Dismantling disputed Aetus hotel in Bangkok will take three years

[indyuk]

Does anyone think that the next building seem even taller that the subject building. I suppose that it is far enough back from the road to offset the limitations of height and road width on City structures.

[slapout]

The example set centries ago about the Taj owner upon completion of the tomb, was informed that the excess structures., materials, etc would reqire a large amount of funds to put right and take several years.

He advertised that eveything not wanted was to be given free to those who wanted it.It is said to have taken less than a week to clear several years of building, garbage and excess building material at no cost .

Put the demolitation out for bid with payment going to Bangkok municipality.

[Gordy Gambino]

The example set centries ago about the Taj owner upon completion of the tomb, was informed that the excess structures., materials, etc would reqire a large amount of funds to put right and take several years.

He advertised that eveything not wanted was to be given free to those who wanted it.It is said to have taken less than a week to clear several years of building, garbage and excess building material at no cost .

Put the demolitation out for bid with payment going to Bangkok municipality.

Salvage is the property of the demolition contractor. He sells and keeps the money .

You pay for demolition. We don't knock down buildings and pay you.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Sure glad I don't live their on the 8th Floor.

[Classic Ray]

Anybody care to take my bet that this Hotel will still be operating on the same number of floors in three years time with the same narrow road? When the New Year's Eve fire happened in the nightclub in Bangkok killing hundreds, it had been ordered to close for years as it was an unsuitable building with inadequate/locked fire exits, but somehow was still operating.

I won't be booking a room there and I just hope they don't have a fire in the meanwhile, as it will be difficult to evacuate guests..

[jaywalker]

3 years

Try doing it the smart way

Cut a hole in the floors and demolish it inwards floor by floor

The rubble falls to ground level

All you end up with is a large pile of concrete waiting to be crushed and used as road base

Or maybe controlled internal implosion could be achieved in few months of planning with correct specialists involved.

Surely you jest! "Correct specialists"! Bah!

It would probably take them 4 years to get work permits for them = better off letting Somchai peck away at it with a claw hammer for 3 years.

[slapout]

The example set centries ago about the Taj owner upon completion of the tomb, was informed that the excess structures., materials, etc would reqire a large amount of funds to put right and take several years.

He advertised that eveything not wanted was to be given free to those who wanted it.It is said to have taken less than a week to clear several years of building, garbage and excess building material at no cost .

Put the demolitation out for bid with payment going to Bangkok municipality.

Salvage is the property of the demolition contractor. He sells and keeps the money .

You pay for demolition. We don't knock down buildings and pay you.

Good sir, I beg to disagree except for your ''we'' inclusion I have no idea who the we is you are referring to but many companies and even here in Thailand will furnish labor and pay for the previlge of dimantling a stucture for the scrape/resale of said structure. I sold 2 old houses to a local and he paid me. and have done the same with larger structures in the real world. You may want to aquaint yourself with some centries old practices that are not talked about so much outside there scope of operation, but they are alive, well and doing a busness that brings in huge divedends for them.

hell some firms buy dead cows for a pitence and then go down the road and sell same for dog food.

Edited December 16, 2014 by slapout

[englishoak]

Whats wrong with a controlled demolition ?

im sure the US would be glad to advise with all their experience.

[gchurch259]

Leave the hotel and buy different Fire Trucks for they nearest station, cheaper than taking down the top floors and what about the people trying to live on the lower floors during this debacle.

Ruamrudee is a piece of Caca to start with, try meeting some of the big tour buses coming through there. They are as big a the Fire Trucks the city is worried about.

[saakura]

This hotel is another example of influential persons thinking they are above the law. Just because you pay off a lower city official does not give you the right to go against the law. The law clearly states that the height of the build being constructed is relative to the width of the street and the distance of the building from the street.

On the contrary, i feel that this is an example where the mighty and influential petitioners could get justice which should be the prerogative for all citizens, however lowly they may be. I could be wrong but i feel that the matter would not have reached this stage if the petitioners were an ordinary Somchai.

