City officials begin demolition of South Pattaya Hotel

[webfact]

City officials begin demolition of South Pattaya Hotel



PATTAYA: -- On Tuesday the demolition of a South Pattaya Hotel began after further promises by the hotel owner that he would do the work himself appear to have been broken.

Over 50 Police and District Security Officials led by the Banglamung District Chief, Khun Sakchai and the Deputy Mayor of Pattaya, Khun Virawat, converged on the Boutique Hotel Pattaya situated in Soi VC in South Pattaya to oversee the beginning of demolition work sanctioned under the Building Control Act of 1979 section 42, sub-sections 15 and 24.

Following their last visit earlier in November when they came to a compromise with the Hotel owner who wanted 180 days to complete the modification work himself using his own builders, the District Chief received information that the owner may be using the 180 days as a stalling tactic so he could fill the illegally built hotel rooms with guests over the high season months.

City workers accompanied the team of officials on Tuesday and began to deconstruct the hotel interior on the floors of the hotel which are considered to be illegally built. Foreign tourists were forced to vacate some of the rooms as doors were broken down by the laborers. After some discussion a 1 hour reprieve was given so the hotel guests could safely vacate the rooms to allow the demolition teams to continue.

Full story: http://www.pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/110292/city-officials-begin-demolition-of-south-pattaya-hotel/


-- Pattaya One 2013-11-27

[Spalpeen]

Excellent news. The last thing Pattaya needs is the kind of building collapse we've seen in other countries.

[jimmybcool]

Nice of them to let the renters (who no doubt paid in advance) to grab their stuff and flee the chaos. I mean really, they never give a crap about the victims.

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

[lemoncake]

Excellent news. The last thing Pattaya needs is the kind of building collapse we've seen in other countries.

Oh but wait, i am sure the next news would be hotel suing city hall for illegal works or damage done, not to mention financial loss and of course slander of hotels good name.

Edited November 27, 2013 by lemoncake

[Tywais]

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

Adding several more floors to a building designed for x floors, what do you think? There have been collapses in the past for this type of behavior.

[lemoncake]

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

Adding several more floors to a building designed for x floors, what do you think? There have been collapses in the past for this type of behavior.

I think from memory, in this case its because owner of the hotel did not obtain permit to build. I do not think safety was an issue, more the fact that owners by passed City Hall.

I hope you do not call me wrong again, too many time for this week already

[jimmybcool]

Aha. No permits. Not safety. Can't have no permits going around can we. Actually, I agree with the concept but they COULD have shown up in the AM with a few cops after 9 AM and starting knocking on doors informing the tenants they had 48 hours to check out and find a new room.

A few days wouldn't have changed the outcome and it would have shown some compassion for the people in the rooms. It is near high season and if they had a long term rental they may need time to find another one. And of course no one cares if they paid in advance. TIT.

[Tywais]

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

Adding several more floors to a building designed for x floors, what do you think? There have been collapses in the past for this type of behavior.

I think from memory, in this case its because owner of the hotel did not obtain permit to build. I do not think safety was an issue, more the fact that owners by passed City Hall.

I hope you do not call me wrong again, too many time for this week already

I think we're both right.

[joepattaya1961]

Demolition? Why?

Why not just close down the venue as with any other venue that doesn't have the proper licenses or permits?

[Spalpeen]

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

Adding several more floors to a building designed for x floors, what do you think? There have been collapses in the past for this type of behavior.

I think from memory, in this case its because owner of the hotel did not obtain permit to build. I do not think

safety was an issue, more the fact that owners by passed City Hall.

I hope you do not call me wrong again, too many time for this week already

The whole point of having a building permit system is so that building plans can be checked and approved by competent engineers. Adding four floors to an existing structure without permission is, by definition, unsafe. Criminal, in fact. I'm appalled to learn that there were tourists living in rooms that could have collapsed at any time.

If you don't strictly enforce building control laws you get the kind of disasters seen in Latvia, South Africa and Bangladesh recently.

[lemoncake]

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

Adding several more floors to a building designed for x floors, what do you think? There have been collapses in the past for this type of behavior.

