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

[champa]

 

10 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

Looks like I understand them better than you do at least. Thai culture has never concerned itself that ALL Thais benefit equally from any particular development. It's more of a hierarchical than egalitarian society. Hence the notable lack of zoning and views protection ordinances.

 

And such is capitalism anyway.

 

So without realizing it you've actually agreed with my point--different Thai individuals and different groups DO want different things. And as I said, most Thais don't care one way or the other whether Waterfront was built as intended. I think most would say it should be finished, however, if you called attention to its current state and asked them.

 

 

As newnative points out, it's very much about Thais. Hence this particular issue would not have occurred in a developed Western country. 

 

 

Thais were the ones that looked at the developer's plans for a very high building (for Pattaya) on that site.  Thais were the ones that studied the environmental impact--which should have included any impact to views. Thais were the ones that gave final approval for a highrise to be built there.  If you don't like the building, I think it's pretty clear where the 'blame' lies.  

 

Maybe you forget that the developer of this project is not THAI.Yes, we, thais are the one who approved the EIA and the construction permit. The waterfront issues are complicated. One thing we know that the developer had violated construction permit.  And please be informed that the developer is not THAI. 

There are many highrise building in Pattaya. There are many Thai owned building in Pattaya. And all the buyers of those buildings are HAPPY. 

Don't be worry about we, thai like or dislike waterfront building. No one can stop the construction if the developer stick on the regulation. This is basic logic. 

 

 

[janclaes47]

13 hours ago, newnative said:

      Why should  the developer be blamed?  The developer applied to build a highrise building on that particular, very prominent piece of property.  Thais were the ones that looked at the developer's plans for a very high building (for Pattaya) on that site.  Thais were the ones that studied the environmental impact--which should have included any impact to views. Thais were the ones that gave final approval for a highrise to be built there.  If you don't like the building, I think it's pretty clear where the 'blame' lies.  

Wasn't waterfront initially a project from Raimon land?

 

Anyway, I just found an article from 2002 where the project already was ordered to reduce height.

 

http://www.property-report.com/detail/-/blogs/this-tall-thai-project-has-been-ordered-to-shrink

 

 

But finally it was completed in q4 2016, and all are happy now.

 

https://pattayacondoguide.com/new-condominiums/Waterfront-Suites-Residences-在-Pratumnak,261.html

 

[pattayadude]

3 hours ago, champa said:

One thing we know that the developer had violated construction permit

ok

3 hours ago, champa said:

No one can stop the construction if the developer stick on the regulation

ok

Champa. I believe your view on these 2 important points will bring some transparency on this very complicated issue. In your posts you have been fairly neutral and fact-oriented so far (even though you don't like this project which is ok). I appreciate your fairness and respect your opinion and knowledge on this issue.

So many opinions, speculations, perceptions have been flying all over the place for years on these threads on Waterfront .Anyone can speculate but I honestly believe many(if not all) members still don't know the exact answer to this all-important question. Obviously the City Hall isn't required to make any announcements and Bali Hai Co (right or wrong)are not being too transparent, avoiding fully honest disclosures  or simply they don't know either.

Just so we all understand once and for all,

Where exactly did the developer violate the construction permit, and as you say, didn't stick to the regulations?

Please name those violations one by one if you know.

[champa]

We all know that the project originally permitted for 315 condominium units.How the building has about 100 more rooms? The developer changed the building (physician) without any permission. Some people complained this issue to Pattaya city hall and the office of  natural resources and environment planing. These 2 offices comfirmed that the developer has no hotel. The approved EIA report, all details in the report are what the developer has to stick on. The details in the EIA are the regulations. 

 

The number of the unit (room) is the serious condition. Beside, do you think they built the building stick to the permitted construction plan? How did they make 400 room physical building based on 315 room paper plan? Where was the underground parking area? Why the space of the building is 5000 sqm larger? 

Are you sure that all the concrete poles are on the right position? Former mayor announced in 2014 only 2 issues, the position of elevators and fire exits. It did not mean there are not more issues. Later in 2016 Pattaya city hall found the issues of parking area and the 5000 sqm over space. 

Who know, Pattaya City hall may anoouce more issue or not? Only the developer knows what has been done wrong. 