Edited December 16, 2014 by saakura

[SinCityGr8One]

3 Years to do this? it would be cheaper to take the whole thing down and start new (and probably better) They should contact them for an estimate: Controlled Demolition, Inc. Phoenix, Maryland 21132 USA

[JacChang]

Fine them 1 billion baht per year for delay.

Then they will finish demolish in 3 months. no more jai yen yen and mai pen rai

[rametindallas]

3 years

Try doing it the smart way

Cut a hole in the floors and demolish it inwards floor by floor

The rubble falls to ground level

All you end up with is a large pile of concrete waiting to be crushed and used as road base

Japan Presents the Incredible Shrinking Building

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_4G_8gEjng

[monkeycountry]

To those of you suggesting various methods of using dynamite, I dont think it is possible nor legal in Bangkok, especially considering how close most buildings are to eachother, many even touching eachother.

It might be possible for the BMA to make am exception to the law, but without consent from neighbours, which they will of course not get, the BMA would face a ton of lawsuits, so not really an option.

Controlled demolition is only controlled to a certain extent. You cannot control dynamite enough to make sure you take down 24 floors while at the same time ensure you do not damage a building a couple of meters away.

Edited December 16, 2014 by monkeycountry

[surangw]

leave it open to scavenges, job done in about 3 days

[Chris Lawrence]

'Under the ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act BE 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 were so close, 9.658?

Just goes to show, when you have the right people living in the street, the right Government in power, the judicial system on your side, well justice can be done?

How much will it cost to dismantle the floors? Why not fine the company for that amount plus 10% and just leave the building in place?

The street is the home of some very high ranking officals. So I think their will will be done, no matter what. Surley they would have known what was being built there at the time, and that would have been when action should have been taken?

[rametindallas]

This is shear insanity for want of LESS than a meter. There are certainly any number of ways to handle this much better and keep the building.

Waive the law, fine the owners heavily and send the politicians to prison who were bribed.

Find an engineering solution to create the needed room.

Buy out the local businesses to create the room or pay enough to businesses to get the room needed to widen the Soi, a far simpler and less wasteful solution.

First, this is about safety and the ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi. (not to mention traffic on a narrow soi) so there is no way the city should Waive the law, fine the owners heavily. The safety of anyone living in that high-rise is compromised. Nine meters is pretty narrow for a public street even for a legal eight story building.

Second, this needs to be made a lesson to the kind of Hi Sos, who think they can buy anything or anyone, that none of their bribes comes with a warranty. The developers were fully aware the soi wasn't wide enough for their project (building height restrictions are discussed and fought over politically on a regular basis) The only innocents in this story are the long-suffering residents who have been negatively impacted by the prolonged building activity needed to go the extra 16 floors too high. The only way to get these Hi So's attention is to hit them in the only place it hurts; their pocketbook. All that investment gone to waste because of greed, misplaced trust in corrupt officials, and sheer arrogance.

Find an engineering solution to create the needed room.

Buy out the local businesses to create the room or pay enough to businesses to get the room needed to widen the Soi, a far simpler and less wasteful solution.

They've had ten + years to do that and haven't been successful.

[aparasher]

3 years

Try doing it the smart way

Cut a hole in the floors and demolish it inwards floor by floor

The rubble falls to ground level

All you end up with is a large pile of concrete waiting to be crushed and used as road base

Or maybe controlled internal implosion could be achieved in few months of planning with correct specialists involved.

They are not allowed to demolish the entire hotel. The court only approved the removal of the floors that exceed the city regulations.

Unfortunately, there is no easy and quick way to remove floors from a high-rise while keeping the bottom ones intact.

I can't comment without looking at ruling, but I believe ruling would be to reduce it 8 floors or lower. this can easily be transformed into dropping tho whole structure as it may be more cost effective.

