Is Bangkok In Thailand?......

[nocturn]

Saphan Kwai is a 'Thai' part of town. There aren't all that many westerners up there. I always stay there when I go to Bangkok.

Saphan Kwai may not have alot of westerners, but it certainly has its fair share of something else...

MRT stations?

Yes, I am afraid that that went right over my head too.

Saphan Kwai was fairly notorious a few years back as an alternate gogo, massage and gay entertainment zone, almost exclusively Thai. I have no idea if that is still the case, but I suspect it is

[theblether]

<p>

<br />

<br />

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.<br />

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.<br />

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.<br />

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.<br />

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul<br />

<br />

<br />

You're kidding? There is constant complaint about how Singapore has effectively torn down 80% of the heritage buildings and replaced them with identical soulless glass and steel towers.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

No I'm not kidding, there is a high level of land pressure on Singapore, and they are having to build over cemetries for road building etc, however walk around down-town Singapore and you will see plenty of historical buildings, plenty.

Singapore doesn't have anything like the history of Bangkok, but it appears that even with the severe land pressure they have done a better job of preservation than BKK.

[theblether]

<p>

<br />

It's probably been said, but you've seen 'your' Bangkok. You've stayed in 5 star hotels and 2 star hotels, but unless I missed it, you've never lived here. Soi Cowboy isn't Bangkok, it's just a street. That bar you were sitting at with your friend is just another street. Yes, Bangkok is overcrowded and lacks the natural beauty of the Countryside, but you just have different experiences of Thailand than those of us who live in the city. I've travelled Thailand a bit, and I love the Countryside as much as the islands, but I do like living in the city (or just outside it). Bangkok is pure Thailand, it's just busier and noisier than you're used to.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

I'm not pretending to be an expert of BKK, I am being educated on this thread and I am taking note of people's positive experience. You were doing well until you said you preferred staying just outside of the city rather in the city itself.......that's called damned by faint praise.

[StreetCowboy]

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul

You're kidding? There is constant complaint about how Singapore has effectively torn down 80% of the heritage buildings and replaced them with identical soulless glass and steel towers.

Exactly. Only 80%, and people complain about it, and people listen to the complaints.

I quite like how SIngapore has preserved a lot of its city centre heritage; quite an achievement, for such a new city

SC

[buhi]

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though.

You are looking in the wrong places, and thank goodness the old places are not in the tourist zones, more often than not they are thriving communities.

Take a short walk from Nana up to Petccburi Road, next to Klong Sam Seap and the old railway workers village is still as it ever was.

Take a short walk from the pier opposite Wat Arun and the stunning original shop houses are still trading their dried goodies today. Be more adventurous and take to the canals of Thonburi or even more so go up the Chao Prai to Ko Ket and the Mon island, with no cars and wonderful pottery.As for the suburbs they never cease to amaze. You need a reason to go there, I did it for many years working in Thai schools. Gosh there are amazing places, where only a motor cycle will give you access as a narrow wooden bridge is the only way across a canal.

Hundreds of real places which do not advertise themselves, Thank Buddah, that they are as they were a hundred years ago, and tourist free.

As I said ,the concrete facade often hides secret places just behind them. It takes years to get to know these secrets, but I bet you most of us long term residents could show you many and they could show and surprise me too.

Wonderful place.

Edited April 24, 2012 by buhi

[Kananga]

<p>

<br />

<br />

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.<br />

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.<br />

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.<br />

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.<br />

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul<br />

<br />

<br />

You're kidding? There is constant complaint about how Singapore has effectively torn down 80% of the heritage buildings and replaced them with identical soulless glass and steel towers.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

No I'm not kidding, there is a high level of land pressure on Singapore, and they are having to build over cemetries for road building etc, however walk around down-town Singapore and you will see plenty of historical buildings, plenty.

Singapore doesn't have anything like the history of Bangkok, but it appears that even with the severe land pressure they have done a better job of preservation than BKK.

