Even More Dead Than Last Year?

[Tolley]

Pattaya is bigger,badder and I dare say better than it ever was.

First came to Pattaya in '79 or thereabouts and have probably spent all up about 5 years in Pattaya over that time.

I think it is definitely better than before. More options than before and dare i say it more cosmopolitan.

Yep more nationalities have added to the Pattaya mix and it has moved on from the sole province of the sex tourist from the west.

Although there is an industry still there for them and there are still sex tourists in Pattaya there is also a bigger mix of other types of tourists.

How could that be a bad thing?

I don't see what is to complain about really most of the changes are for the better.

More traffic is a nuisance but hey i don't drive in Pattaya so it is not much of a concern to me.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Pattaya is no longer a relaxed, no-stress, traffic-jam free, inexpensive, crime-free place to live in.

It has not been since the 1960s.

That is actually I good response. Thanks. The main point I am trying to make is that development is not always a good thing (unless you are a real estate agent, something I have never been and would never want to be in this life or the next). Development always goes through phases. Typically it is positive at first, then as it grows it reaches a true "Golden Age" where it maintains a nice mixture of the old and new (I would guess that was Pattaya in the 80s and 90s). Then it overwhelms an area and destroys much that was good and unique about the place (Pattaya from 2000 to present), replacing it with a "modern development model" that, in my view, is totally boring and has only one main function: to make money for real estate firms and those who are involved with the industry. The new model has virtually nothing to do with making Pattaya better. That is a real estate myth. They do not care about any person who does not embrace their view. That is why their responses are so "angry" on Thaivisa (along with the fact that they are having a bit of a problem with their collective dream). After the destruction is official, they will move on to another place and start the cycle over again. If we all keep embracing the concept of more, more, more, and more, we will end up unhappy. It is interesting to see the myths the real estate industry is propagating: Pattaya must change in order to be better; the only people who can't see this are "old whiners;" only poor people dislike the new changes; all of the whiners are miserable; the development is for the benefit of all people (Thais, farangs, etc); Pattaya is entering Golden Age; things have never been better, etc. These are just myths that they hope you swallow. Still, I will say it again: there are worse places to live than Pattaya

[Rumcabal]

That is actually I good response. Thanks. The main point I am trying to make is that development is not always a good thing (unless you are a real estate agent, something I have never been and would never want to be in this life or the next). Development always goes through phases. Typically it is positive at first, then as it grows it reaches a true "Golden Age" where it maintains a nice mixture of the old and new (I would guess that was Pattaya in the 80s and 90s). Then it overwhelms an area and destroys much that was good and unique about the place (Pattaya from 2000 to present), replacing it with a "modern development model" that, in my view, is totally boring and has only one main function: to make money for real estate firms and those who are involved with the industry. The new model has virtually nothing to do with making Pattaya better. That is a real estate myth. They do not care about any person who does not embrace their view. That is why their responses are so "angry" on Thaivisa (along with the fact that they are having a bit of a problem with their collective dream). After the destruction is official, they will move on to another place and start the cycle over again. If we all keep embracing the concept of more, more, more, and more, we will end up unhappy. It is interesting to see the myths the real estate industry is propagating: Pattaya must change in order to be better; the only people who can't see this are "old whiners;" only poor people dislike the new changes; all of the whiners are miserable; the development is for the benefit of all people (Thais, farangs, etc); Pattaya is entering Golden Age; things have never been better, etc. These are just myths that they hope you swallow. Still, I will say it again: there are worse places to live than Pattaya

You really do go on and on about the same ol' subjects. For starters why do you call everyone who disagrees with you an 'angry real estate agent'? Seems overly paranoid to me.

Interesting 'development' theory you've explained above. If this theory is correct then cities like London, Paris and New York should be on their death beds because of all the development that has gone on there. Can you please name 1 city anywhere in the world that has been destroyed by development?

In your mind Development = Residential Real Estate but thats only a tiny component of it. Development means having adequate reliable supplies of electricity, good sewerage and sanitation systems, good health care, good transport infrastructure, reliable communications, internet etc.. Pattaya doesnt tick all these boxes but it is moving in the right direction. Not only that but these developments benefit everyone living there, young, old, rich and poor. They also are not about residential real estate. Open your eyes and embrace it, its not going to stop.

[JSixpack]

Pattaya is no longer a relaxed, no-stress, traffic-jam free, inexpensive, crime-free place to live in.

It has not been since the 1960s.

