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

[Destiny1990]

49 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

Cancel the ridiculous and failed mafia boat marina project and move it elsewhere and just fill the seafront by importing sand and rocks and create an area for casinos, restaurants and park-like landscaping will add more green.. Just like they did in Manila, The City of Dreams, the luxury resort and casino complex.

But this may be too far fetched for natives who love to oppose to almost anything.

Why would they fill up some sea area to create land to build casinos and hotels while there are more then enought suitable land plots vacant and ready to build now ? Besides that from what i learned its costs billions to fill it up and surely never a structure can be built on it.

u dont need a downtown  location for a Casino. Once its built then people will come even if its in Najomtien for example.

But needs to be a complex Casino, theatre, cinema, hotels, restaurants, entertainment. Now Cambodia gets all that action.

[pattayadude]

7 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Besides that from what i learned its costs billions to fill it up and surely never a structure can be built on it.

casino revenues will justify and surpass the numbers spent in a few years.

Dubai has done it. I believe Waterfront sits on what used to be a sandy beach

 

[pattayadude]

17 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Once its built then people will come even if its in Najomtien

sure but Jomtien isn't considered part of Pattaya beach. Besides you don't wanna mess up with a quiet area such as jomtien and turn it into another "Pattaya"

[Destiny1990]

31 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

sure but Jomtien isn't considered part of Pattaya beach. Besides you don't wanna mess up with a quiet area such as jomtien and turn it into another "Pattaya"

So why will a casino only substain if its part of a Pattaya beach?

Even if they Built the complex on the dark side across Shukumvit the touring busses full with Chines will still come.

Something else Casinos are still illegal in Thailand but those folks putting money down for Waterfront were gamblers without entering a casino.

[pattayadude]

51 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

So why will a casino only substain if its part of a Pattaya beach?

Even if they Built the complex on the dark side across Shukumvit the touring busses full with Chines will still come.

Something else Casinos are still illegal in Thailand but those folks putting money down for Waterfront were gamblers without entering a casino.

investments are always risky. So is Sex or Marriage or Pregnancy or number of things we do daily ,weekly or yearly.

Those who put money in project did gamble and will probably loose part or all of it or maybe won't at all. But if they lose it's their problem and no one's business

The structure is still there and it ain't over as the fat lady hasn't sung yet. I can make a guess on a few reasons why it's still there and will probably never be demolished entirely but mentioning them here will not be wise or accurate.

I have mentioned here before that I want it either completed or demolished but not left as an unfinished ghost

Edited April 2, 2019 by pattayadude

[jacko45k]

15 hours ago, newnative said:

Totally ridiculous it has sat there unfinished since August 2014 on the most prominent spot in Pattaya and nobody in power so far has had the cojones to either order it finished or torn down.

Or the money it will cost to do either. If it breaks the rules, it needs to be torn down at someone's expense and that should be the developer who likely would declare bankruptcy and pop up with a new name somewhere. Bit of a mess isn't it. 

[pattayadude]

6 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

the developer who likely would declare bankruptcy

did

[pattayadude]

1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

Or the money it will cost to do either. If it breaks the rules, it needs to be torn down at someone's expense and that should be the developer who likely would declare bankruptcy and pop up with a new name somewhere. Bit of a mess isn't it. 

demolition of a high rise such as this is extremely complicated, dangerous and not cheap.Manuel demolition of  it by tearing it down floor by floor is more expensive than building it and probably an environmental nightmare.

I am not an expert but dynamiting might be the only reasonable and less expensive way  but its feasibility is a major question because of its proximity to other buildings and the danger it can pose to the hill itself and structures(!) above.

The City which  built that cheap floating marina(Somali has better marinas) only because they couldn't afford to build a proper one, now has to foot this bill as developers have filed bankruptcy.

That's like asking an ant to carry a loaf of bread

It is a mess

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by pattayadude

[Rimmer]

Some speculative posts and replies have been removed:

 

1) You will not express disrespect of the King of Thailand or any one member of the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution.

By law, the Thai Royal Family are above politics. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.

To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

Linking to external sites which break these rules will be treated as if you yourself posted them.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Why would they fill up some sea area to create land to build casinos and hotels while there are more then enought suitable land plots vacant and ready to build now ? Besides that from what i learned its costs billions to fill it up and surely never a structure can be built on it.

u dont need a downtown  location for a Casino. Once its built then people will come even if its in Najomtien for example.

But needs to be a complex Casino, theatre, cinema, hotels, restaurants, entertainment. Now Cambodia gets all that action.

Besides that from what i learned its costs billions to fill it up and surely never a structure can be built on it.

LOL.

The Singaporeans have built thousands of structures on reclaimed land.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Or the money it will cost to do either. If it breaks the rules, it needs to be torn down at someone's expense and that should be the developer who likely would declare bankruptcy and pop up with a new name somewhere. Bit of a mess isn't it. 