When you say downtown are you referring to Shenton Way, Suntec, or the Marina area? There are hundreds of land plots available and the only graves being moved are to widen highways like the P.I.E.. And the cemetery they did encroach over was about 5% of the total land mass of the cemetery. Hardly the same as 'moving it'. Have you been to Chinatown in Singapore? Its a disneyesque tourist trap selling tacky souvenirs and crappy overpriced fried rice. I'd take the real life world of Bangkok's Chinatown over that sterile tourist trap any day of the week.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Kananga

[Kananga]

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul

You're kidding? There is constant complaint about how Singapore has effectively torn down 80% of the heritage buildings and replaced them with identical soulless glass and steel towers.

Exactly. Only 80%, and people complain about it, and people listen to the complaints.

I quite like how SIngapore has preserved a lot of its city centre heritage; quite an achievement, for such a new city

SC

Most of the other 20% aren't even in the city so not even a direct comparison.

[theblether]

<p>

<br />

<br />

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.<br />

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.<br />

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.<br />

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.<br />

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul<br />

<br />

<br />

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.<br />

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though.<br />

<br />

You are looking in the wrong places, and thank goodness the old places are not in the tourist zones, more often than not they are thriving communities.<br />

Take a short walk from Nana up to Petccburi Road, next to Klong Sam Seap and the old railway workers village is still as it ever was.<br />

Take a short walk from the pier opposite Wat Arun and the stunning original shop houses are still trading their dried goodies today. Be more adventurous and take to the canals of Thonburi or even more so go up the Chao Prai to Ko Ket and the Mon island, with no cars and wonderful pottery.As for the suburbs they never cease to amaze. You need a reason to go there, I did it for many years working in Thai schools. Gosh there are amazing places, where only a motor cycle will give you access as a narrow wooden bridge is the only way across a canal.<br />

Hundreds of real places which do not advertise themselves, Thank Buddah, that they are as they were a hundred years ago, and tourist free.<br />

As I said ,the concrete facade often hides secret places just behind them. It takes years to get to know these secrets, but I bet you most of us long term residents could show you many and they could show and surprise me too.<br />

Wonderful place.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

I'm taking note of everything you are writing Buhi and I will most certainly be taking your advice. I look forward to visiting all the places you mention.

Yes I put my hand up to the fact that I have been looking in the wrong places, TV members haven't been long putting me right :-)

[Kananga]

<p>

<br />

<br />

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.<br />

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.<br />

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.<br />

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.<br />

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul<br />

<br />

<br />

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.<br />

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though.<br />

<br />

You are looking in the wrong places, and thank goodness the old places are not in the tourist zones, more often than not they are thriving communities.<br />

Take a short walk from Nana up to Petccburi Road, next to Klong Sam Seap and the old railway workers village is still as it ever was.<br />

Take a short walk from the pier opposite Wat Arun and the stunning original shop houses are still trading their dried goodies today. Be more adventurous and take to the canals of Thonburi or even more so go up the Chao Prai to Ko Ket and the Mon island, with no cars and wonderful pottery.As for the suburbs they never cease to amaze. You need a reason to go there, I did it for many years working in Thai schools. Gosh there are amazing places, where only a motor cycle will give you access as a narrow wooden bridge is the only way across a canal.<br />

Hundreds of real places which do not advertise themselves, Thank Buddah, that they are as they were a hundred years ago, and tourist free.<br />

As I said ,the concrete facade often hides secret places just behind them. It takes years to get to know these secrets, but I bet you most of us long term residents could show you many and they could show and surprise me too.<br />

Wonderful place.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

I'm taking note of everything you are writing Buhi and I will most certainly be taking your advice. I look forward to visiting all the places you mention.