I told the buyers many times about this serious issue on the number of the room in the building. You can not increase the number of the room without permission. Those who believe they understand Thais well,  confirmed that the developer had right to do so. The lasted update from the developer on December 2016 was they would do the new EIA for hotel. That was before they requested for the rehabilitation on January 2017. 

[newnative]

8 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

Wasn't waterfront initially a project from Raimon land?

 

Anyway, I just found an article from 2002 where the project already was ordered to reduce height.

 

http://www.property-report.com/detail/-/blogs/this-tall-thai-project-has-been-ordered-to-shrink

 

 

But finally it was completed in q4 2016, and all are happy now.

 

https://pattayacondoguide.com/new-condominiums/Waterfront-Suites-Residences-在-Pratumnak,261.html

 

        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. 

[newnative]

2 hours ago, champa said:

We all know that the project originally permitted for 315 condominium units.How the building has about 100 more rooms? The developer changed the building (physician) without any permission. Some people complained this issue to Pattaya city hall and the office of  natural resources and environment planing. These 2 offices comfirmed that the developer has no hotel. The approved EIA report, all details in the report are what the developer has to stick on. The details in the EIA are the regulations. 

 

The number of the unit (room) is the serious condition. Beside, do you think they built the building stick to the permitted construction plan? How did they make 400 room physical building based on 315 room paper plan? Where was the underground parking area? Why the space of the building is 5000 sqm larger? 

Are you sure that all the concrete poles are on the right position? Former mayor announced in 2014 only 2 issues, the position of elevators and fire exits. It did not mean there are not more issues. Later in 2016 Pattaya city hall found the issues of parking area and the 5000 sqm over space. 

Who know, Pattaya City hall may anoouce more issue or not? Only the developer knows what has been done wrong. 

I told the buyers many times about this serious issue on the number of the room in the building. You can not increase the number of the room without permission. Those who believe they understand Thais well,  confirmed that the developer had right to do so. The lasted update from the developer on December 2016 was they would do the new EIA for hotel. That was before they requested for the rehabilitation on January 2017. 

      What has me puzzled is the 5000sqm overbuild figure--everything else is pretty minor.  Most old articles, news blurbs, website info., and so on that I could find from the original construction start years ago said that around 300 condos and around 100 hotel rooms would be built, with some of the figures varying a little.  Waterfront's website lists 300 and 120.  I think the only way the developer could have a 5000sqm overbuild would be for the entire hotel component to be disallowed--120 units. Even if Waterfront built a few too many floors, you couldn't get 120 units in the extra floors at the very narrow top of the tower part. 

     120 hotel rooms at around 41sqm each would be around 5000sqm.   Would the developer build that many unauthorized rooms?   The news articles from the time trumpeted that a famous hotel group would be managing the hotel component.  It was seen at the time to be a big deal for Pattaya.   Wouldn't someone, or some agency, at some point before or during the construction, say wait a minute, you don't have approval for the hotel rooms?  Something doesn't seem to add up.

 

[pattayadude]

4 minutes ago, newnative said:

Would the developer build that many unauthorized rooms?

stop right there as you are onto something!

but that's a 2 billion baht question nobody seem to know the answer of.isn't it!

and probably will never know...

[pattayadude]

  "was the developer allowed to build that many unauthorized rooms? " would be the next!

[Gunna]

My understanding is that origionally it was permitted to build 315 condo rooms,

 

But when the developer decided to change the smaller side to a hotel, the rooms didn't need to be so big, eg no kitchen and no 2 bedroom. hence the increase in rooms with the same floor area  

 

The change from condos to hotel may have been caused by a slow down in condo sales.

Does anyone know of a purchaser who had his condo moved from one side to the other to allow for the hotel. 

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, CRUNCHER said:

Demolishing Waterfront in the next 10 to 20 years is not a viable option.  Who is going to do it?  Who is going to pay?

 

You don,t have to go to Bangkok for examples; where there are many.  In Pattaya you only have to look at Batman Nightclub/Disco.

 

City Hall cannot demolish a small hotel in Soi VC. In Bangkok the BMA estimated that it would cost 200 million baht to demolish a smaller building (forget the name).

