not come from my reply.

You have not really thought this brutalisation thing out fully. Sexual brutalisation happens in your country (UK?) as it does in other parts of the world. Take Steve Wright as an example. I would consider the actions of this cold callous murderer of 5 women to be correctly referred to as "sexual brutalisation" as indeed the Russian who strangled and mutilated over 50 women, probably more. I personally consider a guy (inc. a lot of members here) going to a bar, meeting a girl, chatting and drinking with her and then as 2 mature adults going off together with whatever (if any) deal is struck to be in an altogether different category. Have you ever referred to any of the brutal Pimps in America? The same goes for Europe and Russia and Africa?? This is sexual brutalisation and I am against this 100%. If you are referring to child or enslaved sexual exploitation, then say so. I abhor these practices. How many people here on Thai Visa do you think go to bars and meet women?? Are we all deviants according to you?? Are we all advocating the sexual brutalisation of Thai people?

I personally have not seen any brutalisation of women in Thailand. The ones I meet are all free women and free to go, where and with whom, as they wish at any time. I do accept there are some who are not so free, but I have not seen this and would not be interested in any establishment where the girl did not have the right to choose her own path.

I asked who was being exploited. The answer could have been 1 or the other or BOTH. There was no intent as you dreamed up.

By declaring that there is sexual brutalisation in Thailand you implicate every Thai Visa member. We are all therefore involved either by taking part in this brutalisation or condone it by our silence.

I know the vast majority here are not involved and do not need to bang on about something that we do not see or take part in. If there was such brutality as you state they are far too many decent people on this site to create a roar about it.

Your initial remark to me about my advocating something I would abhor is totally unacceptable and uncalled for.

[APMann]

without the bars pataya would die

No. It would change, and be better for it. And maybe if people invested in proper businesses instead of go go bars and beer bars, maybe the Thais themselves would benefit by going into newly-available careers and proper jobs instead of selling themselves into - what shall we call it on this "ooh you can't say that" forum - "alternative services". And who could argue with that - unless you think sexual exploitation is the only reason to live or come on holiday here?

You do not like the noise, the beer bars, the go go bars, the tourists, the "alternative services" (available in almost every city in the world) and you deplre the morality of coming for "sexual exploitation". Just who do you think are being exploited? The local girls, and boys, or the unfortunate foreigner who in many cases has his life ruelly stripped away from him both financially and emotionally.

You like it....... "with the bars closed, no tarts hollering at you, no blaring music, no staggeringly drunk Western European idiots falling all over the place, and a generally more enjoyable ("upmarket", if I was a developer) feel to the town."

Why are you there??

In relation to summarising my position, I've heard of a broad brush but yours is a roller.

But yes, the overwhelmingly exploited group are the boys and girls who, because their government cannot afford to pay for a decent education, are herded into Pattaya's bars, and that is a shocking waste of a country's resources.

If we - sorry, you - advocate sexually brutalising a population of a country, how can you criticise them for striking back. They know no better, but if they were better-educated and had better careers open to them, they would know better.

Why am I here? To live a very happy life, than you for asking.

You choose to make your position very clear. The rerason I ask is that you seem to have chosen a place to live that clearly does not please you. Very odd indeed.

As to sexual exploitation and your absurd charge that I ...."advocate sexually brutalising a populatiuon of a country" ?..are you serious, or you for real??? What a stupid ill thought out remark. Where exactly in my reply did I advocate this?

Let me deal with your thoroughly discourteous remarks by referring back to your own presumably enlightened and well-thought out question posed in your earlier post:

Just who do you think are being exploited? The local girls, and boys, or the unfortunate foreigner who in many cases has his life ruelly stripped away from him both financially and emotionally.

The question is phrased by you so that I can agree that only one of these two groups is being exploited, and if I presumably agree with you that it is the latter, then the former aren't. You know by my posts that I think it is the former group.

If you instead think it is the poor foreigner being exploited, then you are, on the terms of your own either/or question, agreeing that the boys and girls are not being exploited, and I stongly disagree. Had you used "and" it would have been different, but you chose to use "or", and you seem like a clever bloke, so there must have been intent.

I think the status quo (and advocating it) brutalises a whole slice of Thai life, and there is a price to pay for that. Sadly we see it every week in the press and on TV.