Yes I put my hand up to the fact that I have been looking in the wrong places, TV members haven't been long putting me right :-)

Christ, I've already recommended half of those things. I went to Koh Kret last weekend as it happens. Very nice day out. Not a single Singapore style glass and steel tower in sight :-)

[theblether]

<p>

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.<br />

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.<br />

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.<br />

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.<br />

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul<br />

<br />

<br />

You're kidding? There is constant complaint about how Singapore has effectively torn down 80% of the heritage buildings and replaced them with identical soulless glass and steel towers.<br />

<br />

<br />

Exactly.  Only 80%, and people complain about it, and people listen to the complaints.<br />

<br />

I quite like how SIngapore has preserved a lot of its city centre heritage; quite an achievement, for such a new city<br />

<br />

SC<br />

<br />

<br />

Most of the other 20% aren't even in the city so not even a direct comparison.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

A high percentage of down town Singapore retains it's original architecture, Fort Canning is a superior parkland, St Andrews Cathedral, is an imposing building, City Hall also and there are many streets preserved in the original colonial style. I was surprised at the amount of green space down town too. I'm not in favour of living in the past but a little bit of preservation goes a long way. It looks like down town BKK has been obliterated.

[StreetCowboy]

<p>

<br />

<br />

It is quite obvious that geographically BKK is within Thailand, and I appreciate the replies in defence of the city. I quite believe if I lived as an expat within the city I would quickly adjust to the rhythm of the place.<br />

It is a pity it has developed into a concrete carbuncle, though I suppose that is the price of modern development.<br />

I would have loved to have seen the city 30 years ago though. I understand that some concrete had to be poured to prevent regular flooding but it appears that all traditional architecture has been destroyed too.<br />

Singapore and Shanghai have managed to hang on to their architecture in many places, especially Singapore.<br />

I understand the concept of BKK being a series of small villages, London is the same. Cities can be massive, they can develop and they can sustain giant populations, but they need to retain their identity, their architecture, and their soul<br />

<br />

<br />

You're kidding? There is constant complaint about how Singapore has effectively torn down 80% of the heritage buildings and replaced them with identical soulless glass and steel towers.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

No I'm not kidding, there is a high level of land pressure on Singapore, and they are having to build over cemetries for road building etc, however walk around down-town Singapore and you will see plenty of historical buildings, plenty.

Singapore doesn't have anything like the history of Bangkok, but it appears that even with the severe land pressure they have done a better job of preservation than BKK.

When you say downtown are you referring to Shenton Way, Suntec, or the Marina area? There are hundreds of land plots available and the only graves being moved are to widen highways like the P.I.E.. And the cemetery they did encroach over was about 5% of the total land mass of the cemetery. Hardly the same as 'moving it'. Have you been to Chinatown in Singapore? Its a disneyesque tourist trap selling tacky souvenirs and crappy overpriced fried rice. I'd take the real life world of Bangkok's Chinatown over that sterile tourist trap any day of the week.

Why would I go to Chinatown in Singapore? I used to work in Manchester.

How does Singapore's Chinatown compare to Hong Kong's? Or Beijing's?

SC

[buhi]

<p>

<br />

It's probably been said, but you've seen 'your' Bangkok. You've stayed in 5 star hotels and 2 star hotels, but unless I missed it, you've never lived here. Soi Cowboy isn't Bangkok, it's just a street. That bar you were sitting at with your friend is just another street. Yes, Bangkok is overcrowded and lacks the natural beauty of the Countryside, but you just have different experiences of Thailand than those of us who live in the city. I've travelled Thailand a bit, and I love the Countryside as much as the islands, but I do like living in the city (or just outside it). Bangkok is pure Thailand, it's just busier and noisier than you're used to.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

I'm not pretending to be an expert of BKK, I am being educated on this thread and I am taking note of people's positive experience. You were doing well until you said you preferred staying just outside of the city rather in the city itself.......that's called damned by faint praise.

Sorry I missed this comment.

You are assuming that Bangkok has a city centre, as Chiang Mai has. Well I know the translation of Chiang Mai is new city, but now it is ancient. Bangkok is a relatively new city, the oldest parts being in Thonburi and around Rhatkinasan Island (forgive the spelling) around The Royal Palace.This is not the city centre today; where is it, I haven't a clue, Silom, Yarrowat, Sukumwit . The carbuncles are in newish parts of the city,and although not an expert, I would guess not too much original Rhatikasan period architecture was destroyed in their construction.

