"Waterfront" condo purchasers in Pattaya could see some developments later this month

[CRUNCHER]

24 minutes ago, newnative said:

       Agree.  City Hall was all for it.  I'm still not getting the supposed 5000 sqm overbuild and the possible unit discrepancy of over 100 rooms.   From the beginning, the project's been called 'Waterfront Suites and Residences'.  Why would they call it that if it was just condos?  There's always been the condo component in the tower and the hotel part in the low wing on the other side of the building's bridge.   I really don't think the developer would build 100 unauthorized rooms knowing, at the end of construction, the building would be inspected and would need to get an occupancy certificate. 

I can't provide precise details, but originally the building was only a condo.  The hotel only came into the equation when Park Plaza bought the project in, I think, 2011.

 

The low block was originally about 40 units, mostly one bedroom units. Park plaza changed this into 100 rooms of "hotel room" size.  There was also some changes in the high block, but I am not sure what.  Somewhere in these changes came the overbuild.

 

Whether the overbuild is as much as 5000 square meter I am not sure. As I said in an earlier post I have never seen an authoritative source for this.  I do know that there are some issues over usable and unusable floor space, but the details I do not know.  It is just possible that some of the overbuild is technical. 

 

I am not 100% sure of everthing I have said, but I am not far out.

[champa]

I am not on Pattaya city side. I just try to update the fact. Pattaya city can not issue the construction permit for 400 rooms building bases on 315 room blueprint. Whether you blame on the demonstration or Pattaya city. The fact is the developer violent the construction code. There are many demonstrations and many complaints about the building in Pattaya. VT7 is another case. Pattaya city did not order suspension on VT7 because the developer did not violate any regulation. 

The aetus buildings in Bangkok has been demonstrated but the project had been done. 

[newnative]

2 hours ago, champa said:

I am not on Pattaya city side. I just try to update the fact. Pattaya city can not issue the construction permit for 400 rooms building bases on 315 room blueprint. Whether you blame on the demonstration or Pattaya city. The fact is the developer violent the construction code. There are many demonstrations and many complaints about the building in Pattaya. VT7 is another case. Pattaya city did not order suspension on VT7 because the developer did not violate any regulation. 

The aetus buildings in Bangkok has been demonstrated but the project had been done. 

      OK, that makes sense.  What doesn't make sense, to me, is the building, as built, looks essentially the same as all the artist renderings of it at the time of the re-launch, looks essentially the same as all the photos of it on the huge billboards they used to have, website, articles, etc.   Adding 85 extra rooms, while keeping the rest of the rooms the same, would have had to change the look of the building from whatever was shown on the blueprints.  For example, the blueprints might have shown a building of 315 rooms with a big rectangular hole in it but when they built the building, in order to get the 85 extra rooms, they filled in the hole.  Something like that would be a clear violation.  They could have gotten the extra rooms by making all the rooms much smaller--but that wouldn't have added 5000 illegal sqm.   I'm curious as to what the architect's rendering of the building looks like on the blueprints and the number and sqm size of rooms shown.  

[pattayadude]

2 hours ago, champa said:

I am not on Pattaya city side. I just try to update the fact. Pattaya city can not issue the construction permit for 400 rooms building bases on 315 room blueprint

 

If the total space has already been divided to 400 rooms which it has, it's  impossible to go back and redesign them to larger spaces to reduce the total of rooms to 315 to match the plans.

The only way out is to forget the hotel and either demolish or keep it but vacant in order  to be legal.

 

But this question still hurts my brain..How can one overbuild in a previously allowed and approved shape at a certain height and width? You can't put more than 1 liter in a 1 liter bottle...

You need to build it wider or higher to have extra 5000 sqm space

Can someone explain???