Discourteous remarks of mine?? You are surely joking? Your reply/remark to me was disgraceful. My reply to you was surprisingly polite and far less than I would have liked considering your appalling and unfounded remark (and indeed accusation) to me that I "advocate sexually brutalising a population of a country". This stated by you about me on a public forum without any basis in fact. You have NOT shown anywhere in my original reply that I advocate anything like such behaviour and you will not be able to show it as it is not there. Wherever you got such bizarre and whacky ideas it did not come from my reply.

You have not really thought this brutalisation thing out fully. Sexual brutalisation happens in your country (UK?) as it does in other parts of the world. Take Steve Wright as an example. I would consider the actions of this cold callous murderer of 5 women to be correctly referred to as "sexual brutalisation" as indeed the Russian who strangled and mutilated over 50 women, probably more. I personally consider a guy (inc. a lot of members here) going to a bar, meeting a girl, chatting and drinking with her and then as 2 mature adults going off together with whatever (if any) deal is struck to be in an altogether different category. Have you ever referred to any of the brutal Pimps in America? The same goes for Europe and Russia and Africa?? This is sexual brutalisation and I am against this 100%. If you are referring to child or enslaved sexual exploitation, then say so. I abhor these practices. How many people here on Thai Visa do you think go to bars and meet women?? Are we all deviants according to you?? Are we all advocating the sexual brutalisation of Thai people?

I personally have not seen any brutalisation of women in Thailand. The ones I meet are all free women and free to go, where and with whom, as they wish at any time. I do accept there are some who are not so free, but I have not seen this and would not be interested in any establishment where the girl did not have the right to choose her own path.

I asked who was being exploited. The answer could have been 1 or the other or BOTH. There was no intent as you dreamed up.

By declaring that there is sexual brutalisation in Thailand you implicate every Thai Visa member. We are all therefore involved either by taking part in this brutalisation or condone it by our silence.

I know the vast majority here are not involved and do not need to bang on about something that we do not see or take part in. If there was such brutality as you state they are far too many decent people on this site to create a roar about it.

Your initial remark to me about my advocating something I would abhor is totally unacceptable and uncalled for.

But unfortunately follow on from your own reply and your own question, as I demonstrated clearly to you in my earlier response, which you only seem to have part-read before huffing and puffing about me impugning Thai Visa and its readers as you sought and failed to conflate the issue.

Sorry if you want to get all worked up about it, but you should choose your own language more carefully, then these misinterpretations wouldn't arise.

[Beardog]

Looks like Lonely Planet will have to rewrite Pattaya as just another city devoid of the must see dineyland atmosphere that most peolpe come to visit just to experience The Las Vegas - Rio- Amsterdam experience. Better off going to Koh Chang or Koh Phanagen. Pattaya family city..... not a chance. If I had a family I sure wouldn't choose Pattaya as a 1st choice as a model city!

If they took out the bar action & the sexual element ...Pattaya would just be another dangerous city to get run over on streets like 2nd road near Tops. Most of the Farangs are the business owners & I would think besides the Chinese most influx of money into Pattaya is generated off the image of the city of lust . No bars foreigners money gone, tourism would all but halt when all the foreigners pull out, many as stated are mad as hel_l over the closures- so why what would keep this city a float without outside money. My friends come to Pattaya , because it is unique. If it is just a city might as well go to Bali , Indonesia as it is a raging city with the same venue & a lot of fun.Their not closing Bali anytime soon. There is a lot to do to enjoy Thailand on vacation so if they take the FREAK out of the Freakshow I personally wouldn't even make this a stop in Thailand. Besides the food what is the draw? World class dining(yea right)

Now back to reality..................the bars are temporarily closed & will be reopened. I doubt if the driving forces would let the pissants call the shots & make this catastrophic decision without suffering very dire consequences in a city where people are found face down in a ditch over much less.

Drinking & sex are the main charm in Pattaya, any tourist is coming here to experience the weirdness or else why would every travel book be highlighting this as the draw to see Pattaya! Just my opinion. besides if Pattaya turns into a nice family orientated place the housing & condo market would be toast. with the price of land in Patts, if it were just another place , why not move where it is cheaper- can always go to the city for supplies!

[patsfangr]

I'd like to attempt to put all of this discussion into perspective. Nearly every one who has posted to this thread (ProfessorFart being an exception) has made some valid points. Hopefully, I can humbly include myself in that. I've read through everything posted over the past 18 hours or so, without comment; absorbing and considering all of it without anger, and giving it my best effort at objectivity. Here are my thoughts after all of that.

Pattaya, now a city by any reasonable definition, originated, and enjoyed its' intitial growth, as a wide open, inexpensive place to go for a tropical environment, spotted with cheap bars and massage shops, which featured many attractive young girls who were available for both social and sexual contact, at extremely inexpensive rates (by American or Euro standards).