Hence you need a different perspective on this gigantic sprawl of immense character and individuality.

[StreetCowboy]

...

A high percentage of down town Singapore retains it's original architecture, Fort Canning is a superior parkland, St Andrews Cathedral, is an imposing building, City Hall also and there are many streets preserved in the original colonial style. I was surprised at the amount of green space down town too. I'm not in favour of living in the past but a little bit of preservation goes a long way. It looks like down town BKK has been obliterated.

Except for the zoo. And Lumpini Park. And China Town.

It is a shame there's so little public space by the river (to the best of my knowledge)

I don't really know, though, I prefer to stay out in the 'burbs, and rarely go as far as Ploenchit

SC

[Kananga]

<p>

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

You're kidding? There is constant complaint about how Singapore has effectively torn down 80% of the heritage buildings and replaced them with identical soulless glass and steel towers.<br />

<br />

<br />

Exactly. Only 80%, and people complain about it, and people listen to the complaints.<br />

<br />

I quite like how SIngapore has preserved a lot of its city centre heritage; quite an achievement, for such a new city<br />

<br />

SC<br />

<br />

<br />

Most of the other 20% aren't even in the city so not even a direct comparison.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

A high percentage of down town Singapore retains it's original architecture, Fort Canning is a superior parkland, St Andrews Cathedral, is an imposing building, City Hall also and there are many streets preserved in the original colonial style. I was surprised at the amount of green space down town too. I'm not in favour of living in the past but a little bit of preservation goes a long way. It looks like down town BKK has been obliterated.

Fort Canning isn't downtown, Its sandwiched between River Valley and Orchard roads which are both unrecognisable from 20 years ago now they're full of concrete condos that sit on the sites that old shophouses used to stand. Is St Andres Catherdral any more imposing than the Grand Palace or Wat Po? Or any number of temples in Bangkok?

Can you name some downtown streets preserved in Colonial style? I assume by colonial you are actually referring to Chinese shophouses? In the 8 years I lived there I saw countless historical areas bulldozed into history. As for the actual colonial areas such as Seletar airbase, Rochester park etc. All gone. Replaced by concrete monstrosities. Very sad to see.

[Kananga]

<p>

<br />

<br />

You're kidding? There is constant complaint about how Singapore has effectively torn down 80% of the heritage buildings and replaced them with identical soulless glass and steel towers.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

No I'm not kidding, there is a high level of land pressure on Singapore, and they are having to build over cemetries for road building etc, however walk around down-town Singapore and you will see plenty of historical buildings, plenty.

Singapore doesn't have anything like the history of Bangkok, but it appears that even with the severe land pressure they have done a better job of preservation than BKK.

When you say downtown are you referring to Shenton Way, Suntec, or the Marina area? There are hundreds of land plots available and the only graves being moved are to widen highways like the P.I.E.. And the cemetery they did encroach over was about 5% of the total land mass of the cemetery. Hardly the same as 'moving it'. Have you been to Chinatown in Singapore? Its a disneyesque tourist trap selling tacky souvenirs and crappy overpriced fried rice. I'd take the real life world of Bangkok's Chinatown over that sterile tourist trap any day of the week.

Why would I go to Chinatown in Singapore? I used to work in Manchester.

How does Singapore's Chinatown compare to Hong Kong's? Or Beijing's?

SC

I wasn't asking you.

[Kananga]

...

A high percentage of down town Singapore retains it's original architecture, Fort Canning is a superior parkland, St Andrews Cathedral, is an imposing building, City Hall also and there are many streets preserved in the original colonial style. I was surprised at the amount of green space down town too. I'm not in favour of living in the past but a little bit of preservation goes a long way. It looks like down town BKK has been obliterated.

Except for the zoo. And Lumpini Park. And China Town.

And Dusit and Sanam Luang etc etc. Great swathes of Bangkok retain their original buildings and character. Which cannot be said of Singapore.