True!--if talking about anywhere near the bars. The other areas, as I and Tropo point out, were and can still be quiet and relaxed, though nowhere in Thailand could ever have been termed "crime-free."

Living near the bar areas in a cheap hotel/apt was NEVER relaxed and stress-free, unless you don't care about safety & sleep. Drunk farangs coming in at all hours w/ their women and then banging as loudly as possible (having a bit o' fun); Thais with their TVs and stereos, sitting around in groups eating in the hallways; Thai men coming in at all hours and yelling and pleading and pounding on the doors of their girlfriends; women returning at all hours; pimps hanging around all day; constant worry about theft (can't even leave a pair of cheap sandals outside); motorbikes outside the window, motorbikes cranking up anytime (worst are farangs posing w/ their rented Steeds, loud pipes obligatory) . . . .

And Pattaya crime-free? HA. What a joke. Ain't NEVER been any such a time! Just dig up old editions of the Pattaya Mail or dig back into old news items. I'm beginning to think Awohalitsiktoli didn't really live in PTY that long, maybe just came for a holiday--and is merely a troll besides.

Let's point out that Walking St. is now traffic-free as part of the development. Time was, you'd be risking your life on Walking Street, probably be hit by a tattooed farang Honda Steed poser who'd just injected his steroids and hot to grab a parking space in front of Marine Disco. Technically not ALL traffic has increased.

Edited March 10, 2011 by JSixpack

[Awohalitsiktoli]

That is actually I good response. Thanks. The main point I am trying to make is that development is not always a good thing (unless you are a real estate agent, something I have never been and would never want to be in this life or the next). Development always goes through phases. Typically it is positive at first, then as it grows it reaches a true "Golden Age" where it maintains a nice mixture of the old and new (I would guess that was Pattaya in the 80s and 90s). Then it overwhelms an area and destroys much that was good and unique about the place (Pattaya from 2000 to present), replacing it with a "modern development model" that, in my view, is totally boring and has only one main function: to make money for real estate firms and those who are involved with the industry. The new model has virtually nothing to do with making Pattaya better. That is a real estate myth. They do not care about any person who does not embrace their view. That is why their responses are so "angry" on Thaivisa (along with the fact that they are having a bit of a problem with their collective dream). After the destruction is official, they will move on to another place and start the cycle over again. If we all keep embracing the concept of more, more, more, and more, we will end up unhappy. It is interesting to see the myths the real estate industry is propagating: Pattaya must change in order to be better; the only people who can't see this are "old whiners;" only poor people dislike the new changes; all of the whiners are miserable; the development is for the benefit of all people (Thais, farangs, etc); Pattaya is entering Golden Age; things have never been better, etc. These are just myths that they hope you swallow. Still, I will say it again: there are worse places to live than Pattaya

You really do go on and on about the same ol' subjects. For starters why do you call everyone who disagrees with you an 'angry real estate agent'? Seems overly paranoid to me.

Interesting 'development' theory you've explained above. If this theory is correct then cities like London, Paris and New York should be on their death beds because of all the development that has gone on there. Can you please name 1 city anywhere in the world that has been destroyed by development?

In your mind Development = Residential Real Estate but thats only a tiny component of it. Development means having adequate reliable supplies of electricity, good sewerage and sanitation systems, good health care, good transport infrastructure, reliable communications, internet etc.. Pattaya doesnt tick all these boxes but it is moving in the right direction. Not only that but these developments benefit everyone living there, young, old, rich and poor. They also are not about residential real estate. Open your eyes and embrace it, its not going to stop.

You actually want me to take the time to list all of the cities that have been "destroyed" by development? Since you have totally swallowed the real estate myths, that would not be worth my time. Most people here know precisely what I meant by development "destroying cities". Bangkok is a perfect example. And please don't throw out that magazine poll that keeps trying to convince us that Bangkok is the world's best city for tourism To me quality cities are designed for people on a human scale. That means a lot of things like numerous green spaces/parks, clean air, plenty of walking zones (no cars allowed), no traffic jams, etc. And, for the record, I believe London, Paris and New York were long ago destroyed by development. All of these cities were great in the past, so was Honolulu, Miami, San Francisco, etc. Other people see things differently.

[JSixpack]

To me quality cities are designed for people on a human scale. That means a lot of things like numerous green spaces/parks, clean air, plenty of walking zones (no cars allowed), no traffic jams, etc. And, for the record, I believe London, Paris and New York were long ago destroyed by development. All of these cities were great in the past, so was Honolulu, Miami, San Francisco, etc. Other people see things differently.

