Walking Street "renewel"

[toenail]

Like some of the comments made on other Pattaya forums, the demolition of the buildings along Walking Street(seaside)  most likely will not happen (due to powerful BKK owners and such). But in the rumor-mill, it would be a good idea for the seacoast (owned by the navy) along Walking Street to be turned into a nice tree line promenade.  Why? It is a no brainer that Pattaya is no longer attracting the "kind" of tourist as it did twenty or thirty years ago. (Things do change). I was reading that the hotels are only reporting a 30 percent occupancy and anyone that lives in Patts knows opening a bar or restaurant here is very competitive. The clientele is changing.   True, Pattaya needs to continue with the "adult night life district" but what about allowing it to exist on the small sois or having it in a zoned area? (I know, zoning laws are not in the vocabulary here.) There are more and more couples and families from Asia visiting Pattaya, and certainly Western families do not make Pattaya as their number on choice to visit in Thailand.  And the Western "sex-tourist" is finding it expensive to fly here or by now is over 80 years old and cannot handle the long journey.  Who knows, if Pattaya cleaned up its act a bit, maybe Western tourists with families would start coming to Pattaya- less expensive and hassle than flying to Phuket. 

[gmac]

Don't get me wrong, I actually like Pattaya, but I can see very little reason for 'quality' Western tourists and families coming here.  The beaches are poor, it's dirty,  the infrastructure is awful, it gets more expensive every year,  yes there are many restaurants, a couple of decent shopping malls and a few out of town excursions available but, compared to Spain or Greece or even Phuket if they really want to come to Thailand, it has little to recommend it. 

[onemorechang]

Do the families come back a second time,   to this

World Class Sex Tourist destination. ?

 

To the Op

Do sex tourists have to pay more than anyone else for an airline ticket ?

[globalhouse]

Hello Toenail,

 

You're review of the situation is "spot" on. Change is hard for environments such as Pattaya. Most sex cities don't transition successfully to family fun places (Too much money changing hands).

 

G/  

[Nice Boyd]

Like some of the comments made on other Pattaya forums, the demolition of the buildings along Walking Street(seaside)  most likely will not happen (due to powerful BKK owners and such). But in the rumor-mill, it would be a good idea for the seacoast (owned by the navy) along Walking Street to be turned into a nice tree line promenade.  Why? It is a no brainer that Pattaya is no longer attracting the "kind" of tourist as it did twenty or thirty years ago. (Things do change). I was reading that the hotels are only reporting a 30 percent occupancy and anyone that lives in Patts knows opening a bar or restaurant here is very competitive. The clientele is changing.   True, Pattaya needs to continue with the "adult night life district" but what about allowing it to exist on the small sois or having it in a zoned area? (I know, zoning laws are not in the vocabulary here.) There are more and more couples and families from Asia visiting Pattaya, and certainly Western families do not make Pattaya as their number on choice to visit in Thailand.  And the Western "sex-tourist" is finding it expensive to fly here or by now is over 80 years old and cannot handle the long journey.  Who knows, if Pattaya cleaned up its act a bit, maybe Western tourists with families would start coming to Pattaya- less expensive and hassle than flying to Phuket. 

Flights have Never been Cheaper, at least from the states


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[NanLaew]

7 hours ago, globalhouse said:

Hello Toenail,

 

You're review of the situation is "spot" on. Change is hard for environments such as Pattaya. Most sex cities don't transition successfully to family fun places (Too much money changing hands).

 

G/  

With regard to Walking Street, it's not the sex industry that's holding the redevelopment back, it's sheer greed. The current land owners, including K. Patpong aren't really interested in maintaining the sexpat industry, they just want ungodly amount of money to move out. It takes very deep pockets to acquire anything on the west side of Sukhumvit as it is so South Pattaya land prices must be astronomical.

[swissie]

No chance of turning the "sea-side" to a promenade lined with palm trees. (doesn't produce enough financial "Yield".)

According to the TAT, Pattaya is already a family oriented "Beach Resort".

Helas, the only ones that believe this are (or were) young Russian couples with their toddlers in toe.
Cheers.

[guzzi850m2]

56 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

With regard to Walking Street, it's not the sex industry that's holding the redevelopment back, it's sheer greed. The current land owners, including K. Patpong aren't really interested in maintaining the sexpat industry, they just want ungodly amount of money to move out. It takes very deep pockets to acquire anything on the west side of Sukhumvit as it is so South Pattaya land prices must be astronomical.

How can they demand money for something they don't have a land title deed on? Well not a legal one. Most of those resort owners in national parks have been forced to move out. 

 

Many of those buildings goes way out in the ocean and are sitting over the beach, so by all rights, they should be leveled. 

[NanLaew]

8 hours ago, guzzi850m2 said:

How can they demand money for something they don't have a land title deed on? Well not a legal one. Most of those resort owners in national parks have been forced to move out. 

 

Many of those buildings goes way out in the ocean and are sitting over the beach, so by all rights, they should be leveled. 

Correct. The clapboard hovels over the sea had no legal standing when they started amassing in the 60's and the newer, more solid structures are similarly, totally illegal. So that accounts for the west side of Walking Street which is a very small part of south Pattaya. Without a stated, public redevelopment plan, I doubt there's any great value in tearing down just the sea-side constructions much beyond the army being able to say "We told you so".... and opening up a more pleasant vista of course.