I think from memory, in this case its because owner of the hotel did not obtain permit to build. I do not think

safety was an issue, more the fact that owners by passed City Hall.

I hope you do not call me wrong again, too many time for this week already

The whole point of having a building permit system is so that building plans can be checked and approved by competent engineers. Adding four floors to an existing structure without permission is, by definition, unsafe. Criminal, in fact. I'm appalled to learn that there were tourists living in rooms that could have collapsed at any time.

If you don't strictly enforce building control laws you get the kind of disasters seen in Latvia, South Africa and Bangladesh recently.

Totally agree with you, but being Thailand and Pattaya, permits are usually bought rather than earned, if you know what i mean

[jimmybcool]

The whole point of having a building permit system is so that building plans can be checked and approved by competent engineers. Adding four floors to an existing structure without permission is, by definition, unsafe. Criminal, in fact. I'm appalled to learn that there were tourists living in rooms that could have collapsed at any time.

If you don't strictly enforce building control laws you get the kind of disasters seen in Latvia, South Africa and Bangladesh recently.

Yes. There should be a structural plan on file and approval from a government engineer that accounts for all loads and materials used. And sneaking a rooftop covered patio is one thing. Adding 4 floors quite another. Cheeky builder. I have walked and been driven past that place many times. Didn't notice construction but then I didn't look UP.

[KittenKong]

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

Adding several more floors to a building designed for x floors, what do you think? There have been collapses in the past for this type of behavior.

That all depends on whether the original structure was solid enough to support the extra weight. There are plenty of buildings in the world that can easily support extra stories and were designed to do so, even residential bungalows.

In this case it seems to be more a question that the building permit wasn't obtained, presumably to avoid some taxation or fee or environmental inquiry etc.

[KittenKong]

Adding four floors to an existing structure without permission is, by definition, unsafe.

No it isn't. It's only unsafe if the existing structure cant take the extra weight. Permission has nothing to do with it especially as the permission may be more to do with the environmental impact of increasing the building height anyway, or a means to collect tax revenue.

[Asiantravel]

Adding four floors to an existing structure without permission is, by definition, unsafe.

No it isn't. It's only unsafe if the existing structure cant take the extra weight. Permission has nothing to do with it especially as the permission may be more to do with the environmental impact of increasing the building height anyway, or a means to collect tax revenue.

Interesting point. They could have added extra reinforcement and then forced the owner to pay for this extra work plus charge a hefty penalty fee for breaking the laws/regulations as a deterrent to others ( in case they have the same idea )which would have caused less havoc than demolition and the fine would have added to the city's coffers.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Asiantravel

[jacko45k]

Nice of them to let the renters (who no doubt paid in advance) to grab their stuff and flee the chaos. I mean really, they never give a crap about the victims.

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

Extra floors were built on top without planning permission etc etc.

Think of those collapsing Egyptian hotels!

I am actually surprised the demolition went ahead, considering how the 101 illegal businesses on the seaward side of Walking St may also be illegal and were under threat some years ago.

the District Chief received information that the owner may be using the 180 days as a stalling tactic so he could fill the illegally built hotel rooms with guests over the high season months.

A light bulb must have gone on in his head when someone suggested this.

[PeterSmiles]

Around which time we expect the news flash " Government workers are denied access to the Boutique Hotel, so have to leave without doing any demolishing " ?

[LennyW]

Around which time we expect the news flash " Government workers are denied access to the Boutique Hotel, so have to leave without doing any demolishing " ?

By the pictures in the article the demolishing has indeed already begun.

[Spalpeen]

Adding four floors to an existing structure without permission is, by definition, unsafe.

No it isn't. It's only unsafe if the existing structure cant take the extra weight. Permission has nothing to do with it especially as the permission may be more to do with the environmental impact of increasing the building height anyway, or a means to collect tax revenue.

Interesting point. They could have added extra reinforcement and then forced the owner to pay for this extra work plus charge a hefty penalty fee for breaking the laws/regulations as a deterrent to others ( in case they have the same idea )which would have caused less havoc than demolition and the fine would have added to the city's coffers.