As I said earlier, beautiful unchanging Pyongyang is your ideal. Why don't you move there?

[Ulysses G.]

Hicksville Arkansas is still pretty undeveloped.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Hicksville Arkansas is still pretty undeveloped.

One more real estate myth was just added: those who oppose the "modern development scheme" are opposed to development. As I tried to explain, development goes through phases. The phases can, perhaps, be seen as going from "not enough," to "enough," to "too much." Pattaya is now well into the too much phase--too much of everything most people do not want because they cause socioeconomic and environmental problems. The Golden Age in Pattaya (80s and 90s) was when development was in the enough phase. That was a time when there was an interesting mix of old and new. It was characterized by maximum convenience and just the right mixture of numbers of people and facilities. It was stress free for most people. Prior to that, Pattaya was undeveloped in a not enough phase. Maybe that will make sense to some people. It is, IMHO, impossible to return to the Golden Age. Development tends to destroy if left unchecked. Fortunately some city planners know this (but not in Thailand); some governments know this (not the Thai government). Bangkok was destroyed largely because there was no city planning except follow the "more is better" concept. Pattaya is moving in the same direction. We are feeling the negative impact of this development scheme each day in the form of overpopulated streets, traffic jams, pollution of all sorts, unjustified price increases, rising crime rate, increasing stress levels, etc. Still, there are worse places to be than Pattaya When is enough enough?

[tropo]

Hicksville Arkansas is still pretty undeveloped.

One more real estate myth was just added: those who oppose the "modern development scheme" are opposed to development. As I tried to explain, development goes through phases. The phases can, perhaps, be seen as going from "not enough," to "enough," to "too much." Pattaya is now well into the too much phase--too much of everything most people do not want because they cause socioeconomic and environmental problems. The Golden Age in Pattaya (80s and 90s) was when development was in the enough phase. That was a time when there was an interesting mix of old and new. It was characterized by maximum convenience and just the right mixture of numbers of people and facilities. It was stress free for most people. Prior to that, Pattaya was undeveloped in a not enough phase. Maybe that will make sense to some people. It is, IMHO, impossible to return to the Golden Age. Development tends to destroy if left unchecked. Fortunately some city planners know this (but not in Thailand); some governments know this (not the Thai government). Bangkok was destroyed largely because there was no city planning except follow the "more is better" concept. Pattaya is moving in the same direction. We are feeling the negative impact of this development scheme each day in the form of overpopulated streets, traffic jams, pollution of all sorts, unjustified price increases, rising crime rate, increasing stress levels, etc. Still, there are worse places to be than Pattaya When is enough enough?

I can't believe how some people go on and on about the destruction of Pattaya brought about through overdevelopment.

Get a girp gentlemen. This city is hardly 30 years old and 30 years ago it probably didn't even have city status yet. Most developed cities in the world are hundreds if not thousands of years old.

Infrastructure takes time. Historically there aren't too many cities in the world which planned far ahead. How were the powers to be to 20 year ago to know how popular Pattaya would become? The very people who are complaining now are the very people responsible for its overcrowding. Perhaps these complainers should do their part in relieving this problem by moving out.

Edited March 16, 2011 by tropo

[Awohalitsiktoli]

The very people who are complaining now are the very people responsible for its overcrowding. Perhaps these complainers should do their part in relieving this problem by moving out.

So you do understand that there is a major development problem called "overcrowding." Put differently, there are too many people living in a small area called Pattaya. That is a population problem that is associated with many other problems (e.g. traffic jams, crime, pollution, etc.). If the problem could be solved by the "complainers" moving out, then there must be a lot of people upset with the current development scheme. As far as the topic goes, yes, the place seems more dead this year than last year. If the global economy continues to deteriorate, and if prices continue to go up (while services go down), the numbers might drop significantly. Pattaya is lucky in many respects, most notably its "sex appeal" and proximity to Bangkok. The latter is important because an increasing number of Bangkonians are wanting to get away from Bangkok, especially on the weekends, and many go to Pattaya. Without these two things, the city would die. Even with its faults, Pattaya is still better than Bangkok. Bangkok is a text-book case on what not to do in terms of development, but the developers in Pattaya have no idea what I am talking about. Or they do not care.

[Panhandler007]

My favourite places to stay have been well-booked and hard to get into. Also. Soi Bookow restarant, bar, and guest house owners are saying it's getting busier and busier every year.

To back this up, a friend with a bar on Pattaya New Plaza reckons he's making money this year as opposed to breaking even for the last 2.