That process continued for quite a few years, with the majority of the initial expat growth made up of low income (and matching morality) types who had visited here, and enjoyed the opportunities for access to thoes attractions.

Over time, however, the nature of the expat community has seen significant change; as has its' location and housing. A large number of families, most of which have included Thai spouses, moved the areas east of Sukhumvit, and south to Jomtien and Na Jomtien. Many high quality individual homes were built, soon followed by an ever increasing number of high quality housing developments.

With that changing expat community has come the desire we see expressed here for a city than provides the types of "day to day" businesses needed by family residents. Take a look at the shops than line Thepprasit Road, much of Sukhumvit, some areas of Third Road and Pattaya Nua. These are business for people with more than a subsistance income. Businesses to build, expand, and furnish houses, and landscape surroiunding property. These businesses, in turn, have provided many respectable jobs for Thai people who wish to live their lives as decent, working class folks, with ordinary, respectable family lives.

That's where we find ourselves now. We have, with some allowance for over-generalization here, two very distinct classes of both Thai and expat residents in the Pattaya area now. And, particularly for the farangs, they have very different hopes and needs for the place they call home. Those hopes and needs are, for the most part, incompatible. The "original" expat types don't want the "family oriented" folks changing their playground. The "family oriented" types don't want the rowdiness, violence, and open sexual atmosphere to disturb their family life. The family folks want more money spent (honestly) by the government on improvements to the areas infrastructure, to include effective law enforcement. The other crowd wants the police to stay out of their way, short of murder; and couldn't care less if the roads are made better for passenger vehicles (most of them are either on bikes, or use baht busses), or if the power and water service to the true residential areas are improved.

In short, there are conflicting lifestyles in Pattaya, and we see reflection of that in this thread. There is no solution to this situation, beyond the passage of time, which will determine which path along the evolutionary scale the growing city of Pattaya will follow. It will almost certainly be decided by the motivation of the government, on both the national and local level. I don't think any of us can predict which way that will go. If the national government decides to, more or less, let Pattaya determine its' own destiny, the confilct is likely to continue to exist. If the national government, now, or at some future time, decides that it no longer will permit the infamous Pattaya reputation to affect the world's opinion of Thailand, things could move in favor of the "family" crowd very quickly.

We shall see.

[Jingthing]

Fair enough, but if you are talking about they are all over Thailand. Coexist, people. Pattaya doesn't need to be Disneyland or Sodom and Gomorrah.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Pattaya_Fox
Post cleaned up

[Tolley]

Pattaya will never become a world class anything

Oh, please. We are working on the other stuff. And I still maintain, it has some of the best nonstop people watching in the world. Also, anyone who doesn't realize Pattaya is now a major Thai city really has no credibility.

My mistake ...whether this makes it world class is a mute point....it certainly does have some great people watching....one big freak show really

[ProfessorFart]

Wrong, it was given City status about 3 years ago.. I said about so don't shoot me if the timing is wrong but it is definately a city

From where exactly did this city status come? Would love to see evidence of that. Pattaya is still an Ampur, not a Muang, bang bang bang.

End of the day (to save the munificent Mod SBK from a hard life here) if you took the gambling from Vegas what would remain? If you take the women from Pattaya what would remain?

Answers on a postsard to P Fart ,Pattaya, soi 7/8 Faceinabeaver.

[funfun]

Wrong, it was given City status about 3 years ago.. I said about so don't shoot me if the timing is wrong but it is definately a city

From where exactly did this city status come? Would love to see evidence of that. Pattaya is still an Ampur, not a Muang, bang bang bang.

End of the day (to save the munificent Mod SBK from a hard life here) if you took the gambling from Vegas what would remain? If you take the women from Pattaya what would remain?

Answers on a postsard to P Fart ,Pattaya, soi 7/8 Faceinabeaver.

i dont understand these Thai people, i just ran all the way up to, well i didnt run all the way i had to stop for 20 cigs cos ya cant smoke in bars anymore, and i had a drink or two on way, cos bars were closed over weekend anyway shouldnt get off topic, got to Pattaya CITY hall and asked if its a city, and they Just laughed!!!!

[soundman]

No doubt about it. Remove Pattaya's "nightlife entertainment" attractions & the city would whither.

Who really goes there for the poor beaches or the lame tourist attractions in the vicinity?

Soundman.