[exalll]

I'm sorry, but as a resident of soi Ruamrudee (not elderly or Thai, no car and so reliant on walking or motorcycle taxis) it is not feasible to widen the road. It would mean eating away at an already very narrow pavement ("sidewalk" for Americans) by half a meter for about 800m.

Nor is it possible to build a new road access, as proposed by one poster - behind this building is Ruamrudee soi 2, and beyond that the expressway.

[Guest]

would'nt it be a lot cheaper to buy some of the land and widen the soi to 10 metres, Dah. only need 3 feet

[jcisco]

8 floors=3 years

Not so if you bring over experts from Australia.

I can arrange that.

Hope those experts are better than the ones used to demolish the old Canberra hospital.......!

That problem still resonates even over here in the West.

oh yeah the intelligent act of inviting spectators to explosive detonations which are specifically designed to cause fracturing and dislocation. Yeah resonating from face palming at the stupidity...

[AlQaholic]

would'nt it be a lot cheaper to buy some of the land and widen the soi to 10 metres, Dah. only need 3 feet

Apparently rumors has it that the soi has actually narrowed slightly over the years, especially at a location where a certain prominent complainant lives.

[mike324]

Don't understand why people keep on asking the two questions, why don't they widen the road, and why does it take so long (why not use explosives)?

Why not widen the road because its less than a meter? Because the costs would be astronomical and not worth their return. Soi ruamrudee is around 1km long and that area has one of the highest land prices in Bangkok, widening the roads means buying some 80cm from all the apartments on the road, and most apartments and owners there will not be willing to give up even 80cm. It would be hard to get all the folks to agree on that.

Why does it take so long? bring in explosive team from overseas? Not viable because they are trying to cut their losses by lowering it to 8 floors which in the mean time they still can continue to operate while the dismantling process is in place. Or if they choose to close down temporarily, they will not have to rebuild.

[virtualtraveller]

Might be cheaper to implode the whole building and start again.

Though we might all correctly speculate that the constructor/developer bribed the officials, there is no record of this and therefore as far as they are concerned they have suffered huge losses by being erroneously granted permission to construct. Therefore the BMA should be sued for the cost of demolition. The developer has been taught a lesson by the courts (sending forth a good precedent) but the corrupt officials have not. If the BMA foots the bill for demotion then they will make damned sure there are no future instances of complicity (sending forth another good precedent).

[ikke]

"He said the most suitable method is to use labour and machinery."

Hahaha, he must be high educated to have this knowledge ..... what would be the other option, Explosives ?

[3SoiDogNight]

Why can't they just leave the building alone? Keep it as original.

Sounds like another excuse to make a bunch of noise, disturbing the neighbors.

[Thaiready]

I know people in the US could do it in about 10 seconds after a week of prep.

So they wouldn't even have to call out to Thailand. Whatta ya gonna blast it with a tomahawk missile fired from ya mommas basement?

I was thinking of firing it from your mama's @ss

[jamesbrock]

First, this is about safety and the ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi. (not to mention traffic on a narrow soi) so there is no way the city should Waive the law, fine the owners heavily. The safety of anyone living in that high-rise is compromised. Nine meters is pretty narrow for a public street even for a legal eight story building.

Second, this needs to be made a lesson to the kind of Hi Sos, who think they can buy anything or anyone, that none of their bribes comes with a warranty. The developers were fully aware the soi wasn't wide enough for their project (building height restrictions are discussed and fought over politically on a regular basis) The only innocents in this story are the long-suffering residents who have been negatively impacted by the prolonged building activity needed to go the extra 16 floors too high. The only way to get these Hi So's attention is to hit them in the only place it hurts; their pocketbook. All that investment gone to waste because of greed, misplaced trust in corrupt officials, and sheer arrogance.

Find an engineering solution to create the needed room.

Buy out the local businesses to create the room or pay enough to businesses to get the room needed to widen the Soi, a far simpler and less wasteful solution.

They've had ten + years to do that and haven't been successful.

Bullsh*t. The soi is the exact same width now than it was before the building was built; the building is also pretty much exactly halfway along the soi, and is built about 10m from the road. The ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi has in no way diminished due to this building.