[Geekfreaklover]

To comapre Bangkok and Singapore is worthwile as they were established around the same time give or take thirty years. The fact that Bangkok hasn't much western style architecture, spare the Humlanphong art deco train station and the old library in Silom (two buildings that spring to mind), is because it was never a western colony like Singapore. Bangkokians actually appreciate the terrible electric wiring along the streets, they see it as a sign of progress. Likewise the shopping malls and huge condo buildings are a sign of growth and development whether they are half full or empty. Its this naive sense of blind development that in a way gives Bangkok her charm. She is a new city and as such will make many mistakes in her development. I love the fact that I can walk out onto the street and grab a bowl of noodles and watch all the people going about the rat race with their unique hard-working yet happy-go-lucky outlook.

[StreetCowboy]

.....

...

A high percentage of down town Singapore retains it's original architecture, Fort Canning is a superior parkland, St Andrews Cathedral, is an imposing building, City Hall also and there are many streets preserved in the original colonial style. I was surprised at the amount of green space down town too. I'm not in favour of living in the past but a little bit of preservation goes a long way. It looks like down town BKK has been obliterated.

Fort Canning isn't downtown, Its sandwiched between River Valley and Orchard roads which are both unrecognisable from 20 years ago now they're full of concrete condos that sit on the sites that old shophouses used to stand. Is St Andres Catherdral any more imposing than the Grand Palace or Wat Po? Or any number of temples in Bangkok?

Can you name some downtown streets preserved in Colonial style? I assume by colonial you are actually referring to Chinese shophouses? In the 8 years I lived there I saw countless historical areas bulldozed into history. As for the actual colonial areas such as Seletar airbase, Rochester park etc. All gone. Replaced by concrete monstrosities. Very sad to see.

I enjoyed living in a concrete monstrosity. Certainly a much more pleasant place to live than the historically significant slum tenemant (just kidding, Blether) that I own in the East End of Glasgow. If you're willing to put your hand in your pocket to preserve that heritage, then fair enough. The Glaswegians do (thanks, Blether!).

I suppose urban planning is like education; we're all experts because we went to school and we've lived in a town. But I would say you'll get more joy from appreciating what's there than whinging about what's not.

SC

[Kananga]

.....

...

A high percentage of down town Singapore retains it's original architecture, Fort Canning is a superior parkland, St Andrews Cathedral, is an imposing building, City Hall also and there are many streets preserved in the original colonial style. I was surprised at the amount of green space down town too. I'm not in favour of living in the past but a little bit of preservation goes a long way. It looks like down town BKK has been obliterated.

Fort Canning isn't downtown, Its sandwiched between River Valley and Orchard roads which are both unrecognisable from 20 years ago now they're full of concrete condos that sit on the sites that old shophouses used to stand. Is St Andres Catherdral any more imposing than the Grand Palace or Wat Po? Or any number of temples in Bangkok?

Can you name some downtown streets preserved in Colonial style? I assume by colonial you are actually referring to Chinese shophouses? In the 8 years I lived there I saw countless historical areas bulldozed into history. As for the actual colonial areas such as Seletar airbase, Rochester park etc. All gone. Replaced by concrete monstrosities. Very sad to see.

I enjoyed living in a concrete monstrosity. Certainly a much more pleasant place to live than the historically significant slum tenemant (just kidding, Blether) that I own in the East End of Glasgow. If you're willing to put your hand in your pocket to preserve that heritage, then fair enough. The Glaswegians do (thanks, Blether!).

I suppose urban planning is like education; we're all experts because we went to school and we've lived in a town. But I would say you'll get more joy from appreciating what's there than whinging about what's not.

SC

You only appreciate what is there when you can identify what has gone. A bit like saying better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. Anyway, as I will be in Singapore for a week next week, I'll have another look for all these historical buildings downtown. Does Lau Pa Sat count?

Edited April 24, 2012 by Kananga

[buhi]

...

A high percentage of down town Singapore retains it's original architecture, Fort Canning is a superior parkland, St Andrews Cathedral, is an imposing building, City Hall also and there are many streets preserved in the original colonial style. I was surprised at the amount of green space down town too. I'm not in favour of living in the past but a little bit of preservation goes a long way. It looks like down town BKK has been obliterated.