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 11:28 PM, newnative said:

    Who would want a 50 story building in the most prominent spot in Pattaya to stand abandoned for 100 years?  Maybe someone who doesn't live here, has no stake in the city, and just visits now and then.  And, no, it's not an environmental warning, and neither is the abandoned BKK building.  If it  never gets finished or torn down, but stands unresolved year after year, it will just be a monument to stupidity. 

IMO it is indeed a monument to stupidity, so you agree with me there.

It doesn't have to look abandoned. The developers could be required to pay to clad the building and tidy up the surrounds or have it confiscated.

I'd like to see it blown up so it falls on the derelict marina, so all the dereliction is in the same place. They could also blow up the car park building and use it for land fill as well, and give the park back to the people.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

 

If the total space has already been divided to 400 rooms which it has, it's  impossible to go back and redesign them to larger spaces to reduce the total of rooms to 315 to match the plans.

The only way out is to forget the hotel and either demolish or keep it but vacant in order  to be legal.

 

But this question still hurts my brain..How can one overbuild in a previously allowed and approved shape at a certain height and width? You can't put more than 1 liter in a 1 liter bottle...

You need to build it wider or higher to have extra 5000 sqm space

Can someone explain???

 

That was already explained. If the "hotel" was originally apartments, by eliminating the kitchen etc more hotel rooms can be fitted in the same space.

[pattayadude]

15 minutes ago, newnative said:

 For example, the blueprints might have shown a building of 315 rooms with a big rectangular hole in it but when they built the building, in order to get the 85 extra rooms, they filled in the hole

 

The lofts have high ceilings(empty space of a floor)and they would not have counted a part of the 38.000sqm total  if the developer didn't sell them by the sqm. They built 38000 PLUS these empty spaces and sold them. This was the red flag.

Another reason was, space allocated for parking somehow turned into(stolen) living space and the building ended up with less( 90 instead of 150) parking space and more sellable living space. City Hall discovered these violations

[pattayadude]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That was already explained. If the "hotel" was originally apartments, by eliminating the kitchen etc more hotel rooms can be fitted in the same space.

You can't put more than 1 liter liquid in a 1 liter bottle...

 

[pattayadude]

4 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

 

The lofts have high ceilings(empty space of a floor)and they would not have counted a part of the 38.000sqm total  if the developer didn't sell them by the sqm. They built 38000 PLUS these empty spaces and sold them. This was the red flag.

Another reason was, space allocated for parking somehow turned into(stolen) living space and the building ended up with less( 90 instead of 150) parking space and more sellable living space. City Hall discovered these violations

the developer reimburses these unit owners and case closed

[CRUNCHER]

42 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

 

If the total space has already been divided to 400 rooms which it has, it's  impossible to go back and redesign them to larger spaces to reduce the total of rooms to 315 to match the plans.

The only way out is to forget the hotel and either demolish or keep it but vacant in order  to be legal.

 

But this question still hurts my brain..How can one overbuild in a previously allowed and approved shape at a certain height and width? You can't put more than 1 liter in a 1 liter bottle...

You need to build it wider or higher to have extra 5000 sqm space

Can someone explain???

 

You make some good points.

 

I have always been skeptical that the overbuild is as much as 5000 square meters. 13% for heaven sake. The removal of 5 floors that allegedly City Hall accepted would not account for that much floor space. I have speculated before about usable/non-usable floor space leading to a technical overbuild.

 

You will recall all the false allegations that have been made before. Too high - it is not; too close to the sea - it is not; too close to the road - it is not; land titles not in order -  they are; encroachment - yes a small one by the sales office that will eventually be demolished.

 

One allegation not made is that the footprint is bigger than permitted.  Without this I cannot see how a 5000 square meter overbuild is possible.

 

It is a big shame that City Hall refuse to give their version.  Do they have something to hide??

Edited January 24, 2018 by CRUNCHER

[newnative]

28 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

 

If the total space has already been divided to 400 rooms which it has, it's  impossible to go back and redesign them to larger spaces to reduce the total of rooms to 315 to match the plans.

