Thai Court upholds ruling on Soi Ruamrudee highrise

[BKKdreaming]

Under the ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522, a building over 8 stories or taller than 23 metres cannot be built on a soi with its surface width less than 10 metres. But the soi is less than 10 metres wide throughout its distance. Road measurement of eight different points of the soi shows the width of the soi surface at 9.146, 9.207, 9.434, 9.150, 9.658 and 9.283 metres respectively.

they must have pissed the wrong people off , the street is less than 1 meter too narrow and they want to tear it down !

Fine the builders, fine the local building officials whatever they think they proffited and leave the building and the people living there to be

The regulations are there because large buildings lead to more traffic. Leaving the building there means that other residents have to deal with that extra traffic.

UMMMMM OK , lifes a bitch , they built a big building next to you , happens all over the world

I feel sorry for the people losing their homes......not the people across the street......

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1. Why are the articles talking about appeals? Has the fat lady not sung?

2. Why aren't the officials named?

3. Who are the principals and lead shareholders of the companies involved?

4. Why didn't the court issue directions on legal action against all involved?

As usual, gaping holes and deficiencies.

In answer to the above questions and omissions... can pretty well sum it up by saying... This Is Thailand, of course!

It's nice that the various very hi-so residents there won yet another legal round... But I won't be holding my breath waiting for the highrise to be chopped down to 8 stories.

Six years in the works already, probably headed for 10.

Edited December 3, 2014 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[whybother]

Under the ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522, a building over 8 stories or taller than 23 metres cannot be built on a soi with its surface width less than 10 metres. But the soi is less than 10 metres wide throughout its distance. Road measurement of eight different points of the soi shows the width of the soi surface at 9.146, 9.207, 9.434, 9.150, 9.658 and 9.283 metres respectively.

they must have pissed the wrong people off , the street is less than 1 meter too narrow and they want to tear it down !

Fine the builders, fine the local building officials whatever they think they proffited and leave the building and the people living there to be

The regulations are there because large buildings lead to more traffic. Leaving the building there means that other residents have to deal with that extra traffic.

UMMMMM OK , lifes a bitch , they built a big building next to you , happens all over the world

I feel sorry for the people losing their homes......not the people across the street......

They illegally built a building next to you. Therefore they need to knock it down.

[Estrada]

Under the ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522, a building over 8 stories or taller than 23 metres cannot be built on a soi with its surface width less than 10 metres. But the soi is less than 10 metres wide throughout its distance. Road measurement of eight different points of the soi shows the width of the soi surface at 9.146, 9.207, 9.434, 9.150, 9.658 and 9.283 metres respectively.

they must have pissed the wrong people off , the street is less than 1 meter too narrow and they want to tear it down !

Fine the builders, fine the local building officials whatever they think they proffited and leave the building and the people living there to be

The question is why is the Athenee Residence which is taller and also on Soi Rumrudee, not being required to be torn down where the access for fire engines is poor? Second question, how come the pavement outside of the plaintiff's house has been widened opposite the hotel, thus narrowing the road at that point?

Edited December 3, 2014 by Estrada

[whybother]

Under the ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522, a building over 8 stories or taller than 23 metres cannot be built on a soi with its surface width less than 10 metres. But the soi is less than 10 metres wide throughout its distance. Road measurement of eight different points of the soi shows the width of the soi surface at 9.146, 9.207, 9.434, 9.150, 9.658 and 9.283 metres respectively.

they must have pissed the wrong people off , the street is less than 1 meter too narrow and they want to tear it down !

Fine the builders, fine the local building officials whatever they think they proffited and leave the building and the people living there to be

The question is why is the plaza Athenee Residence which is taller and also on Soi Rumrudee, not being required to be torn down where the access for fire engines is poor.

The answer to that question is that Plaza Athenee is on Wireless Rd, where access for fire engines is fine.

[wabothai]

What a waste of resources !!!! Let the guilty ones be punished but leave the building alone.

