Dismantling disputed Aetus hotel in Bangkok will take three years

[jcisco]

I assume the Soi, as in the road is measured from property boundary to property boundary. Or does Thailand/BKK have some other definition, such as surfaced area, as referring to the road.

In AUssie for example the road includes the footpaths and the carriage way itself right to the property boundries., this is the road. Is the same here?

[jamesbrock]

Straw Man #3. Nobody but you says the building is stopping the extra long, Fire Department ladder-trucks,

Nobody but me?!

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)

Wow.

[harrry]

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!!!

Sez who

[jamesbrock]

Firstly, you need to brush up on your logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute; I did not misrepresent your argument at all — indeed you misrepresented mine, but more on that later. Your repeated incorrect use of this term, while most likely intended to make you appear intellectually superior, actually achieved quite the opposite.

Straw Man #1. and the builders knew the actual width before they bought the land or bribed their way to a building permit.

Not a straw man. You claimed that "first, this is about safety and the ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi" and I simply stated the building's existence in no way affects this. There was no misrepresentation.

As did the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) and Pathumwan district office know actual width before they were bribed their way to issuing a building permit. This is why both the Bangkok governor and Pathumwan district office were found guilty of negligence of duty for granting said permit.

Straw Man #2. Not pertinent.

Not a straw man. While you may deem in irrelevant, it did not misrepresent your argument in any way.

Straw Man #3. Nobody but you says the building is stopping the extra long, Fire Department ladder-trucks

Not a straw man. I did not misrepresent your argument, I simply stated the building's existence in no way affects this safety aspect.

Furthermore, you specifically said in another thread two weeks ago: "It's a safety hazard. You can't get a hook and ladder fire truck down that narrow soi." This assertion is b*llocks. Absolute b*llocks. The the maximum legal width of trucks in Thailand is 2.50m (this is comparable to the maximum legal widths in other countries (2.44-2.60m)). According to the International Fire Code 2006 (IFC), "for buildings more than 30 feet (9.144m) in height, the access roads shall have a minimum of unobstructed width of 26 feet (7.925m)." So the soi, at it's narrowest measured point, is more than 6.6m wider than the widest legal truck, giving it 3.3m clearance each side, and is 1.2m wider than the IFC dictates.

Oh, and by the way, this is a straw man. Implying that I said anyone said the building was "stopping" the long Fire Department ladder-truck is misrepresenting my argument; adding the word "extra" emphasises this misrepresentation. The fact that you actually did say this, albeit in another thread, makes your vociferousness look rather dodgy.

The litigants have argued it's the narrowness of the soi and not the presence of the building the is limiting the trucks.

The litigants are actually arguing that the building breaches an outdated ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act BE 2522. If they were simply arguing about the narrowness of the soi, again, the existence of the building has no bearing whatsoever on the narrowness of the soi, so the firetrucks have the same generous road width whether the building is there or not. Ripping 16 stories off the top of the building is not going to make the soi wider, nor increase safety.

You need to work out what it is you're actually saying, why you're all for the ridiculous waste of money and resources tearing the majority of this building down. Is it "first ... about safety"? Or is it about dodgy developers bribing dodgy government officials to get approval for something against outdated ministerial regulations? Do you think it's utterly ridiculous to "forgive" a developer that began construction with a permit?

--

Speaking of Ministerial Regulations, they are issued, amended and given exemptions all the time — surely a ministerial intervention in this matter would be preferable to the residents being covered in fine concrete dust for three years?

[rametindallas]

Reply to jamesbrock post #106

Straw Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Why are you still arguing the case. It is done. You write as if you have a personal stake in this. Why else would you side with the acknowledged cheaters and backhanders.

Oh, well, here are a few rebuttals. Your entire post is reproduced below: (your words in green)

Firstly, you need to brush up on your logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute; I did not misrepresent your argument at all — indeed you misrepresented mine, but more on that later. Your repeated incorrect use of this term, while most likely intended to make you appear intellectually superior, actually achieved quite the opposite.

Straw Man #1. and the builders knew the actual width before they bought the land or bribed their way to a building permit.

Not a straw man. You claimed that "first, this is about safety and the ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi" and I simply stated the building's existence in no way affects this. There was no misrepresentation.

Since you decided not to include your Straw Man argument in your quote so readers might know what we are talking about, here it is: The soi is the exact same width now than it was before the building was built; You made that argument up. No one else is arguing the soi width has changed. That is a classical Straw Man that you can easily knock down. Well done!

As did the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) and Pathumwan district office know actual width before they were bribed their way to issuing a building permit. This is why both the Bangkok governor and Pathumwan district office were found guilty of negligence of duty for granting said permit.

In a court of law? When did this happen? What was their punishment?

Straw Man #2. Not pertinent.

Not a straw man. While you may deem in irrelevant, it did not misrepresent your argument in any way.

I quote you: and is built about 10m from the road. No, but you changed the subject of the argument so that, again, no one can argue when you destroy your second Straw Man. Well done!