The only way out is to forget the hotel and either demolish or keep it but vacant in order  to be legal.

 

But this question still hurts my brain..How can one overbuild in a previously allowed and approved shape at a certain height and width? You can't put more than 1 liter in a 1 liter bottle...

You need to build it wider or higher to have extra 5000 sqm space

Can someone explain???

 

   I totally agree regarding the extra 5000 sqm issue but it would not be that hard to change 400 rooms into 315.  Adding an interior doorway between two rooms and closing off one of the hallway entry doors would easily reduce 2 rooms to 1bigger one.  Some tweaking of the room plans might be needed but not that big a deal.  The hotel rooms wouldn't even have individual owners to contend with. With the condos, rooms where the buyers may have dropped out could be used.  If the room count is the issue, this could fairly easily be resolved.  Since height is also an issue, some of the room count could also be reduced by removing some floors from the top.

[pattayadude]

3 minutes ago, CRUNCHER said:

Do they have something to hide??

maybe but not too long as the sword is just too big for the scabbard.

[newnative]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That was already explained. If the "hotel" was originally apartments, by eliminating the kitchen etc more hotel rooms can be fitted in the same space.

Yes, more hotel rooms in the SAME SPACE.  Doesn't explain the extra 5000sqm.

[pattayadude]

fact: there is an elephant in the room.

this has to be resolved so nothing breaks. otherwise both the elephant and the home will be damaged.

[KneeDeep]

On 22/01/2018 at 12:56 AM, newnative said:

        I saw that same article--a good example of the mistakes you often find with real estate websites and articles.  There was another developer before the Tulip Group took over but I don't remember the name. 

Developer was Mistral, a subsidiary of  Elran-Dankner Group (Israel)

 

From 2007;

 

Quote

Elran Real Estate is expected to invest $20 in real estate projects in Thailand. The company, owned by Gadi and Dori Dankner, is expanding its activity to Southeast Asia for the first time.

 

Company officials announced Sunday that they were in advanced negotiations to invest in two Thai companies which own two plots of land on an area of 9 dunam in the resort town of Pattaya.

 

Elran plans to build two apartment buildings on the land. The company is expected to invest 90 percent of the equity capital required for building the projects (14 million euro), and in exchange will be entitled for half of the profits and for a return of 17.5 percent.

 

A joint project between Elran and Bali Hai Co. Ltd....on the surface.

Lurking behind Bali Hai Co. Ltd we have creatures from the now defunct Barton Assets and an interested Thai party..

 

So ostensibly the agreement was to take the project over from the now missing in action Elran group and the dodgy Dankners; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nochi_Dankner & https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/dani-dankner/

 

From what I remember, apart from anything else there is some issue with the title deeds of the plot of land.

 

But my biggest question is why pattayadude/dogeatdogworld has dredged this all up again.

 

 

[pattayadude]

3 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

But my biggest question is why pattayadude/dogeatdogworld has dredged this all up again

next time I will ask your permission(!) to post on this thread

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

Developer was Mistral, a subsidiary of  Elran-Dankner Group (Israel)

 

From 2007;

 

 

A joint project between Elran and Bali Hai Co. Ltd....on the surface.

Lurking behind Bali Hai Co. Ltd we have creatures from the now defunct Barton Assets and an interested Thai party..

 

So ostensibly the agreement was to take the project over from the now missing in action Elran group and the dodgy Dankners; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nochi_Dankner & https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/dani-dankner/

 

From what I remember, apart from anything else there is some issue with the title deeds of the plot of land.

 

But my biggest question is why pattayadude/dogeatdogworld has dredged this all up again.

 

 

But my biggest question is why pattayadude/dogeatdogworld has dredged this all up again.

Perhaps because there isn't much interesting going on on the forum these days.

Gotta admit it's been an interesting thread.

The saga would make a good drama- "corruption, fear and loathing in Pattaya".