 

If Bali Hai goes bankrupt this will crawl through the courts for 10 years plus another 10 years to get the shell demolished. If Bali Hai is bankrupt they will not have the money to pay. If the bank ends up owning the land they will not do it; they never do.

 

Whether you like Waterfront or not we are where we are. There are only two ways forward:-

1. Finish the building.  It will at least look better than it does now
2. Leave in its present state for the next 10 to 20 years.

I agree, but permission could be granted to complete it as long as enough levels were removed to restore the view.

Surely something is better than nothing?

 

Otherwise, I regret I will not still be around to see it collapse from deterioration sometime in the distant future.

 

I think people should get more imaginative. The city should sieze the building and use it to run a zip line attraction from the top, as they do from the high building in Jomptien.

As long as it wasn't used as a residence it would be better than nothing, and a restaurant at the top would be popular. Any profit used to tidy the site and paint the building, so it's not so much of an eyesore. 

[CRUNCHER]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree, but permission could be granted to complete it as long as enough levels were removed to restore the view.

Surely something is better than nothing?

 

Otherwise, I regret I will not still be around to see it collapse from deterioration sometime in the distant future.

 

I think people should get more imaginative. The city should sieze the building and use it to run a zip line attraction from the top, as they do from the high building in Jomptien.

As long as it wasn't used as a residence it would be better than nothing, and a restaurant at the top would be popular. Any profit used to tidy the site and paint the building, so it's not so much of an eyesore. 

Even with a "zip line" or restaurant the effect on the view would be the same.  It is only an eyesore because it is not finished.  It is not imagination that is required, but a will to get the construction completed.

 

"As long as it wasn't used as a residence..." - it seems your real beef is that you do not want any one to enjoy living in a quality building with good sea views.  Are you jealous?

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, CRUNCHER said:

Even with a "zip line" or restaurant the effect on the view would be the same.  It is only an eyesore because it is not finished.  It is not imagination that is required, but a will to get the construction completed.

 

"As long as it wasn't used as a residence..." - it seems your real beef is that you do not want any one to enjoy living in a quality building with good sea views.  Are you jealous?

No, I just don't want the building to be there at all, and I'm not the sort of antisocial person that would ever live in it.

So, no, I don't want anyone to live in it.

I'd like it to be demolished, but as that's not going to happen, might as well use it for something and make some money off it, as long as it's not the developers.

 

I hope the building never gets finished, even if it's 100 years before it falls down. Wouldn't be the only one either. There is the even larger ghost building near the Chayao Phya in Bkk.

As long as it's standing, it's a warning to other wannabe environmental destroyers to be careful where they build.

Edited January 22, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[champa]

The permitted constrion plan is based on the blue print. Basically the developer should build the building base on the blueprint. 

 

The importants of the blueprint are safety and regulation reasons. 

 

In thailand, EIA is about the environmental impact management. In the EIA report , there is statement, and contains a detailed plan for managing and monitoring environmental impacts both during and after implementation. This is why the number of the units(room) are serious condition. Because the number of the residents are based on the number of the units. The more residents, the more pollution effects. 

 

The developer would like to have more unit in the building. They have to enpand all facilities such as parking area,rubbish, wastewater treatment, elevators, fire exits and etc. 

 

[maxpower]

Dropped some stuff off in Banglamung's Sin City today and took another peek at the delightful Waterfront. Even in its current state the building blends in quite well with Pattaya's not quite finished atmosphere. Very intrusive from rear high ground; but when you pan around the area its really just a big version of the poorly planned surroundings.

 

As for demolition, I'm sure a few well timed explosions would easily drop it on the sea front where some of the crap could go towards a little seaside reclaim and larger port area.

[CRUNCHER]

6 hours ago, champa said:

The permitted constrion plan is based on the blue print. Basically the developer should build the building base on the blueprint. 

 

The importants of the blueprint are safety and regulation reasons. 

 

In thailand, EIA is about the environmental impact management. In the EIA report , there is statement, and contains a detailed plan for managing and monitoring environmental impacts both during and after implementation. This is why the number of the units(room) are serious condition. Because the number of the residents are based on the number of the units. The more residents, the more pollution effects. 