[soalbundy]

Not familiar with the building, but if the soi is short enough, buy a string of buildings on one side or the other and widen the soi to 10 meters. The land holders would probably only want about 5 times market value. Do the math and check the viability. The problem would seem to be traffic congestion on the soi, one would think. With the land bought one could make parking or a planted attractive walkway along the side, as well as widening. It could be a plus. It all depends on the length of the soi.

you have a future here.

[rubl]

Good thing that people in the last article are saying that the corrupt officials need to serve a term in prison. However I think its unlikely, but it should be so easy to do they can prove the road is not 10 meters so its a blatant lie by those that gave permission. Should not be too hard to at least fine them and take away some assets.

I seldom see them do that maybe people in power are afraid to set a precedent. Can anyone tell me of a case where the corrupt had to pay ?

I wonder who the former Bangkok Governor involved may be. It would seem names are withheld on purpose, probably due to the interesting Thai defamation laws.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/17/headlines/headlines_30083719.php

However, he said, though the construction began during Apirak Kosayodhin's term, the complaints had been filed against the office of Bangkok governor.

TheNation article also has "However, in 2005 two buildings taller than 23m were allowed to be constructed on Soi Ruamrudee, which is less than 10m in width."

Since k. Apirak was elected Bangkok Governor in August 2004 it would seem he's implicated. Mind you it might also be his predecessor the late Samak what with paperwork taking time in Thailand.

[robblok]

Good thing that people in the last article are saying that the corrupt officials need to serve a term in prison. However I think its unlikely, but it should be so easy to do they can prove the road is not 10 meters so its a blatant lie by those that gave permission. Should not be too hard to at least fine them and take away some assets.

I seldom see them do that maybe people in power are afraid to set a precedent. Can anyone tell me of a case where the corrupt had to pay ?

I wonder who the former Bangkok Governor involved may be. It would seem names are withheld on purpose, probably due to the interesting Thai defamation laws.

I am curious too.. those defamation laws should really go. They protect the corrupt and rich too much.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The Nation article linked above from 2008 talks about two alleged illegally constructed buildings being targeted in the lawsuit, but doesn't mention either by name. So I'm presuming it's referring what's now the Aetas Hotel and its adjoining serviced apartments -- not some other high-rises on the soi.

If memory serves right, the local residents began their fight against these structures while they were still under construction. And of course, the BMA did nothing in response and the buildings were allowed to be completed.

[OnTheRun]

What would be the purpose, or sense, of partly demolishing the building?

It's a mixture of politics and corruption mate, sense doesn't come into the equation.

[oneday]

What absolute insanity it is to take a perfectly good building and tear it down. It wasn't the owners that were at fault, though they should be punished. All they were doing is what EVERYONE has done in Thailand for years and years; bribe government officials to get pass a law so they could build something they otherwise would not have been able to build.

The destruction of this building is a godawful waste of money, resources and material. It's the reaction of a child, rather than a mature adult. More to the point, the courts should have found someway to keep the building, levy heavy fines on the owners and put the corrupt officials in jail because THEY are the ones that allowed this to happen.

What shear stupidity.

[Neeranam]

Too bad for any Farang who invested his life savings. Zero recourse.

Only if they are stupid enough not to have insurance.

I'd bet the owner is a policeman.

[BradinAsia]

What would be the purpose, or sense, of partly demolishing the building?

As I read the article, it's not about partially demolishing the building, it's about the timetable

for getting it done. By a certain date it must be at least partly demolished.

Also, keep in mind that clarity of meaning is often blurred in translation.

[BradinAsia]

What absolute insanity it is to take a perfectly good building and tear it down. It wasn't the owners that were at fault, though they should be punished. All they were doing is what EVERYONE has done in Thailand for years and years; bribe government officials to get pass a law so they could build something they otherwise would not have been able to build.

The destruction of this building is a godawful waste of money, resources and material. It's the reaction of a child, rather than a mature adult. More to the point, the courts should have found someway to keep the building, levy heavy fines on the owners and put the corrupt officials in jail because THEY are the ones that allowed this to happen.

What shear stupidity.

Sheer stupidity could also include the idea that the owners are "not to blame" because they bribed officials...