[chanman]

Wrong, it was given City status about 3 years ago.. I said about so don't shoot me if the timing is wrong but it is definately a city

From where exactly did this city status come? Would love to see evidence of that. Pattaya is still an Ampur, not a Muang, bang bang bang.

End of the day (to save the munificent Mod SBK from a hard life here) if you took the gambling from Vegas what would remain? If you take the women from Pattaya what would remain?

Answers on a postsard to P Fart ,Pattaya, soi 7/8 Faceinabeaver.

City Status

[Tammi]

No doubt about it. Remove Pattaya's "nightlife entertainment" attractions & the city would whither.

Who really goes there for the poor beaches or the lame tourist attractions in the vicinity?

Soundman.

Whither would it wither? Seems to me that if it wasn't for Viagra it would be in a constant state of wither.

[Humphrey Bear]

Wrong, it was given City status about 3 years ago.. I said about so don't shoot me if the timing is wrong but it is definately a city

From where exactly did this city status come? Would love to see evidence of that. Pattaya is still an Ampur, not a Muang, bang bang bang.

End of the day (to save the munificent Mod SBK from a hard life here) if you took the gambling from Vegas what would remain? If you take the women from Pattaya what would remain?

Answers on a postsard to P Fart ,Pattaya, soi 7/8 Faceinabeaver.

City Status

Thank you for the link. So Pattaya is definitely NOT a city, but a Thesaban Nakhon.

Really, the understanding of 'City' varies from country to country.

In UK the basic definition was that the place had to have a cathedral in order to call itself a city. So Ely, a tiny little place, is a city, while big-brother Cambridge is not.

Let them call it what they will, it still needs a good administrative council to run it. (Not the offspring of the area's major gangster).

[Beardog]

No doubt about it. Remove Pattaya's "nightlife entertainment" attractions & the city would whither.

Who really goes there for the poor beaches or the lame tourist attractions in the vicinity?

Soundman.

Exactly!!!!

Beardog

[APMann]

Wrong, it was given City status about 3 years ago.. I said about so don't shoot me if the timing is wrong but it is definately a city

From where exactly did this city status come? Would love to see evidence of that. Pattaya is still an Ampur, not a Muang, bang bang bang.

End of the day (to save the munificent Mod SBK from a hard life here) if you took the gambling from Vegas what would remain? If you take the women from Pattaya what would remain?

Answers on a postsard to P Fart ,Pattaya, soi 7/8 Faceinabeaver.

City Status

Thank you for the link. So Pattaya is definitely NOT a city, but a Thesaban Nakhon.

Really, the understanding of 'City' varies from country to country.

In UK the basic definition was that the place had to have a cathedral in order to call itself a city. So Ely, a tiny little place, is a city, while big-brother Cambridge is not.

Let them call it what they will, it still needs a good administrative council to run it. (Not the offspring of the area's major gangster).

I really cannot understand why there is a fear of acknowledging that Pattaya is a city when the council is called a city council and it was legally made a city, as demonstrated by the above posts. Even if it hadn't been legally designated a city, it would clearly be de facto. Can someone who believes it isn't a city please explain to us what relevance it would have on the discussion if it were not a city?

By the way, great summarising post earlier from patsfangr.

[APMann]

No doubt about it. Remove Pattaya's "nightlife entertainment" attractions & the city would whither.

Who really goes there for the poor beaches or the lame tourist attractions in the vicinity?

Soundman.

Exactly!!!!

Beardog

Beardog - do you mean to say you and Soundman actually agree with US? I interpret your comments as agreeing with Soundman that the city MUST develop because poor beaches and lame tourist attractions are not enough. And you're right. A lot more needs to be done, as evidenced in the suggestions in these posts, and I am delighted to welcome you both into the group of people who wish to improve Pattaya in the future, and not leave it in the sorry state it is in!

(Erm, I am reading that right aren't I?!)

[patsfangr]

No doubt about it. Remove Pattaya's "nightlife entertainment" attractions & the city would whither.

Who really goes there for the poor beaches or the lame tourist attractions in the vicinity?

Soundman.

Exactly!!!!

Beardog

Yeah! Exactly! There's nobody lying about on those poor beaches, or entering those lame tourist attractions. Why, exept for the beer bars and massage shops, the city is a virtual ghost town!

The real answer to 'soundman's' question is that there are many thousands of people, couples and families, who FLOCK to those poor beaches and lame tourist attractions every year, because it's as close as they can come to a "quality tropical vacation".