 

The developer would like to have more unit in the building. They have to enpand all facilities such as parking area,rubbish, wastewater treatment, elevators, fire exits and etc. 

 

Thank you Champa for a helpful and logical explanation.

 

You seem to know more than any one else on this thread about such things, including me.  Do you happen to know at what stages City Hall should have checked the construction. In my country once a building has reached certain points the builder/developer cannot proceed further until the building inspector has signed off that construction is being done in accordance with plans and regulations. Does this apply in Thailand.

 

The reason I ask is that, no matter that the developer has done wrong (and he has) it took City Hall two years, when the building was topped off, to find that construction had been done contrary to the permit.  In this time buyers put a lot of money into the project. It would seem that City Hall has done little to help people who bring money into Thailand to invest in Pattaya. Not to mention Thai citizens who invested in the project.

 

In short, has City Hall failed in its responsibilities?

Edited January 22, 2018 by CRUNCHER

[newnative]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No, I just don't want the building to be there at all, and I'm not the sort of antisocial person that would ever live in it.

So, no, I don't want anyone to live in it.

I'd like it to be demolished, but as that's not going to happen, might as well use it for something and make some money off it, as long as it's not the developers.

 

I hope the building never gets finished, even if it's 100 years before it falls down. Wouldn't be the only one either. There is the even larger ghost building near the Chayao Phya in Bkk.

As long as it's standing, it's a warning to other wannabe environmental destroyers to be careful where they build.

    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. 

[maxpower]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

    Who would want a 50 story building in the most prominent spot in Pattaya to stand abandoned for 100 years?

Those without financial interest.

[Destiny1990]

1 hour ago, 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. 

But nothing is really finished at Bali Hai.

I think it blends in perfectly with the rest of the crap.

[maxpower]

20 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

But nothing is really finished at Bali Hai.

I think it blends in perfectly with the rest of the crap.

Hey its not so bad, a 400 M stroll and you are among some of the worlds finest steak houses.

[pegman]

1 hour ago, maxpower said:

Hey its not so bad, a 400 M stroll and you are among some of the worlds finest steak houses.

Name some?

[champa]

5 hours ago, CRUNCHER said:

Thank you Champa for a helpful and logical explanation.

 

You seem to know more than any one else on this thread about such things, including me.  Do you happen to know at what stages City Hall should have checked the construction. In my country once a building has reached certain points the builder/developer cannot proceed further until the building inspector has signed off that construction is being done in accordance with plans and regulations. Does this apply in Thailand.

 

The reason I ask is that, no matter that the developer has done wrong (and he has) it took City Hall two years, when the building was topped off, to find that construction had been done contrary to the permit.  In this time buyers put a lot of money into the project. It would seem that City Hall has done little to help people who bring money into Thailand to invest in Pattaya. Not to mention Thai citizens who invested in the project.

In short, has City Hall failed in its responsibilities?

 

In Thailand, Pattaya city do not check any construction if there is not complaint. 

For a house, small commercial building or village, there is the developer responsibility to check the construction. There is a regulation, every construction should has its own civil engineer who has license  for Professional Practice. The professional engineer inspectes the construction. The professional engineer will sign on construction permit and the blueprint. 

 

Once you get the construction permit for small building, it is your responsibility to build base on blueprint. Pattaya city will keep the blueprint to check the building if someone complain the building.

 

Basically the construction permit has the period. Some project does not finish in the period. The developer has to renewal the permit. In this case, Pattaya city will inspect the construction. Former mayer claimed that the developer requested the construction permit renewal then Pattaya city inspected the construction and found that the developer violenced  the construction code. The mayor order the suspension of the construction.

 

In case of public building such as entertainment venue, hotel, condominium, school ,department store, shopping plaza, cinema or theater. Pattaya city will issue the building opening certificate. Pattaya city must inspect the finished building for certificate issurance.

 

The professional engineer and Pattaya city will take the responsibility of the public building. For example, in case of fire, if someone dead because of unstandard of fire exit. The professional engineer and Pattaya city are both guilties. 

 

[newnative]

6 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

But nothing is really finished at Bali Hai.