Except for the zoo. And Lumpini Park. And China Town.

And Dusit and Sanam Luang etc etc. Great swathes of Bangkok retain their original buildings and character. Which cannot be said of Singapore.

I guess I am repeating myself, but it is hard to define Bangkok.

I was born in London and once in a while was taken to see the sights, As a child these were pretty boring, nothing compared to a walk down a market street or a day with my grandfather in Smithfield market.

I don't know London any more, but it sure isn't the snapshots tourists take home with them.

To know a place you need to live in it for some time, to become part of it.

A week in Chiang Mai or on Sammui is a holiday experience.

Give me the real life, not the photo ops.

[aussiebebe]

This thread is just a re-hash of an old Lonely Planet quote that Bangkok is no more Thailand than London is England meaning that big cities have their own character. I'm sorry to hear that the OP doesn't like Bangkok but I there's no need to gloss over or romanticise the harsh realities of Thai rural life. For me, Bangkok's charm is akin to the fascination that Titanic continues to hold for so many people; it's a sinking city of superlatives, contrasts, rigid societal structure and is doomed to one day, inevitably, be submerged.

[nietzche]

Bangkok is as much a part of Thailand, as London is a part of the UK

London has a soul.....any time I visit London I am fascinated by the sights, and by the history. Where is it in BKK? Has it developed so fast that it's outgrown it's own roots?ps. The only city I have been to that is even more souless than BKK is KUala Lumpur. Shocking place.

Hold on there! KL aint Vegas, but it aint soulless either!

[Kananga]

Bangkok is as much a part of Thailand, as London is a part of the UK

London has a soul.....any time I visit London I am fascinated by the sights, and by the history. Where is it in BKK? Has it developed so fast that it's outgrown it's own roots?ps. The only city I have been to that is even more souless than BKK is KUala Lumpur. Shocking place.

Hold on there! KL aint Vegas, but it aint soulless either!

He's obviously never been to the Rum Jungle!

[buhi]

To comapre Bangkok and Singapore is worthwile as they were established around the same time give or take thirty years. The fact that Bangkok hasn't much western style architecture, spare the Humlanphong art deco train station and the old library in Silom (two buildings that spring to mind), is because it was never a western colony like Singapore. Bangkokians actually appreciate the terrible electric wiring along the streets, they see it as a sign of progress. Likewise the shopping malls and huge condo buildings are a sign of growth and development whether they are half full or empty. Its this naive sense of blind development that in a way gives Bangkok her charm. She is a new city and as such will make many mistakes in her development. I love the fact that I can walk out onto the street and grab a bowl of noodles and watch all the people going about the rat race with their unique hard-working yet happy-go-lucky outlook.

The Grand Palace is a mix of Western, Italian style architecture with traditional Thai, the roof had to be altered from the original design as it did not have three tiers.

Italian architectural influence is abundant, do a Google search to find the name of the architect for much of the Royal buildings in Bangkok, I will in a minute.

The most impressive building in the outer court is the Chakri Maha Prasat Hall. Built in 1882 during the reign of King Rama V, in Italian Renaissance architecture with Thai spires and gables, it has a wide façade, a central balcony and double stairways leading upstairs.

I meant this buiding.

[theblether]

<p>

<br />

<br />

<br />

Bangkok is as much a part of Thailand, as London is a part of the UK<br />

<br />

London has a soul.....any time I visit London I am fascinated by the sights, and by the history. Where is it in BKK? Has it developed so fast that it's outgrown it's own roots?ps. The only city I have been to that is even more souless than BKK is KUala Lumpur. Shocking place.<br />

Hold on there! KL aint Vegas, but it aint soulless either!<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

Oh no I've started a worldwide fight about soulless cities, maybe I'm just lucky to live in a city with amazing history and character. ( noted SC ).

Kananga, I'll come back to the Singapore issue tomorrow once I look out some photos and other info.

