Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Backs Call For New Park On S R T Land

[webfact]

CONTROVERSY
Sukhumbhand backs call for new park on SRT land
Wannapa Khaopa,
Sirinart Sirisunthorn
The Nation



State railway plans business venture on Makkasan plot

BANGKOK: -- The Bangkok governor has promised his support to a campaign by city residents to turn a large piece of land in the Makkasan area belonging to the State Railway of Thailand into a new public park.

However, the campaign has met with strong opposition from the SRT, which plans to develop the 497.11-rai (79.5-hectare) plot commercially.

A group of Bangkok residents has proposed a land-management model that could satisfy both commercial and environment purposes.

"The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration wants that green area to become a public park. We will support groups like Big Trees who want the green tract to be turned into a park, so it will remain a green lung of the capital providing fresh air to Bangkok residents," said Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra.

"That area is suitable for developing as a public park, but it's not an easy job because it is owned by the SRT. The BMA will probably negotiate with it asking for permission to develop part of the area as green zone," he said in an interview with The Nation.

SRT governor Prapat Chongsanguan, in a phone interview, said: "We need to make use of the land for business purposes, as it had to generate more income to deal with its debt." He vowed that as part of its commercial-complex project, the SRT would provide a larger green zone in that area than required by law.

Bangkok residents are preparing to propose a land-management model for the SRT and Transport Ministry to consider before they erect a commercial complex in the area.

The model will offer solutions that should satisfy the relevant government agencies and the residents in terms of business and environment, said Pongprom Yamarat, founder of the Big Trees Project, a group of Bangkok residents campaigning for larger green areas and more trees for the city. Prapat said the area had potential for business investment. However, the commercial complex's terms of reference state that the SRT will provide a larger green zone than defined by the law.

However, SRT has not yet agreed to develop the green zone of the business project as a public park.

Pongprom said his group wanted 40 per cent of the 497.11 rai of land to be green zone with big trees, not just an area with small plants or grass.

"We are inviting interested people to attend a meeting with us to be held on May 30 at the Thai Labour Museum, near the SRT's green tract. People will be asked to give their opinions on adjusting our model before we complete it and propose it to SRT and Transport Ministry," he told The Nation.

"We're trying to find good and feasible solutions for both sides," he said.

Before the meeting on adjusting the model, representatives from Big Trees will meet with the Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage next week to work out the model together.

"I'm worried that the SRT won't consider our model and listen to us, but only make a decision on the land management on its own," Pongprom said.

He added that Big Trees Project did not oppose a high building being put on the land, but it would propose that the SRT make it a symbolic building for Bangkok that can help the railway agency generate money by attracting companies that invest in new technologies, for instance biotechnology.

A botanical garden should be established there as well - it would be a way to make use of the biodiversity of different provinces in Thailand that would attract foreign tourists and provide resources or materials for research and development conducted at labs inside the building to produce cosmetics and medicines.

His group will also propose that part of the land where century-old buildings are located should be improved as a public park zone.

"We will have experts calculate the financial matters of our model to ensure that it will work for SRT's use," Pongprom said.

"We want the BMA to act as our facilitator and SRT to focus more on beneficial land use for both sides rather than the laws and listen to people's voices."

Sukhumbhand said the BMA intended to provide new public parks in Bang Bon and Bang Khae, covering about 100 rai in each district.

Bang Na district is in the process of negotiations for a suitable area to be developed as a new public park. It also plans to develop part of the area at Thailand Tobacco Monopoly as a park, the governor said.

Sukhumbhand vowed that he would increase green areas in Bangkok by 1,000 rai this year and by 5,000 rai during his four-year term. BMA officials would try to seek more vacant or unoccupied areas or other areas owned by the private sector to be developed as public parks.

Bangkok has about 3 square metres of green space per person, while the international standard is set at 9sqm, according to www.siemens.com/greencityindex.


-- The Nation 2013-05-18

[rametindallas]

some past and present efforts:

http://2bangkok.com/bangkoks-central-park.html

http://2bangkok.com/nine-years-ago-idea-for-a-bangkok-central-park.html

[waza]

Sounds good.

[bigbamboo]

The SRT needs to make money or it's officials do? This is the biggest state enterprise money pit of all so why the sudden urge to become self sufficient?

Let's hear some praise for Sukhumband for once. Let see Bangkok go green and the SRT trough feeders even greener!