No, completely wrong point. KittenKong seems to have a Bangladeshi understanding of structural engineering. From earlier photos the new floors add about 50% to the height, and therefore the weight of the building. Most tall buildings in Pattaya stand on concrete pile foundations. How exactly would you go about adding new concrete piles under the foundations to support the extra weight? It's not just a simple matter of sticking in a few extra props.

[shaurene]

I wonder WHY they want to demolish this building too. Unsafe? I didn't read that in the article.

Adding several more floors to a building designed for x floors, what do you think? There have been collapses in the past for this type of behavior.

I think from memory, in this case its because owner of the hotel did not obtain permit to build. I do not think safety was an issue, more the fact that owners by passed City Hall.

I hope you do not call me wrong again, too many time for this week already

I believe the hotel was passed for x number of floors and the support structure was built for this but the owner had more floors built on top so the structure was not built to support these extra floors, this is the safety concer.

[JSixpack]

Around which time we expect the news flash " Government workers are denied access to the Boutique Hotel, so have to leave without doing any demolishing " ?

By the pictures in the article the demolishing has indeed already begun.

Previous threads on the subject have devoted pages to such barstool sneers from our resident cynics, know-it-alls, and blowhards.

And where are they now? A scant few showing up to backpedal.

But I expect more to show up like PeterSmiles and claim it's not really happening while it is--and after it's done, deny it was really done, claiming the photos are faked, blah, blah, blah.

[Asiantravel]

Adding four floors to an existing structure without permission is, by definition, unsafe.

No it isn't. It's only unsafe if the existing structure cant take the extra weight. Permission has nothing to do with it especially as the permission may be more to do with the environmental impact of increasing the building height anyway, or a means to collect tax revenue.

Interesting point. They could have added extra reinforcement and then forced the owner to pay for this extra work plus charge a hefty penalty fee for breaking the laws/regulations as a deterrent to others ( in case they have the same idea )which would have caused less havoc than demolition and the fine would have added to the city's coffers.

No, completely wrong point. KittenKong seems to have a Bangladeshi understanding of structural engineering. From earlier photos the new floors add about 50% to the height, and therefore the weight of the building. Most tall buildings in Pattaya stand on concrete pile foundations. How exactly would you go about adding new concrete piles under the foundations to support the extra weight? It's not just a simple matter of sticking in a few extra props.

I think you are being very unfair to KittenKong who is thinking ” outside the box “.

These kind of problems have been overcome before, such as in earthquake damaged high-rise buildings down in New Zealand for example.

I'm sure if people tried they could come up with a system of “props and bracing “ or some similar way to strengthen the structure.

http://www.ubscure.com/Art/90919/28/The-process-of-adding-a-reinforced-concrete-column.html

[rgs2001uk]

Around which time we expect the news flash " Government workers are denied access to the Boutique Hotel, so have to leave without doing any demolishing " ?

By the pictures in the article the demolishing has indeed already begun.

Previous threads on the subject have devoted pages to such barstool sneers from our resident cynics, know-it-alls, and blowhards.

And where are they now? A scant few showing up to backpedal.

But I expect more to show up like PeterSmiles and claim it's not really happening while it is--and after it's done, deny it was really done, claiming the photos are faked, blah, blah, blah.

Remember a few years ago our resident structural engineers and H&S types were all telling us Central was going to collapse?

[Spalpeen]

I think you are being very unfair to KittenKong who is thinking outside the box .

These kind of problems have been overcome before, such as in earthquake damaged high-rise buildings down in New Zealand for example.

I'm sure if people tried they could come up with a system of props and bracing or some similar way to strengthen the structure.

http://www.ubscure.com/Art/90919/28/The-process-of-adding-a-reinforced-concrete-column.html

In theory, you're right. It is possible to underpin and strengthen existing structures. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is a good example. The problem is that it's prohibitively expensive. It can be done for famous or historic buildings, but for a run of the mill building like a Pattaya Hotel it would probably work out cheaper to knock it down and build it anew.

I once had to underpin a four storey, 200 year old building that had been weakened by neighbouring work, so I know how to do it. But it's a horrible fiddly job that costs the earth.

[JSixpack]

I think you are being very unfair to KittenKong who is thinking outside the box .

These kind of problems have been overcome before, such as in earthquake damaged high-rise buildings down in New Zealand for example.