If the beer bars and massage shops were actually shut down, there would actually be more room, and a safer atmosphere for those "less than wealthy" families to have their "tropical vacation" experience. There'd be room for more cheap, but clean hotels; and cheap, but decent, souvenir shops and stands; and cheap restaurants, offering authentic Thai food in clean evironments.

I agree with AP, and some others, that I'd prefer to see the entire venue moved "up market", becuase it would certainly bring in a better class of people. But, at the same time, I'll acknowledge a little arrogance in that plan, since it would deprive some decent, but financially challenged people the right to enjoy what could be a great, low cost vacation.

But whether upgraded, or simply expanded with more of the "bargain" vacation things now available, I'd certainly like to see an end to my home hosting the drunks and sex seekers as a majority of visitors, as well as a significant number of the expats.

[britmaveric]

patsfangr - unfortunately you will need to move for that to ever happen.

[Humphrey Bear]

patsfangr - unfortunately you will need to move for that to ever happen.

You beat me to it!

Even Phuket - more family oriented in many areas other than Patong Beach - has it's lower-end section (the aforesaid PB).

But it has top-end hotels with private beaches, it has family areas (Katu, Karon) and it has several external entertainments - trips to Ao PhangNga, Kho Phi Phi, diving (much better than Pattaya) - Fantasea, tropical rain forest, elephant treks, so on.

If people want an up-market vacation from Pattaya, their first port of call in Thailand will be Phuket.

Other opportunities lay all around the area - Langkawi, Penang, KL, Singapore, Bali, HK, to name a few.

Pattaya may develop as a dormitory town for the industrial parts of the Eastern Seabord, but that would not develop the tourist infrastructure; although it would probably help considerably with the basic infrastructure, such as water, power, sewage and communications.

And does anyone have a precise translation of the word 'City' in Thai, complete with definitions of what constitutes a city? And do such definitions match with what defines a city in UK, US, Germany, France, Italy, Nigeria? Town, city, village, hamlet, conurbation, suburb, neighbourhood, block, municipal settlement, casbah, so on and so on. These are Western, basically UK and US ways of thinking and defining habitations. They do not necessarily translate easily into other cultures, other languages.

Baan, moo-baan, nakhon, so on - kampong, to be translated into English also have different understandings - house, hut, bungalow, apartment, shack, castle, mansion, beach property, second home, weekend home, home.

Don't get bogged down in petty definitions. They only matter to politicians and others with delusions of grandeur.

[Beardog]

No doubt about it. Remove Pattaya's "nightlife entertainment" attractions & the city would whither.

Who really goes there for the poor beaches or the lame tourist attractions in the vicinity?

Soundman.

Exactly!!!!

Beardog

Beardog - do you mean to say you and Soundman actually agree with US? I interpret your comments as agreeing with Soundman that the city MUST develop because poor beaches and lame tourist attractions are not enough. And you're right. A lot more needs to be done, as evidenced in the suggestions in these posts, and I am delighted to welcome you both into the group of people who wish to improve Pattaya in the future, and not leave it in the sorry state it is in!

(Erm, I am reading that right aren't I?!)

Along with keeping Pattaya's seamy side(The main attraction) You are correct we need an upgrade for sure. at least repairs & clean up to the city would be a welcome site. I still enjoy Pattaya Whichever way it goes., but I am with you on !

[soundman]

I will add to this by saying that no matter how much you dress Pattaya up - it will always be what it is.

If I want to go on a beach holiday with my family - Pattaya is way down the list.

If I want to take my family somewhere with decent tourist attractions, even Bkk is far better choice than Pattaya.

If I want to go on a "best mates or a few days with the boys" type holiday - Pattaya is a great choice.

Many international tourists (and families) end up in Pattaya, not because it is the ultimate seaside resort, but because they don't know where else to go.

To "dress" Pattaya up and provide all sorts of decent infrastructure, attractions etc, it would almost be cheaper to pick up all the "good or socially respectable" elements of the area and move them to another area completely built from scratch next to a "nice" beach - say 20 km's down the road towards Rayong.

Pattaya is what it is & I will keep visiting only if it remains what it is. If I want up-market, and most of my family holidays fall in this category, there are many other better choices available in Thailand.

So, Pattaya, in my opinion, would not be better with the bars closed.

Something that I cannot comprehend is why people who move into an area knowing what it is, do an "about face" & start complaining about "changing this" or "removing that" after they have made the decision to move there in the first place.

Soundman.

[BigSnake]

Maybe better for you, however the people (bargirls/bartender, oh yeah and even the touts)needs them open for there livehood.