[champa]

In my understanding, the 5000 sqm should be divded by 50 floors. This means 100 sqm for each floor. It should be 10*10 meters floor by floor. 

The city planning acts spec the floor area ratio and the empty space ratio. I saw the EIA. The original design of the building is on the maximum floor area ratio. Not sure about empty space ratio. If the building is larger than the original design it might be cut out somewhere. Ont on the hieght but perhaps the wiedth. 

[champa]

The original blueprint was based on the previous city planning act. Pattaya city has the updated planning act on 2015. The unfinished building can work on the permitted construction plan. But any change of blueprint should based on the updated act. The updated act reduce both floor are ratio and empty space ratio.  I believe that it is deadlock for the developer. The developer has no license for construction now. To apply the new construction permit they have to reduce about 30% to meet the updated act. The updated act reduces the floor area ratio from 10 to 7. The total land space is 3,800 sqm. The original blueprint, the total space of building is 38,000 sqm. But for the new license i think it would reduce 30% 

[CRUNCHER]

Thanks again Champa for detailed posts.

 

Bali Hai will obviously only complete if the project remains viable. The only obvious solution would be to demolish the low block. Not sure what that would do for viability.

 

Bali Hai is already talking about taking legal action.  That could take a few years in a complex case like this.  If they loose there will be bankruptcy; a few more years.  Then there will be demolition.  Heaven knows how long that will take to get done and at what cost and by whom.

 

Unless City Hall want to see the status quo maintained for many many years they need to work with the developer.  Bali Hai claim that City Hall is refusing to meet with them.  If true this is not good enough.

 

Of course cooperation and flexibility is required from Bali Hai.

 

The only other answer is Section 44.  Can't see that happening though.

 

[maxpower]

Bullshit aside, you know it makes sense.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by maxpower

[champa]

6 hours ago, CRUNCHER said:

Thanks again Champa for detailed posts.

 

Bali Hai will obviously only complete if the project remains viable. The only obvious solution would be to demolish the low block. Not sure what that would do for viability.

 

Bali Hai is already talking about taking legal action.  That could take a few years in a complex case like this.  If they loose there will be bankruptcy; a few more years.  Then there will be demolition.  Heaven knows how long that will take to get done and at what cost and by whom.

 

Unless City Hall want to see the status quo maintained for many many years they need to work with the developer.  Bali Hai claim that City Hall is refusing to meet with them.  If true this is not good enough.

 

Of course cooperation and flexibility is required from Bali Hai.

 

The only other answer is Section 44.  Can't see that happening though.

 

Prime minister had mentioned Watrfront in November when he was in Pattaya. He said the project is in the legal process. The issues are complicated and should take long time. 

I think this confirmed that nothing about section 44.

He also mentioned this case effects on foreign investment. But why not work it right at the first? 

 

The situation now, only the developer get in trouble. Pattaya city is a complainant and the developer is the defendant in the encroachment case. 

 

Pattaya city has no duty to work with the developer. Pattaya city is the regulator, the key role is to control the construction legally. To do so, Pattaya city ordered the developer to change the buleprints. Once the developer submit the updated blueprint, Pattaya city will inspect the blueprints. If the blueprint illegals then Pattaya city would reject and order the developer to change the blueprints until the blueprint legally. It is not Pattaya city responsibility to advise the developer. The developer should check on all related acts. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by champa

[champa]

Balihai just talked about taking the legal action on November 2016. If you remember, Balihai had announced many statements between 2014-2016 confirmed the project are legal. 

[pattayadude]

2 hours ago, champa said:

Prime minister had mentioned Watrfront in November when he was in Pattaya. He said the project is in the legal process. The issues are complicated and should take long time. 

I think this confirmed that nothing about section 44.

He also mentioned this case effects on foreign investment. But why not work it right at the first? 

 

The situation now, only the developer get in trouble. Pattaya city is a complainant and the developer is the defendant in the encroachment case. 