Straw Man #3. Nobody but you says the building is stopping the extra long, Fire Department ladder-trucks

Not a straw man. I did not misrepresent your argument, I simply stated the building's existence in no way affects this safety aspect.

Furthermore, you specifically said in another thread two weeks ago: "It's a safety hazard. You can't get a hook and ladder fire truck down that narrow soi." This assertion is b*llocks. Absolute b*llocks. The the maximum legal width of trucks in Thailand is 2.50m (this is comparable to the maximum legal widths in other countries (2.44-2.60m)). According to the International Fire Code 2006 (IFC), "for buildings more than 30 feet (9.144m) in height, the access roads shall have a minimum of unobstructed width of 26 feet (7.925m)." So the soi, at it's narrowest measured point, is more than 6.6m wider than the widest legal truck, giving it 3.3m clearance each side, and is 1.2m wider than the IFC dictates.

I quote you: The ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi has in no way diminished due to this building. You knocked down Straw Man 3 because no one will argue the soi is too narrow to drive down. The argument is that the soi is too narrow for the largest hook and ladder truck to operate its equipment in such narrow confines and cannot even make the turn into the soi because it is too narrow. Because the building is so tall, it needs the very largest fire trucks to fight fires on the higher floors. You just know there's a good chance the building operators don't maintain the sprinkler system.

Oh, and by the way, this is a straw man. Implying that I said anyone said the building was "stopping" the long Fire Department ladder-truck is misrepresenting my argument; I quote you: The ability to get a long, Fire Department ladder-truck down such a narrow soi has in no way diminished due to this building. adding the word "extra" emphasises this misrepresentation. The fact that you actually did say this, albeit in another thread, makes your vociferousness look rather dodgy.

albeit in another thread,

You're saying I misrepresented your statement in this thread using a comment I make in another thread? I think you are the one who looks rather 'dodgy'

The litigants have argued it's the narrowness of the soi and not the presence of the building the is limiting the trucks.

The litigants are actually arguing that the building breaches an outdated ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act BE 2522. (The regulation must not be that outdated or the developers wouldn't have lost their case) If they were simply arguing about the narrowness of the soi, again, the existence of the building has no bearing whatsoever on the narrowness of the soi, so the firetrucks have the same generous road width whether the building is there or not. (you killed Straw Man #3 again). Ripping 16 stories off the top of the building is not going to make the soi wider, nor increase safety. You are right that it won't make the soi wider (you killed Straw Man #1 again) but you are wrong that it won't increase safety. It will require smaller fire trucks and no one will live so high the fire trucks can't reach them.

You need to work out what it is you're actually saying, why you're all for the ridiculous waste of money and resources tearing the majority of this building down. Is it "first ... about safety"? Or is it about dodgy developers bribing dodgy government officials to get approval for something against outdated ministerial regulations? (Why can't it be both?) Do you think it's utterly ridiculous to "forgive" a developer that began construction with a permit? Yes, it that permit is fraudulent and/or fraudulently acquired.

--

Speaking of Ministerial Regulations, they are issued, amended and given exemptions all the time — surely a ministerial intervention in this matter would be preferable to the residents being covered in fine concrete dust for three years?

How dense are you? The tearing down of this blight is exactly what the residents want. The last thing they want is to be 'protected' by ministerial intervention. They've been covered in concrete dust for the extra years it took the developer to build 16 floors more than the law allows. At least this dust will be sweet with victory over the Hi So exploiters.

So, Don Quiote, keep setting up and knocking down Straw Men and never realize that's what you're doing.

Edited December 17, 2014 by rametindallas

[Thai at Heart]

Until someone has to pay financially for the fraud, then it will never stop.

I mean if some poor BMA guy got fined or successfully sued for 5 bazillion baht, that would surely dissuade most people from taking the paltry bribe upfront wouldn't it?

[Big Daddy]

All is not lost. Maybe the guesthouses in the area can get some newer and more classy furniture for cheap during the process.

[mikeinbangkok]

I. Happen to have enough knowledge in this as I was a project consultant who opposed the idea of a high rise building against regulations. So not only that I have more knowledge in this but I had provided a solution long before construction started. This is for info for morons for making worthless comments.

[ultimate weapon]

The name of this hotel sounds familiar and so does the soi ruamrudi where i stayed recently at chateau de bangkok behind the conrad.

The ploenchit area is a really nice area.

[ultimate weapon]

It's quite a hi so hotel obviously not on the scale of the conrad but it's pretty good. They still accept room bookings as of today.

http://www.tripadvisor.com.sg/Hotel_Review-g293916-d1746106-Reviews-The_AETAS_bangkok-Bangkok.html

[ultimate weapon]

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!!!

Sez who

Yes yes, but that was not in Thailand.

This is how it would look here...

click on the video link it says this occured in turkey

Yes thailand is still 3rd world and behind the glorified western world which has all the expertise in demolishing buildings in the best possible way but still you should have posted a video of a building flipping over in thailand instead of another country. It's not really fair to do this that's like posting a video of a screw up say in the UK and claiming all farang countries will act like that.