If they were really concerned about the width of the soi, the could stop Somchai setting up his 1m+ wide cart on the road itself.

This whole discussion about widening the soi is moot, that is so obviously the only technicality whomever opposes this development could use.

Sure, the developer built the building "illegally", but they were allowed to "the powers that be" but spending six years in court and making them demolish the building is utterly ridiculous.

[rametindallas]

First, this is about safety and the ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi. (not to mention traffic on a narrow soi) so there is no way the city should Waive the law, fine the owners heavily. The safety of anyone living in that high-rise is compromised. Nine meters is pretty narrow for a public street even for a legal eight story building.

Second, this needs to be made a lesson to the kind of Hi Sos, who think they can buy anything or anyone, that none of their bribes comes with a warranty. The developers were fully aware the soi wasn't wide enough for their project (building height restrictions are discussed and fought over politically on a regular basis) The only innocents in this story are the long-suffering residents who have been negatively impacted by the prolonged building activity needed to go the extra 16 floors too high. The only way to get these Hi So's attention is to hit them in the only place it hurts; their pocketbook. All that investment gone to waste because of greed, misplaced trust in corrupt officials, and sheer arrogance.

Find an engineering solution to create the needed room.

Buy out the local businesses to create the room or pay enough to businesses to get the room needed to widen the Soi, a far simpler and less wasteful solution.

They've had ten + years to do that and haven't been successful.

Bullsh*t. The soi is the exact same width now than it was before the building was built; the building is also pretty much exactly halfway along the soi, and is built about 10m from the road. The ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi has in no way diminished due to this building.

If they were really concerned about the width of the soi, the could stop Somchai setting up his 1m+ wide cart on the road itself.

This whole discussion about widening the soi is moot, that is so obviously the only technicality whomever opposes this development could use.

Sure, the developer built the building "illegally", but they were allowed to "the powers that be" but spending six years in court and making them demolish the building is utterly ridiculous.

Bullsh*t. Non-specific rebuttal that shows you don't really have an argument. The soi is the exact same width now than it was before the building was built; Straw Man #1. and the builders knew the actual width before they bought the land or bribed their way to a building permit. and is built about 10m from the road. Straw Man #2. Not pertinent. The ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi has in no way diminished due to this building. Straw Man #3. Nobody but you says the building is stopping the extra long, Fire Department ladder-trucks, The litigants have argued it's the narrowness of the soi and not the presence of the building the is limiting the trucks.

If they were really concerned about the width of the soi, the could stop Somchai setting up his 1m+ wide cart on the road itself.

They demonstrated their concern for the soi by having this blight removed from the soi. Mr. Somchai can set up on alternating sides of the street and even move in the case of a fire engine.

Sure, the developer built the building "illegally", but they were allowed to "the powers that be" but spending six years in court and making them demolish the building is utterly ridiculous.

The developers have been in court since before they began construction. They are not the victims here. I'll tell you what is utterly ridiculous. it's forgiving a willful developer (who) built the building "illegally" Soon, all the developers will want the equal right to build illegally and just pay a fine.

This whole discussion about widening the soi is moot, that is so obviously the only technicality whomever opposes this development could use.

The developer has had years and has nothing to show for any efforts to widen the soi. Why hasn't the developer widened the soi and taken away this technicality?

[The Deerhunter]

Might be cheaper to implode the whole building and start again.

Though we might all correctly speculate that the constructor/developer bribed the officials, there is no record of this and therefore as far as they are concerned they have suffered huge losses by being erroneously granted permission to construct. Therefore the BMA should be sued for the cost of demolition. The developer has been taught a lesson by the courts (sending forth a good precedent) but the corrupt officials have not. If the BMA foots the bill for demotion then they will make damned sure there are no future instances of complicity (sending forth another good precedent).

You cannot implode a building with neighbouring buildings. Please everyone stop with the explosives talk. 'taint practical here!!!