Bangkok: Fine Arts Dept Loses Conservation Battle

[webfact]

NEW SUPREME COURT OFFICE

Fine Arts Dept loses conservation battle

Kesinee Tangkhieo,

Pakamas Jaichalard

The Nation

One historical building definitely to be demolished to make way for new Supreme Court office

BANGKOK: -- The construction of the new Supreme Court office is going ahead despite a public uproar that the project will most likely endanger at least one of the two registered historical buildings nearby.

The Fine Arts Department has tried to prevent these two buildings from being brought down, but it seems one of them is definitely going to be demolished.

A visit to the construction site on Rajdamnoen Avenue showed that workers were removing parts of the roof and walls of an ancient building that previously housed the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court.

This building, according to the Fine Arts Department, should be con

served alongside the Office of the Judiciary, which stands behind the statue of late Prince Rabi Badhanasakdi. However, according to Court of

Justice spokesman Sittisak Wanachakit, only the oldest building in the compound will be conserved and that is the one standing directly behind the statue.

"Constructed in 1941, this building is a memorial to Thailand's full judicial independence," he said.

He also insisted that the other ancient building, which previously housed the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, would be demolished because it had been built in 1943 and in a dilapidated state.

"We have already told the contractors that the building can be torn down," Sittisak said yesterday. "We will also go ahead with the construction of the Supreme Court's new office. It's in line with a Cabinet resolution."

He explained that the plan to build a new office for the Supreme Court, in fact, first emerged in 1973 and then again on July 19, 1988, when it was approved by the Cabinet.

"The new office building will not be higher than 32 metres," he said.

Sittisak said the construction should be completed in three years, but added that since the court was late in deciding on the exact construction site, it might take up to five years.

He spoke up after the Fine Arts Department and several other people raised concern about the construction of a new building near historically important structures.

Sahawat Naenna, the department's director general, said yesterday the Fine Arts Department had already written to the Supreme Court, explaining that the two buildings had historical and architectural value and should therefore be conserved. "I plan to write to the Supreme Court again," he said.

Sittisak, meanwhile, insisted that his office had already consulted the royal architect, Mitrarun Kasemsri, about the design. "Our focus is on conservation and development," he said.

He said the building, designed by Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Architecture, features traditional styles. He added that the plan had undergone 14 rounds of opinion gathering. "The Fine Arts Department was also involved in the process," Sittisak said.

-- The Nation 2012-12-21

[arthurboy]

BANGKOK: -- The construction of the new Supreme Court office is going ahead despite a public uproar that the project will most likely endanger at least one of the two registered historical buildings nearby.

He spoke up after the Fine Arts Department and several other people raised concern about the construction of a new building near historically important structures.

Which is it then? A public uproar or a few old fogeys realising they should be doing something to earn there salary.

But to fair, the Thai authorities, the Fine Arts Department and the public in general have always maintained an active and progressive interest in the preservation and conservation of historic and architecturally important buildings in Bangkok, if not throughout the country.

Just look around. The city is an architectural dream, visited on a daily basis by thousands of Thai people with an avid interest in history and an appreciation of aesthetics. And of course, don't forget the millions of tourists who come to Thailand every year just to thrill at the sight of fine old buildings.

For a start, there's the tallest tower block in Bangkok with the BMW advertising banner hanging from it, hundreds of classy condo's to the left and right of you to gaze in awe at as you travel on the Sukhumvit sky train line and soi upon soi of resplendent shop front houses...

I could go on, but I won't.

[sprq]

The word "ancient" is habitually used wrongly by Thais when they should just be using "old". In this case, even "old" is wrong, since buildings from the 1940s are hardly old. The proper word would be "historic", since the conservationists regard these two buildings as historically important, which is the meaning of "historic".

Personally, I would think that unless these buildings have some artistic merit they should not be preserved. There must be a lot more buildings throughout Thailand more worthy of the attention, energies and limited resources of the Fine Arts Department.

[Arkady]

Good riddance to bad rubbish I would say in this case. The Supreme Court buildings are hideous examples of 1930s fascist architecture loved by Hitler and Mussolini and were erected at a time when Thailand's leaders admired the fascist regimes in Europe and were cosying up to their Japanese colonial masters. Conservation efforts should be directed at the many buildings that are worthy of conservation.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Arkady

[webfact]

SUPREME COURT

Judiciary urged to block demolition

Opas Boonlom,

Pakamas Jaichalard

The Nation

Fine Arts Dept says building to be torn down is of historical significance

BANGKOK: -- The Fine Arts Department has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to suspend the demolition of a building of significant historic and architectural value in the court's compound.

If the court decides to ignore the petition, it could be violating the 1961 Historic Buildings & Historic Artefact Act, department director-general Sahawat Naenna said yesterday.

However, former Supreme Court president Sawat Chotipanich questioned the department's move.

"The department had been involved in the process to construct the new building from the very beginning and had agreed that old buildings in the compound had to be demolished. Why has it suddenly decided to go against it now?" he asked.

He said the Rattanakosin Committee was established when Prem Tinsulanonda was prime minister and the panel came up with the idea of constructing a new office for the Supreme Court.

"Besides, the committee comprises department officials. There are no representatives of the court," Sawat pointed out, adding that the Fine Arts Department had reviewed the design of the new building and approved it.

Another source at the court said the contractor might decide to sue the department if it continues trying to delay the construction.

"In fact, when the foundation-stone-laying ceremony for the new building took place in 1992, representatives of the Fine Arts Department were also present," this source said.

Sawat said a new building was necessary because the courts now are overcrowded and lack adequate infrastructure.

Legal protection

However, Sahawat has been saying that at least two buildings inside the court's compound on Rajdamnoen Avenue have legal protection and must be conserved. He said the demolition of one of the buildings could constitute a legal offence.

"Violations in such cases are punishable by up to seven years in jail and/or a fine of up to Bt700,000," Sahawat warned.

While the building in the compound has not yet been declared in the Royal Gazette as a historic building, it has the legal status of a historic structure under the 1961 Historic Buildings Act, he said.

According to the act, any property constructed a long time ago that has artistic, historic or archaeological value shall be considered a historic building pending a review of its importance and significance.

Sahawat said there were some 8,000 structures in Thailand that could be considered historic under this definition, but the Fine Arts Department has only finished registering just over 100 buildings because the review process takes time.

"Even though the building in the Supreme Court compound is not yet officially registered, it is definitely a historic building," he said.

Sahawat complained that his department had told the Supreme Court several times that the building, which previously housed the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, must be preserved.

"I have checked with my predecessors," Sahawat said.

He added that any modification or demolition of the historic building without prior approval was a legal offence, although the violation carried a lighter punishment than modifying or demolishing a historic building that has already been registered.

The Fine Arts Department has the mandate on whether to approve such changes or demolition, he said.

Sahawat mentioned the law and legal punishment a day after Court of Justice spokesman Sittisak Wanachakit announced that the demolition of the building would go ahead.

While the Fine Arts Department insists that two buildings in the court's compound are under legal protection, Sittisak has made it clear the court will preserve just one and that the building that once housed the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court must be brought down.

According to Sittisak, only the oldest building in the compound - the one that housed the Office of the Judiciary - will be preserved.

The demolition of the historically important building in the court's compound has caused a public uproar, and the Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage has also expressed concerns about it.

-- The Nation 2012-12-22