Doesn't need to be completely demolished. Only the part that blocks the view point needs to be, but that would take compromise, so...……………………….?

[newnative]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't need to be completely demolished. Only the part that blocks the view point needs to be, but that would take compromise, so...……………………….?

Yes, whatever happened to compromise...

[pattayadude]

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't need to be completely demolished. Only the part that blocks the view point needs to be, but that would take compromise, so...……………………….?

(All my comments below are assumptions and not based on facts)

That's a compromise of 20 floors and I doubt that is financially feasible for the bank to agree. Now that developer is out of the picture, the bank which financed this construction probably owns it and they are probably already at a great loss.

Next, I guess the bank will try to sell the unfinished project  to another developer to minimize its losses and has to guarantee the new buyer that if they remove so many floors off the top (a number of floors the City and Bank has agreed to in order to issue a new construction permit), the City will approve the construction and allow its completion..If it is also GUARANTEED by Thai gov.!

 

Let's not forget that this Int'l bank can also sue the Thai gov.( I will not get into the details) for allowing it to be built to this height.

So both sides need to compromise to make this happen IMO!

 

For those who always comment to "blow it up" or "dynamite it" or "use explosives to demolish", it may sound funny and amusing but

that will only happen in a banana republic.

There is TOO MUCH money involved and other sort of "involvements" too so forget it.

It's not that simple.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by pattayadude

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Kim J said:

Although completely correct, that is a futile comparison. Any such project in Singapore will have been the subject of in depth thought and planning and decent standards of construction. Quite the reverse will be the case here where personal financial gain is most likely the ultimate driving force behind all aspects of any development.

Sadly you are correct. A city that builds a marina that collapses before it's even opened, a high tech car park that has never opened, a pier that is falling apart, can't keep the beach from washing away, can't stop flooding if a light shower occurs, can't manage the roads properly etc etc etc would be unlikely to manage a reclamation project.

Oh Pattaya, the once upon a time fun city; I weep for you.

[pattayadude]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sadly you are correct. A city that builds a marina that collapses before it's even opened, a high tech car park that has never opened, a pier that is falling apart, can't keep the beach from washing away, can't stop flooding if a light shower occurs, can't manage the roads properly etc etc etc would be unlikely to manage a reclamation project.

Oh Pattaya, the once upon a time fun city; I weep for you.

both of you are right on

 

[JustAnotherHun]

Don't tear down this impressive landmark of a world class family resort.

The "waterfront" will be for Pattaya what the statue of Liberty is for New York.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Don't tear down this impressive landmark of a world class family resort.

The "waterfront" will be for Pattaya what the statue of Liberty is for New York.

You forget the lookout park behind it, which is why it's not occupied right now. As long as the park is blocked by the building, it will have to be demolished, in part, or entirely, eventually.

[dddave]

On 7/4/2017 at 4:47 PM, newnative said:

Finish it or tear it down--just don't leave it how it is.  This has been dragging on way too long now.

Talk about dragging on; have you ever noticed the "Bang Pa Khong" townhouse/marina development just of the highway halfway between Bangkok and Pattaya.  90% completed in 1997, still maintained but unoccupied 25 years later.  The complexities of this must be amazing.

[Destiny1990]

This case is somewhere sitting  in court making all kind of law firms very rich various parties filing claims against eachother it could take decades for a solution. the fact that it is higher as was allowed is further complicating the issue. 

[pattayadude]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You forget the lookout park behind it, which is why it's not occupied right now. As long as the park is blocked by the building

hahaha  that's the most preposterous assumption I ever heard.

are you suggesting that tourists and visitors from i.e. China or Russia (who never been to Pattaya before) are refusing to go up to the lookout point because a view that they actually never seen before is now blocked by a building unfortunately. And they know that!? so they decide not to go up as it won't be worth it

And that's why the lookout point is not occupied right now????!(Damn, I never thought of this) .Thats was a good one bro!????

[newnative]

10 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

This case is somewhere sitting  in court making all kind of law firms very rich various parties filing claims against eachother it could take decades for a solution. the fact that it is higher as was allowed is further complicating the issue. 

    The last I heard was it was fatter than allowed, not taller than allowed.

[pattayadude]

On 7/4/2017 at 5:47 PM, newnative said:

Finish it or tear it down--just don't leave it how it is.

I wonder if the people responsible for the stoppage are proud and aware that they dedicated this unfinished monster to their beloved city?!

[newnative]

9 hours ago, pattayadude said:

I wonder if the people responsible for the stoppage are proud and aware that they dedicated this unfinished monster to their beloved city?!

     The adage 'be careful what you wish for' comes to mind.