Maybe those that are coming are going for the Bookow atmosphere and value rather than nobbing about in over-priced tourist hotels. If the Beach area is quiet, the 'Cow area certainly is not.

Value Tourism are currently the travel industry buzz-words and "Cow offers it in spades. Not hard to understand its success.

Soi sauce= soy sauce I GET IT!!! LOL HA HA HA HA :lol:

[tropo]

The very people who are complaining now are the very people responsible for its overcrowding. Perhaps these complainers should do their part in relieving this problem by moving out.

So you do understand that there is a major development problem called "overcrowding." Put differently, there are too many people living in a small area called Pattaya. That is a population problem that is associated with many other problems (e.g. traffic jams, crime, pollution, etc.). If the problem could be solved by the "complainers" moving out, then there must be a lot of people upset with the current development scheme. As far as the topic goes, yes, the place seems more dead this year than last year. If the global economy continues to deteriorate, and if prices continue to go up (while services go down), the numbers might drop significantly. Pattaya is lucky in many respects, most notably its "sex appeal" and proximity to Bangkok. The latter is important because an increasing number of Bangkonians are wanting to get away from Bangkok, especially on the weekends, and many go to Pattaya. Without these two things, the city would die. Even with its faults, Pattaya is still better than Bangkok. Bangkok is a text-book case on what not to do in terms of development, but the developers in Pattaya have no idea what I am talking about. Or they do not care.

Many of us enjoy Pattaya the way it is. My wife and I enjoy life in Pattaya.

I ride motorcycles to avoid the traffic congestion. It is nothing unusual that a busy tourist zone will have traffic congestion.

We don't find it overcrowded. Get this - We live 1km from Walking Street and my nearest neighbours live 50 m away. Amazing isn't it? I can find many quiet places to live in Central Pattaya. Just open your eyes and look around the side sois.

When I find this place unliveable I shall pack up and move on. I trust you already have.

From where I'm standing, Pattaya has improved in the 5 years I've lived here.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Many of us enjoy Pattaya the way it is. My wife and I enjoy life in Pattaya.

I ride motorcycles to avoid the traffic congestion. It is nothing unusual that a busy tourist zone will have traffic congestion.

We don't find it overcrowded. Get this - We live 1km from Walking Street and my nearest neighbours live 50 m away. Amazing isn't it? I can find many quiet places to live in Central Pattaya. Just open your eyes and look around the side sois.

When I find this place unliveable I shall pack up and move on. I trust you already have.

From where I'm standing, Pattaya has improved in the 5 years I've lived here.

Pattaya, like I said earlier, is better than a lot of places even with the new development. Many people do like it the way it is, probably because of what they are comparing it to which is usually their mental reference point. Many miss the way it was and believe it was much better than now for many reasons (I fall into that category). "Improved" is a relative term. What you see as an improvement is seen as destruction by others. Some people, for example, are not at all impressed with the new condos going up any more than they are impressed with a Gucci bag or Armani suit or Mercedes (I fall into that category). I stay in Bangkok and Pattaya. I like Pattaya better, but I do not like the fact that Pattaya is becoming more and more like Bangkok, a place that I think has been ruined by misguided development and overpopulation. By the way, I grew up in a place where I could walk outside and look to the horizon and not see one person or any sign of people (that is my reference point). I felt like I was one with nature (no Native American Indian jokes). So, "overcrowded" to me is no doubt very different from overcrowded" to you.

[Darrel]

Pattaya is lucky in many respects, most notably its "sex appeal" and proximity to Bangkok. The latter is important because an increasing number of Bangkonians are wanting to get away from Bangkok, especially on the weekends, and many go to Pattaya. Without these two things, the city would die.

Not any more. Russian families surely outnumber Thai tourists and the traditional single male by at least a factor of 10 now. Beach Rd and Second Rd are crawling with them at all hours, and there's no shortage of them in Soi Buakow. Go to Jomtien and Wong Amat/Naklua and there's pretty well no one else. I've never seen anything like it. They get more and more numerous every day. I'm just glad that they dont stay where I do.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Darrel

[chops]

Pattaya is lucky in many respects, most notably its "sex appeal" and proximity to Bangkok. The latter is important because an increasing number of Bangkonians are wanting to get away from Bangkok, especially on the weekends, and many go to Pattaya. Without these two things, the city would die.