I think it blends in perfectly with the rest of the crap.

     It's not finished, you're right, but at least the last time I was down there they were working on it. 

[CRUNCHER]

5 hours ago, champa said:

 

In Thailand, Pattaya city do not check any construction if there is not complaint. 

For a house, small commercial building or village, there is the developer responsibility to check the construction. There is a regulation, every construction should has its own civil engineer who has license  for Professional Practice. The professional engineer inspectes the construction. The professional engineer will sign on construction permit and the blueprint. 

 

Once you get the construction permit for small building, it is your responsibility to build base on blueprint. Pattaya city will keep the blueprint to check the building if someone complain the building.

 

Basically the construction permit has the period. Some project does not finish in the period. The developer has to renewal the permit. In this case, Pattaya city will inspect the construction. Former mayer claimed that the developer requested the construction permit renewal then Pattaya city inspected the construction and found that the developer violenced  the construction code. The mayor order the suspension of the construction.

 

In case of public building such as entertainment venue, hotel, condominium, school ,department store, shopping plaza, cinema or theater. Pattaya city will issue the building opening certificate. Pattaya city must inspect the finished building for certificate issurance.

 

The professional engineer and Pattaya city will take the responsibility of the public building. For example, in case of fire, if someone dead because of unstandard of fire exit. The professional engineer and Pattaya city are both guilties. 

 

Thank you Champa for the comprehensive reply.  I appreciate it.

 

The mess that Waterfront is now in clearly shows that Thailand needs to look at its construction laws and procedures. It is sad for the buyers and sad for the people of Pattaya who face the prospect of looking at this shell for the next 10 to 20 years.

[pattayadude]

6 hours ago, champa said:

The mayor order the suspension of the construction

Champa, Waterfront construction was stopped because of the fallout(result) of the demonstrations in August of 2014, and even you agreed to this in one of your previous posts.The ex-mayor may have suspended  it but he would not have done so if it wasn't for the complaint of a group of lawyers who also were among the demonstrators and opposers of this project.

As you stated in your post, the City Hall apparently is not responsible with building inspections during the construction and unless there is a complaint, an ongoing construction will not be stopped and/or inspected by the City Hall.

This is where the problem is with the current system!!!

If you leave this important public responsibility to a developer, it will be very open to abuse, corruption, mistakes,accidents, deaths and even catastrophes...

For example, a one hour mandated inspection every 10 floors paid by a developer would discourage violators and catch violations before it's too late.

Look what we have in our hands now!

A concrete monster good for nothing, can't be used or enjoyed by many and  can't be gotten rid of before due process( fair treatment through the normal judicial system), occupying a good portion of the snapshots of millions of tourists, Billions wasted, people are divided, it has caused so much inconvenience and constant complaints in social media that it's awkward and blocking public's view.

 

all because it wasn't inspected a few hours in total by authorities!

 

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by pattayadude

[pattayadude]

Nothing can change the fact that this construction of a 50 floor building   WAS APPROVED and ALLOWED to be built by the City Hall between approx. 2008-2014, unless someone can convince me that during that period the entire City Hall was taken hostage at gunpoint while this project was forcefully built to its entirety...

Champa . You seem to be concentrated too much on how the 50 floor building ended up with 415 rooms or divisions (some 100+illegally) instead of 315 divisions developer was permitted to build.

You seem to forget that the demonstrations were about how a 50 floor building was allowed there and not how it was divided within.They couldn't care less if it was divided to 888 or 8.

The City Hall seems to be concentrated on technicalities and illegalities within 50 floor building and NOT the actual 50 floors which they allowed and the public is not interested the illegalities within the building  but the view-blocking of the entire 50floors.

You see how step by step I connected the City Hall to this mess, responsible for allowing a height of 150m which was the reason people flocked the streets.

This is so messy that 10 year litigation would be a conservative estimate.

It cost so much and reputation can be so badly tarnished that the developer won't give it up without a legal nuclear war.

I would not be surprised if some of the buyers are already considering to ALSO sue the City Hall at the end which  inadvertently could  cost the taxpayers  billions.