 

Pattaya city has no duty to work with the developer. Pattaya city is the regulator, the key role is to control the construction legally. To do so, Pattaya city ordered the developer to change the buleprints. Once the developer submit the updated blueprint, Pattaya city will inspect the blueprints. If the blueprint illegals then Pattaya city would reject and order the developer to change the blueprints until the blueprint legally. It is not Pattaya city responsibility to advise the developer. The developer should check on all related acts. 

Around mid 2017, Bali Hai claimed that they submitted to the City Hall a proposal to tear down 5 floors to rectify the 5100 sqm overbuild area.

got a simple Yes or No question in 2 parts.

part1)What was the City Hall's reply to Bali Hai's proposal to tear down 5 floors for the 5100 sqm overbuild?If answer is other than Yes or No, what was it?

part2)Has this proposal even been submitted to the City Hall by Bali Hai ever?If Yes, is it true that the City Hall DID NOT reply or simply ignored?

 

Thanks

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by pattayadude

[pattayadude]

9 hours ago, maxpower said:

Bullshit aside, you know it makes sense.

 

not likely..I think these below will make more sense  for celebrations...

Edited January 25, 2018 by pattayadude

[CRUNCHER]

6 hours ago, champa said:

Prime minister had mentioned Watrfront in November when he was in Pattaya. He said the project is in the legal process. The issues are complicated and should take long time. 

I think this confirmed that nothing about section 44.

He also mentioned this case effects on foreign investment. But why not work it right at the first? 

 

The situation now, only the developer get in trouble. Pattaya city is a complainant and the developer is the defendant in the encroachment case. 

 

Pattaya city has no duty to work with the developer. Pattaya city is the regulator, the key role is to control the construction legally. To do so, Pattaya city ordered the developer to change the buleprints. Once the developer submit the updated blueprint, Pattaya city will inspect the blueprints. If the blueprint illegals then Pattaya city would reject and order the developer to change the blueprints until the blueprint legally. It is not Pattaya city responsibility to advise the developer. The developer should check on all related acts. 

Thanks.  I didn't the prime minister said so much.

 

As regards S44, as I said I can't see it happening.  To use it to end the project would send the wrong message to foreign investors. To use it to finish the project would upset some sections of Thai society.

 

As to why it was not done right from the start, this is the big question.  Why Bali Hai/Park Plaza didn't apply to vary the permit at the outset beggars belief. I can only believe they were given wrong advise. I used to know someone who worked for Tulip Group and they were under the impression that they could regularize changes when the project was completed.

 

City Hall might not have a legal duty help the developer, but in a civilized country they, under natural justice, would have a responsibility to cooperate and facilitate.  How that plays out in Thailand I do  not know. If you believe Bali Hai, City Hall have not been helpful. City Hall say nothing.  The lack of transparency on the part of City Hall is disgraceful.

 

It was December 2017 that Bali Hai said they were considering legal action. They should have done this a long time ago if they think their position is correct.  This is an unusual if not unique situation. The building was constructed and topped off under an old law, but now they have to apply for a new permit under a new law.  How a court will view that only time will tell.

 

In the meantime the shell will remain, perhaps for 20 years.

 

 

[pattayadude]

I doubt anything that is said or posted here  makes a difference or puts a dent on the process.

and I doubt that there is much left, if any that was unsaid or not covered on this complex project and its secrets since there is no public announcement made by the City Hall or no honest revelations by the builder.

I believe we all are barking at the moon.

I 'd like to share a few final thoughts before I sign off.

there are just way too many unknowns, to many unanswered questions to make sense of it all.

I didn't get  answers to half of my questions even from the ones who were supposed to know a little more than the rest as they simply don't know the truth or are afraid of libel laws. The law firms that charge hundreds of thousands to file claims know even less than their clients or don't reveal much what they know for unknown reasons as It's not very unusual to secretly represent both sides(!)