Not any more. Russian families surely outnumber Thai tourists and the traditional single male by at least a factor of 10 now. Beach Rd and Second Rd are crawling with them at all hours, and there's no shortage of them in Soi Buakow. Go to Jomtien and Wong Amat/Naklua and there's pretty well no one else. I've never seen anything like it. They get more and more numerous every day. I'm just glad that they dont stay where I do.

Makes me glad I'm up here in Chiang Rai. Couldn't stand it there anymore. The place was getting overrun. They could go to HuaHin but nooo, the ENTIRE population of Russia has to come over.

[Tolley]

Pattaya is lucky in many respects, most notably its "sex appeal" and proximity to Bangkok. The latter is important because an increasing number of Bangkonians are wanting to get away from Bangkok, especially on the weekends, and many go to Pattaya. Without these two things, the city would die.

Not any more. Russian families surely outnumber Thai tourists and the traditional single male by at least a factor of 10 now. Beach Rd and Second Rd are crawling with them at all hours, and there's no shortage of them in Soi Buakow. Go to Jomtien and Wong Amat/Naklua and there's pretty well no one else. I've never seen anything like it. They get more and more numerous every day. I'm just glad that they dont stay where I do.

You have real issues if you are so bothered by Russian tourists in Pattaya.

Pattaya is a tourist area and Russians are tourists and if it wasn't Russians it would be some other nationality.

Maybe you need to live outside the tourist area somewhere then you complain that there are too many Thais around!

[Darrel]

This thread is about Pattaya being low on tourists and so all my comments are on-topic.

I dont like any foreign group that makes up such a huge proportion of the people I see in the street. I expect to see more Thais than farangs here, especially at this time of year, but that just isnt the case any more.

The Russian families are particularly annoying in that they are large and are always standing around pointlessly and getting in the way. There are other races and nationalities that are just as bad for this, but not as numerous. If they were as numerous then I would complain about them also.

[saengsureeya]

Even the Pattaya International Music Festival doesn't seem to attract more tourists compared to previous years.

Traffic on Friday 18-3-2011 West of Sukhumvit was flowing better than usual.

[Rimmer]

An Inflammatory troll post that also touched on discussion of moderation has been removed from view

[Darrel]

Even the Pattaya International Music Festival doesn't seem to attract more tourists compared to previous years.

Hmm. I dont know. I walked down to Beach Rd near Central last night, saw the throng of people moving aimlessly between the stalls, did a u-turn and came straight home. It would not have been possible to cover more than about 20 yards a minute in that lot. Horrible. It was more congested yesterday as a pedestrian road than when the pedestrians are restricted to the pavement.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Even the Pattaya International Music Festival doesn't seem to attract more tourists compared to previous years.

Hmm. I dont know. I walked down to Beach Rd near Central last night, saw the throng of people moving aimlessly between the stalls, did a u-turn and came straight home. It would not have been possible to cover more than about 20 yards a minute in that lot. Horrible. It was more congested yesterday as a pedestrian road than when the pedestrians are restricted to the pavement.

The question is about now vs. one year ago. That is not easy to answer if the change in people traffic is small. I feel like fewer people are here than last year at the same time. But I do not think it is a major change. There are too many people in Pattaya, period! To me, this is a major problem that is ruining the city; it is causing traffic jams, making it more difficult to go from point A to point B, reducing the convenience factor, increasing stress levels, and leading to an increase in air and water pollution. But, that is my view.

[aussiechick]

Even the Pattaya International Music Festival doesn't seem to attract more tourists compared to previous years.

Hmm. I dont know. I walked down to Beach Rd near Central last night, saw the throng of people moving aimlessly between the stalls, did a u-turn and came straight home. It would not have been possible to cover more than about 20 yards a minute in that lot. Horrible. It was more congested yesterday as a pedestrian road than when the pedestrians are restricted to the pavement.

The question is about now vs. one year ago. That is not easy to answer if the change in people traffic is small. I feel like fewer people are here than last year at the same time. But I do not think it is a major change. There are too many people in Pattaya, period! To me, this is a major problem that is ruining the city; it is causing traffic jams, making it more difficult to go from point A to point B, reducing the convenience factor, increasing stress levels, and leading to an increase in air and water pollution. But, that is my view.

Maybe because the Central Stage was erected on the block of land near Hard Roack instead of the intersection of Beach and Central Road that appeared to thin out the crowd?

I thought the whole area was as busy as last year.

[supaprik]

I have not been in Pattaya for about 10 days. My observation is just the opposite of yours. Getting a sawng taeo was nearly impossible in going to and from JomTien. At 2nd road and Soth Pattaya the ques were long and often a shortly of baht buses because of all the tourists (mostly Russian). The malls were packed as were the beaches at JomTien. I would not judge the economy based on bar customers. Remember Pattaya is trying to tranform itself and maybe it is starting to work.