Edited January 23, 2018 by pattayadude

[pegman]

50 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

Nothing can change the fact that this construction of a 50 floor building   WAS APPROVED and ALLOWED to be built by the City Hall between approx. 2008-2014, unless someone can convince me that during that period the entire City Hall was taken hostage at gunpoint while this project was forcefully built to its entirety...

Champa . You seem to be concentrated too much on how the 50 floor building ended up with 415 rooms or divisions (some 100+illegally) instead of 315 divisions developer was permitted to build.

You seem to forget that the demonstrations were about how a 50 floor building was allowed there and not how it was divided within.They couldn't care less if it was divided to 888 or 8.

The City Hall seems to be concentrated on technicalities and illegalities within 50 floor building and NOT the actual 50 floors which they allowed and the public is not interested the illegalities within the building  but the view-blocking of the entire 50floors.

You see how step by step I connected the City Hall to this mess, responsible for allowing a height of 150m which was the reason people flocked the streets.

This is so messy that 10 year litigation would be a conservative estimate.

It cost so much and reputation can be so badly tarnished that the developer won't give it up without a legal nuclear war.

I would not be surprised if some of the buyers are already considering to ALSO sue the City Hall at the end which  inadvertently could  cost the taxpayers  billions.

If you think what appears on the surface is what is actually happening in Thailand you must be smoking some of Columbia's finest. Demonstrating lawyers don't have much sway with a mafia run city hall. Here is the wiki on the ex-mayor's father. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somchai_Khunpluem

All bets were then off though when the jaunta too over. Anybody that thinks they know what truly went on with this building can think again. 

[pattayadude]

1 hour ago, pegman said:

If you think what appears on the surface is what is actually happening in Thailand you must be smoking some of Columbia's finest. Demonstrating lawyers don't have much sway with a mafia run city hall. Here is the wiki on the ex-mayor's father. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somchai_Khunpluem

All bets were then off though when the jaunta too over. Anybody that thinks they know what truly went on with this building can think again. 

Hmmm..the rules of the jungle...huh!

if you're suggesting lawlessness is the norm in the country, then nobody should question the legality of the Waterfront.

We might as well close these forums and not even waste time on concepts such as right, wrong, legal and illegal.

 

 

[pattayadude]

Just now, pattayadude said:

you must be smoking some of Columbia's finest

The last I checked, they don't produce weed in the University of Columbia..but they do in Colombia, the country and I don't smoke.

How is that medical marijuana working for ya?...

[hstew]

2 hours ago, pegman said:

If you think what appears on the surface is what is actually happening in Thailand you must be smoking some of Columbia's finest. Demonstrating lawyers don't have much sway with a mafia run city hall. Here is the wiki on the ex-mayor's father. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somchai_Khunpluem

All bets were then off though when the jaunta too over. Anybody that thinks they know what truly went on with this building can think again. 

It's Colombia, unless you are referring to Br. Columbia, where, yes, the best MJ is now produced. Get your facts straight. Case closed.

[newnative]

7 hours ago, pattayadude said:

Nothing can change the fact that this construction of a 50 floor building   WAS APPROVED and ALLOWED to be built by the City Hall between approx. 2008-2014, unless someone can convince me that during that period the entire City Hall was taken hostage at gunpoint while this project was forcefully built to its entirety...

Champa . You seem to be concentrated too much on how the 50 floor building ended up with 415 rooms or divisions (some 100+illegally) instead of 315 divisions developer was permitted to build.

You seem to forget that the demonstrations were about how a 50 floor building was allowed there and not how it was divided within.They couldn't care less if it was divided to 888 or 8.

The City Hall seems to be concentrated on technicalities and illegalities within 50 floor building and NOT the actual 50 floors which they allowed and the public is not interested the illegalities within the building  but the view-blocking of the entire 50floors.

You see how step by step I connected the City Hall to this mess, responsible for allowing a height of 150m which was the reason people flocked the streets.

This is so messy that 10 year litigation would be a conservative estimate.

It cost so much and reputation can be so badly tarnished that the developer won't give it up without a legal nuclear war.

I would not be surprised if some of the buyers are already considering to ALSO sue the City Hall at the end which  inadvertently could  cost the taxpayers  billions.

       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.