I suspect this project and all the evidence will slowly be sucked  into a dark hole just for the protection of a few, while many profited and while many lost, no one will know the truth at the end!

 

In a perfect world, there shouldn't be wars, politicians should serve for their people and their country, not for bribes, the police should protect and serve you instead of planting evidence on you, judges should be unbiased and not politicized, governments should be transparent and not secretive but unfortunately this world is just too far from perfect.

 

And neither was this process!... from the beginning to the bitter end...

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by pattayadude

[champa]

8 hours ago, CRUNCHER said:

Thanks.  I didn't the prime minister said so much.

 

As regards S44, as I said I can't see it happening.  To use it to end the project would send the wrong message to foreign investors. To use it to finish the project would upset some sections of Thai society.

 

As to why it was not done right from the start, this is the big question.  Why Bali Hai/Park Plaza didn't apply to vary the permit at the outset beggars belief. I can only believe they were given wrong advise. I used to know someone who worked for Tulip Group and they were under the impression that they could regularize changes when the project was completed.

 

City Hall might not have a legal duty help the developer, but in a civilized country they, under natural justice, would have a responsibility to cooperate and facilitate.  How that plays out in Thailand I do  not know. If you believe Bali Hai, City Hall have not been helpful. City Hall say nothing.  The lack of transparency on the part of City Hall is disgraceful.

 

It was December 2017 that Bali Hai said they were considering legal action. They should have done this a long time ago if they think their position is correct.  This is an unusual if not unique situation. The building was constructed and topped off under an old law, but now they have to apply for a new permit under a new law.  How a court will view that only time will tell.

 

In the meantime the shell will remain, perhaps for 20 years.

 

 

I read the news about prime minister mentioned waterfront here.

 

[champa]

13 hours ago, pattayadude said:

Around mid 2017, Bali Hai claimed that they submitted to the City Hall a proposal to tear down 5 floors to rectify the 5100 sqm overbuild area.

got a simple Yes or No question in 2 parts.

part1)What was the City Hall's reply to Bali Hai's proposal to tear down 5 floors for the 5100 sqm overbuild?If answer is other than Yes or No, what was it?

part2)Has this proposal even been submitted to the City Hall by Bali Hai ever?If Yes, is it true that the City Hall DID NOT reply or simply ignored?

 

Thanks

 

The lasted update from the developer on July 2017 mentioned the updated EIA report. Basically,  PCH required the EIA approval in the documentation for the  modification permit.  Does the developer get the update EIA approval?  I had check on the onep website which provides the information of EIA report which was approved. There is not Waterfront project on the list. Only the information of the original EIA which provides the original construction plan. 

 

On may 11, Pattaya city rejected the building modification application due to incompleteness of certain information and some discrepancies. The developer allow to file a new application. Are you sure that the new application had been submitted after that? 

 

Perhaps the developer is working on EIA report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:15 PM, CRUNCHER said:

Thanks again Champa for detailed posts.

 

Bali Hai will obviously only complete if the project remains viable. The only obvious solution would be to demolish the low block. Not sure what that would do for viability.

 

Bali Hai is already talking about taking legal action.  That could take a few years in a complex case like this.  If they loose there will be bankruptcy; a few more years.  Then there will be demolition.  Heaven knows how long that will take to get done and at what cost and by whom.

 

Unless City Hall want to see the status quo maintained for many many years they need to work with the developer.  Bali Hai claim that City Hall is refusing to meet with them.  If true this is not good enough.

 

Of course cooperation and flexibility is required from Bali Hai.

 

The only other answer is Section 44.  Can't see that happening though.

 

The only obvious solution would be to demolish the low block.

Given the hold up was created by the building being too high, how would that solve anything?

As I said previously, I believe the problem can be resolved by undertaking to ( and actually ) removing enough floors to restore the view from the lookout.

It is in no one's interest to keep a derelict building that still blocks the view, till it falls down. Better to have a lower building finished, even if it's not fully legal.