It seems as though big business is attempting to turn Pattaya in to a two week package holiday destination.

In other words, the money is being sucked out of Pattaya. Granted, there will be more hotel positions available,

but the bars and the girls are starting to feel the effects. This translates in to less money going to the poor

Issaan families.

Things, situations and definitely people change. If changes never happened the dinosaur would still be roaming the earth…Whoops I forget there is one type of dinosaur left and it can still be found in small pockets around Pattaya (mainly anglo style bars and agogo) but I am afraid that it is becoming a endangered species, as it's habitats are rapidly altering and its foods sources are dwindling and becoming far to cosmopolitan and unpalatably for it's weak digestive system.

The Dinosaur in question is the "Whingosaur" it's main trait as the name implies is to whinge and whine about all things new, especially the influx of a new more dominate two legged mammal known as the "Notenglishenoughapod".

I am afraid if the "Whingosaur "does not accept change and adapt to its new environment it is doomed to extinction.

Can you be more specific?

Brilliant....and 100% spot on also

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Banglay wrote: "The Dinosaur in question is the Whingosaur it's main trait as the name implies is to whinge and whine about all things new, especially the influx of a new more dominate two legged mammal known as the Notenglishenoughapod. I am afraid if the Whingosaur does not accept change and adapt to its new environment it is doomed to extinction."

To Banglay from Awahalitsiktoli: Whingosaurs, as you call them, are not complaining about "all things new." That is a "real estate myth." They are complaining about negative realities that have surfaced as a result of recent development.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Awohalitsiktoli

[tropo]

The question is about now vs. one year ago. That is not easy to answer if the change in people traffic is small. I feel like fewer people are here than last year at the same time. But I do not think it is a major change. There are too many people in Pattaya, period! To me, this is a major problem that is ruining the city; it is causing traffic jams, making it more difficult to go from point A to point B, reducing the convenience factor, increasing stress levels, and leading to an increase in air and water pollution. But, that is my view.

Most of the population of Pattaya is Thai. The reason why the streets are so full of cars and bikes is because so many can afford to buy cars and motorcycles because of fantastic loan deals they can so easily find. The traffic on streets doesn't vary much from high to low tourist season - the streets are busy all year around.

Can you figure out some way to discourage Thais from settling here and leave the place to tourists and expats?

[Awohalitsiktoli]

The question is about now vs. one year ago. That is not easy to answer if the change in people traffic is small. I feel like fewer people are here than last year at the same time. But I do not think it is a major change. There are too many people in Pattaya, period! To me, this is a major problem that is ruining the city; it is causing traffic jams, making it more difficult to go from point A to point B, reducing the convenience factor, increasing stress levels, and leading to an increase in air and water pollution. But, that is my view.

Most of the population of Pattaya is Thai. The reason why the streets are so full of cars and bikes is because so many can afford to buy cars and motorcycles because of fantastic loan deals they can so easily find. The traffic on streets doesn't vary much from high to low tourist season - the streets are busy all year around.

Can you figure out some way to discourage Thais from settling here and leave the place to tourists and expats?

I think you are on to something here. Most posters seem to think the "people traffic" in Pattaya is always related to "farangs." For example, there are more people because the Russians have invaded. That is not entirely true! In fact, it might very well be true that the population problem is more related to Thais (especially from Isan and Bangkok) than it is to foreigners. How to discourage Thais from settling in Pattaya? Easy, start a massive campaign to convince the Thai public that Pattaya is full of ghosts OK, what is your solution?

[tropo]

OK, what is your solution?

There isn't one. Thais love Pattaya just as much as the Russians do.

[Danlo]

Si if there are less people dead next year what will that prove.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Si if there are less people dead next year what will that prove.

[ESB7]

This thread is about Pattaya being low on tourists and so all my comments are on-topic.

I dont like any foreign group that makes up such a huge proportion of the people I see in the street. I expect to see more Thais than farangs here, especially at this time of year, but that just isnt the case any more.

The Russian families are particularly annoying in that they are large and are always standing around pointlessly and getting in the way. There are other races and nationalities that are just as bad for this, but not as numerous. If they were as numerous then I would complain about them also.

You need to go the other side of the water to Cha am...........Thais Thais and more Thais every weekend and holiday season...Pattaya has never really been a Thai destination, it was set up for the sex trade during the Nam war