[AlQaholic]

I do not get it? The law is apparently there to prevent traffic congestion when the soi is too small to handle the traffic arising from the residents/hotel guests? So why not leave the top floors unused and allow the building to operate the number of floors that are allowed by the law?

To order demolition is just insane?

[Big Daddy]

I will wait to see if they actually tear it down or magically have "delays" while everyone forgets about the news story.

[Globeman]

Why the government does not take over ownership and make $$$? Rubbish the building only costs more money and leaves trash?!

...in order to comply with the spirit of the law - that the building violates the code because it is an obstruction.

Setting a precedent of govt taking over could create some cozy future deals as well.

[mike324]

Not familiar with the building, but if the soi is short enough, buy a string of buildings on one side or the other and widen the soi to 10 meters. The land holders would probably only want about 5 times market value. Do the math and check the viability. The problem would seem to be traffic congestion on the soi, one would think. With the land bought one could make parking or a planted attractive walkway along the side, as well as widening. It could be a plus. It all depends on the length of the soi.

you have a future here.

completely not viable as the area has one of the highest land prices in Bangkok. It would be cheaper to pay and remove the building than buy all those lands.

[Globeman]

I do not get it? The law is apparently there to prevent traffic congestion when the soi is too small to handle the traffic arising from the residents/hotel guests? So why not leave the top floors unused and allow the building to operate the number of floors that are allowed by the law?

To order demolition is just insane?

Oh yes, and I am sure the regular inspections by underpaid (wink wink) government functionaries would show that the upper floors remain unoccupied.

Think of the building's destruction as similar to publicly crushing that Ferrari at customs a ways back... had to be done to make the point. (Not that it worked...) As long as the building or the car are permitted to benefit someone, it is giving the nod to other such projects, and gives rise to corrupt practices. That's the idea, anyway.

[Mot Dang]

In such a confined space it is going to be incredibly difficult to pull this place down. That's going to cost more than putting it up. Imagine living next door. What next, to save costs will these idiots try to bring it down with implosion. There goes the neighborhood, literally.

[Geordie59]

I'll give any odds you want that the place will not be even partially demolished within 60 days.

T.I.T.

[Thai at Heart]

The owners only have themselves to blame as they knew, when they had to pay huge bribes, that the soi was too narrow for their purposes. They were challenged in court not long after they started construction but thought they had impunity, because of the permission their bribes bought, and that, with enough money, they could beat down those insignificant residents who challenged them. A rare opportunity to see justice served on the Hi-Sos.

Ironically, I believe some of the plaintiffs are extremely hiso, hence their ability to pursue this case to.its rightful conclusion. This case is not really a matter of david and Goliath.

It is old money Goliath taking on new business Goliath in Thai cultural terms

[ratcatcher]

I will wait to see if they actually tear it down or magically have "delays" while everyone forgets about the news story.

That's my take on this one as well. Delay, waffle, delay, appeal, more paperwork. IMHO it will still be there next year.

Nice place by the look of it too.

http://residence.aetashotels.com/

[bikerbri]

Never happen!

[concerned]

A couple they could look at in Samui. A strong stance like this could save the Island from becoming a high rise destination.

I wish !!

[GAZZPA]

Why the government does not take over ownership and make $$$? Rubbish the building only costs more money and leaves trash?!

It would leave the doors wide open for further corruption,,, can you imagine how many buildings would be mysteriously and incorrectly granted planning permission only then to be turned over to the government, what do you think the government would do with such an opportunity?

Best thing is to tear it down and start again and refuse any more plans for that company, its subsidiaries or executive management team members for the next 5 to 10 years. That would hurt and be a deterrent I'm sure.

[BlackJack]

what about Pattaya and Jomtien

can they come down here and demolish a few buildings

that are to close to the sea and to high

we will see

[The manic]

Isn't there a similar controversial construction on Pattaya bay that seems to be halted?

[rwhoov]

If my great, grandchildren live to see it demolished I will be greatly surprised. There are those in Thailand who ARE above the law, as unfortunate as that is. Any action will be delayd, delayed, and delayed until a new government comes in and gives up. Happens in Pattaya with the restaurants on Walking Street that have used the beachfront property as theirs for years despite "legal" action taken against them.