[Kananga]

<p>

<br />

<br />

<br />

Bangkok is as much a part of Thailand, as London is a part of the UK<br />

<br />

London has a soul.....any time I visit London I am fascinated by the sights, and by the history. Where is it in BKK? Has it developed so fast that it's outgrown it's own roots?ps. The only city I have been to that is even more souless than BKK is KUala Lumpur. Shocking place.<br />

Hold on there! KL aint Vegas, but it aint soulless either!<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

Oh no I've started a worldwide fight about soulless cities, maybe I'm just lucky to live in a city with amazing history and character. ( noted SC ).

Kananga, I'll come back to the Singapore issue tomorrow once I look out some photos and other info.

There is no issue. Only opinions. And after spending 8 years in Singapore I'm sticking to mine. Don't waste your time.

[buhi]

To comapre Bangkok and Singapore is worthwile as they were established around the same time give or take thirty years. The fact that Bangkok hasn't much western style architecture, spare the Humlanphong art deco train station and the old library in Silom (two buildings that spring to mind), is because it was never a western colony like Singapore. Bangkokians actually appreciate the terrible electric wiring along the streets, they see it as a sign of progress. Likewise the shopping malls and huge condo buildings are a sign of growth and development whether they are half full or empty. Its this naive sense of blind development that in a way gives Bangkok her charm. She is a new city and as such will make many mistakes in her development. I love the fact that I can walk out onto the street and grab a bowl of noodles and watch all the people going about the rat race with their unique hard-working yet happy-go-lucky outlook.

The Grand Palace is a mix of Western, Italian style architecture with traditional Thai, the roof had to be altered from the original design as it did not have three tiers.

Italian architectural influence is abundant, do a Google search to find the name of the architect for much of the Royal buildings in Bangkok, I will in a minute.

The most impressive building in the outer court is the Chakri Maha Prasat Hall. Built in 1882 during the reign of King Rama V, in Italian Renaissance architecture with Thai spires and gables, it has a wide façade, a central balcony and double stairways leading upstairs.

I meant this buiding.

Italian architects in Bangkok, Annibale Rigotti and Mario Tamagno have created magnificent landmarks in the city, a throne hall, two palaces, an old Catholic church of Portuguese origin, a memorial library and the building housing the seat of government, Government House.

The two Italian architects in Bangkok arrived at the turn of the 20th century during the reign of King Rama V, when the king decided to build a new palace complex in Dusit Garden. Their work in Bangkok during the Fifth and Sixth Reigns was to leave an indelible impression for years to come.

[buhi]

To comapre Bangkok and Singapore is worthwile as they were established around the same time give or take thirty years. The fact that Bangkok hasn't much western style architecture, spare the Humlanphong art deco train station and the old library in Silom (two buildings that spring to mind), is because it was never a western colony like Singapore. Bangkokians actually appreciate the terrible electric wiring along the streets, they see it as a sign of progress. Likewise the shopping malls and huge condo buildings are a sign of growth and development whether they are half full or empty. Its this naive sense of blind development that in a way gives Bangkok her charm. She is a new city and as such will make many mistakes in her development. I love the fact that I can walk out onto the street and grab a bowl of noodles and watch all the people going about the rat race with their unique hard-working yet happy-go-lucky outlook.

The Grand Palace is a mix of Western, Italian style architecture with traditional Thai, the roof had to be altered from the original design as it did not have three tiers.

Italian architectural influence is abundant, do a Google search to find the name of the architect for much of the Royal buildings in Bangkok, I will in a minute.

The most impressive building in the outer court is the Chakri Maha Prasat Hall. Built in 1882 during the reign of King Rama V, in Italian Renaissance architecture with Thai spires and gables, it has a wide façade, a central balcony and double stairways leading upstairs.

I meant this buiding.

Italian architects in Bangkok, Annibale Rigotti and Mario Tamagno have created magnificent landmarks in the city, a throne hall, two palaces, an old Catholic church of Portuguese origin, a memorial library and the building housing the seat of government, Government House.

The two Italian architects in Bangkok arrived at the turn of the 20th century during the reign of King Rama V, when the king decided to build a new palace complex in Dusit Garden. Their work in Bangkok during the Fifth and Sixth Reigns was to leave an indelible impression for years to come.