I'm sure if people tried they could come up with a system of props and bracing or some similar way to strengthen the structure.

http://www.ubscure.com/Art/90919/28/The-process-of-adding-a-reinforced-concrete-column.html

Well, it's just amazing what money and time can do. True.

But of course the owner must have considered such a solution to keep his extra floors. If he didn't discover that it's impossible in this case, he certainly concluded that it would be cost ineffective, assuming he could even find the extra money.

[Asiantravel]

I think you are being very unfair to KittenKong who is thinking outside the box .

These kind of problems have been overcome before, such as in earthquake damaged high-rise buildings down in New Zealand for example.

I'm sure if people tried they could come up with a system of props and bracing or some similar way to strengthen the structure.

http://www.ubscure.com/Art/90919/28/The-process-of-adding-a-reinforced-concrete-column.html

Well, it's just amazing what money and time can do. True.

But of course the owner must have considered such a solution to keep his extra floors. If he didn't discover that it's impossible in this case, he certainly concluded that it would be cost ineffective, assuming he could even find the extra money.

There is no way to either of us to know how the discussions between the authorities and the owner have gone on?

If there was any element of bloody mindedness on either side it would have been impossible to even explore any possible alternative solutions ?

And if the authorities imposed a requirement for him to complete reinforcement works as a condition for him to be able to legally use the remaining 50% of the building - as to whether it was cost-effective or not wouldn't have even entered into the equation?

[PeterSmiles]

Around which time we expect the news flash " Government workers are denied access to the Boutique Hotel, so have to leave without doing any demolishing " ?

By the pictures in the article the demolishing has indeed already begun.

Previous threads on the subject have devoted pages to such barstool sneers from our resident cynics, know-it-alls, and blowhards.

And where are they now? A scant few showing up to backpedal.

But I expect more to show up like PeterSmiles and claim it's not really happening while it is--and after it's done, deny it was really done, claiming the photos are faked, blah, blah, blah.

I know you consider yourself an authority on this forum, unfortunately you're the only one who is considering that, but wasn't there only a few weeks ago an article where those same government officials went to that very same hotel with those very same intentions to start the demolishing, and had to return empty handed as they were denied access ?

Hey here it is

Failed attempt to begin demolition of popular South Pattaya Hotel

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/681218-failed-attempt-to-begin-demolition-of-popular-south-pattaya-hotel/

Now go back your favorite afternoon beer bar on Soi Bukhoaw, slurping some 40 Baht Changs during happy hour, as that is the only place where you can make yourself feel important.

Edited November 27, 2013 by PeterSmiles

[Basil B]

I just can not see why the authorities did not stop the hotel from trading a long time ago until the situation had been resolved.

[lucjoker]

break down all unlicensed buildings in and around Pattaya,

it will look like the littel fishing village 60 y ago !

[JSixpack]

Around which time we expect the news flash " Government workers are denied access to the Boutique Hotel, so have to leave without doing any demolishing " ?

By the pictures in the article the demolishing has indeed already begun.

Previous threads on the subject have devoted pages to such barstool sneers from our resident cynics, know-it-alls, and blowhards.

And where are they now? A scant few showing up to backpedal.

But I expect more to show up like PeterSmiles and claim it's not really happening while it is--and after it's done, deny it was really done, claiming the photos are faked, blah, blah, blah.

I know you consider yourself an authority on this forum, unfortunately you're the only one who is considering that, but wasn't there only a few weeks ago an article where those same government officials went to that very same hotel with those very same intentions to start the demolishing, and had to return empty handed as they were denied access ?

Hey here it is

Failed attempt to begin demolition of popular South Pattaya Hotel

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/681218-failed-attempt-to-begin-demolition-of-popular-south-pattaya-hotel/

Now go back your favorite afternoon beer bar on Soi Bukhoaw, slurping some 40 Baht Changs during happy hour, as that is the only place where you can make yourself feel important.

Ah, but that was then; this is now. As LennyW pointed out, the pics show it has in fact begun.

But if you want to believe it ain't happenin', 'cause you wisely KNOW it ain't really, then be my guest. Cheers!

Edited November 27, 2013 by JSixpack