[Misterwhisper]

I back Sukhumband. We really don't need yet another shopping complex, especially not in an area that is so notoriously traffic-choked like Makkasan.

And look at the gigantic Airport Link terminal at Makkasan, one of the largest public misinvestments of the past two decades. It was designed to hold hundreds of shops. To this day, there is not one tenant. This "commercial development" backfired just as much as the idea of providing a city check-in facility for Suvarnabhumi airport. The few airlines that had set up counters there pulled out after a couple of months, because they realized that practically no-one bothered to go through the trouble of going to Makkasan. It's much easier to just take a taxi straight from the hotel or one's home to the airport.

Yes, we definitely MUST have another sprawling shopping complex. Screw the park idea. Who needs trees?

[smutcakes]

This would be good if it happened, but I am sure its just a sound bite. Why would any company, never mind SRT, give over prime land to a public park.

[bigbamboo]

This would be good if it happened, but I am sure its just a sound bite. Why would any company, never mind SRT, give over prime land to a public park.

The SRT is a state owned enterprise. It is there for the benefit of the people, just like politicians are supposed to be.

[smutcakes]

This would be good if it happened, but I am sure its just a sound bite. Why would any company, never mind SRT, give over prime land to a public park.

The SRT is a state owned enterprise. It is there for the benefit of the people, just like politicians are supposed to be.

Yeah sure, if you have been to Thailand and worked here before you will know that the two highlighted concepts in Thailand are irrelevant for the most part. And if there was going to be a department who were benevolent I can assure you it would not be the SRT.

[whybother]

I back Sukhumband. We really don't need yet another shopping complex, especially not in an area that is so notoriously traffic-choked like Makkasan.

And look at the gigantic Airport Link terminal at Makkasan, one of the largest public misinvestments of the past two decades. It was designed to hold hundreds of shops. To this day, there is not one tenant. This "commercial development" backfired just as much as the idea of providing a city check-in facility for Suvarnabhumi airport. The few airlines that had set up counters there pulled out after a couple of months, because they realized that practically no-one bothered to go through the trouble of going to Makkasan. It's much easier to just take a taxi straight from the hotel or one's home to the airport.

Yes, we definitely MUST have another sprawling shopping complex. Screw the park idea. Who needs trees?

One of the reasons the Makkasan terminal is the size it is, is because of the planned development in the area. Making the area a park will just ensure it becomes what everyone already thinks it is.

[Misterwhisper]

I back Sukhumband. We really don't need yet another shopping complex, especially not in an area that is so notoriously traffic-choked like Makkasan.

And look at the gigantic Airport Link terminal at Makkasan, one of the largest public misinvestments of the past two decades. It was designed to hold hundreds of shops. To this day, there is not one tenant. This "commercial development" backfired just as much as the idea of providing a city check-in facility for Suvarnabhumi airport. The few airlines that had set up counters there pulled out after a couple of months, because they realized that practically no-one bothered to go through the trouble of going to Makkasan. It's much easier to just take a taxi straight from the hotel or one's home to the airport.

Yes, we definitely MUST have another sprawling shopping complex. Screw the park idea. Who needs trees?

One of the reasons the Makkasan terminal is the size it is, is because of the planned development in the area. Making the area a park will just ensure it becomes what everyone already thinks it is.

You mean an utter waste of space? Because that's what it is right now.

[whybother]

I back Sukhumband. We really don't need yet another shopping complex, especially not in an area that is so notoriously traffic-choked like Makkasan.

And look at the gigantic Airport Link terminal at Makkasan, one of the largest public misinvestments of the past two decades. It was designed to hold hundreds of shops. To this day, there is not one tenant. This "commercial development" backfired just as much as the idea of providing a city check-in facility for Suvarnabhumi airport. The few airlines that had set up counters there pulled out after a couple of months, because they realized that practically no-one bothered to go through the trouble of going to Makkasan. It's much easier to just take a taxi straight from the hotel or one's home to the airport.

Yes, we definitely MUST have another sprawling shopping complex. Screw the park idea. Who needs trees?

One of the reasons the Makkasan terminal is the size it is, is because of the planned development in the area. Making the area a park will just ensure it becomes what everyone already thinks it is.

You mean an utter waste of space? Because that's what it is right now.

It is waste of space now because they haven't built anything around it YET. When it is surrounded by hotels, apartments and office buildings, it won't be such a waste of space.