Where did you go theblether?

Vinamek is impressive too. especially as it was originally on Ko Si Chang, dismantled and re assembled at Dusit.

Singapore, sterile.

Penang is OK though, but that is not a major city, but truly preferable to Singapore .

Edited April 24, 2012 by buhi

[StreetCowboy]

Bangkok is as much a part of Thailand, as London is a part of the UK

London has a soul.....any time I visit London I am fascinated by the sights, and by the history. Where is it in BKK? Has it developed so fast that it's outgrown it's own roots?ps. The only city I have been to that is even more souless than BKK is KUala Lumpur. Shocking place.

Hold on there! KL aint Vegas, but it aint soulless either!

Does Vegas have a soul? I thought the devil had Vegas' soul.

You know, its not wise to sell your soul to the devil, but to cheat him and hold on to it....

SC

[StreetCowboy]

.....

...

A high percentage of down town Singapore retains it's original architecture, Fort Canning is a superior parkland, St Andrews Cathedral, is an imposing building, City Hall also and there are many streets preserved in the original colonial style. I was surprised at the amount of green space down town too. I'm not in favour of living in the past but a little bit of preservation goes a long way. It looks like down town BKK has been obliterated.

Fort Canning isn't downtown, Its sandwiched between River Valley and Orchard roads which are both unrecognisable from 20 years ago now they're full of concrete condos that sit on the sites that old shophouses used to stand. Is St Andres Catherdral any more imposing than the Grand Palace or Wat Po? Or any number of temples in Bangkok?

Can you name some downtown streets preserved in Colonial style? I assume by colonial you are actually referring to Chinese shophouses? In the 8 years I lived there I saw countless historical areas bulldozed into history. As for the actual colonial areas such as Seletar airbase, Rochester park etc. All gone. Replaced by concrete monstrosities. Very sad to see.

I enjoyed living in a concrete monstrosity. Certainly a much more pleasant place to live than the historically significant slum tenemant (just kidding, Blether) that I own in the East End of Glasgow. If you're willing to put your hand in your pocket to preserve that heritage, then fair enough. The Glaswegians do (thanks, Blether!).

I suppose urban planning is like education; we're all experts because we went to school and we've lived in a town. But I would say you'll get more joy from appreciating what's there than whinging about what's not.

SC

You only appreciate what is there when you can identify what has gone. A bit like saying better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. Anyway, as I will be in Singapore for a week next week, I'll have another look for all these historical buildings downtown. Does Lau Pa Sat count?

I supose, depending on your deifinition of soul, you could take a walk round Little India, or Geylang, or go to the zoo or the bird park. I don't think Tiger Balm gardens is still open, but I'm told Chinese Garden is nice. Maybe a quick hike up Bukit Timah to see the radio mast; I always liked to take a drive past the port, and pershaps the old railway station. But what I like most about Singapore is that its Singapore. Clean, efficient, with small industrial estates where people do whatever people do in industrial estates. Its not Edinbugh, and doesn't have tenaments built over tenaments; it doesn't have a castle, or a Cite - that would be Edinburgh, or Carcasonne...

Its not an in-bred city of aboriginals - its an international city, like Monaco or New York. I'd recommend that rather than go to Orchard Towers, you drink all night in the foodcourt in Bencoolen Street, and count them out, and count them back in, like Brian Hanrahan.

I was thinking about the villification that someone on this thread heaped upon the Singaporeans, and my Singaporean colleague. My colleague conforms to every unpleasant characteristic noted, but to my mind, that is specific to them only, While former colleagues (obviously, I had far more Singaporean colleagues when I worked in Singapore) may have conformed to stereotype, many did not, and my Singaporean friends are as pleasant as anyone you could reasonably hope to meet of any nationality. My own obnoxious characteristics, which, I trust, conform to stereotype, are no reason to bear any illwill to theBlether or Smokie, who are as temperate and reasonable as the next man (more so, should they ever stand beside me).

SC