Just now, pattayadude said:

How 'bout now?

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 10:38 AM, newnative said:

    It might bear remembering that the Eiffel Tower was initially disliked by many when it was first constructed, as was the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco, the AT&T Building in NY, among others.  With its architecture and location, I agree with you that Waterfront is Pattaya's Eiffel Tower.   And, if it is ever finished, it will in time be accepted, appreciated, celebrated. 

The Eiffel tower wasn't illegally constructed.

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Eiffel tower wasn't illegally constructed.

are you suggesting that Waterfront developers  secretly and quietly constructed and topped off  a 50-floor mega-structure next to the Pattaya sign without a permit?

 

9 hours ago, pattayadude said:

 

What is your point?

You are ignoring the fact that the actual road that is in front of the building hasn't had it's width changed

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Eiffel tower wasn't illegally constructed.

    It's debatable whether anything illegal was done.  The construction was initially stopped due to a noisy protest over the height of the building blocking views from the mountain.  (Nothing to do with it being too close to the water.)  Once construction was stopped, the city had to find something to justify halting construction, whether legitimate or not.  Had there been no protest, the building would have been finished on time. 

54 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

What is your point?

You are ignoring the fact that the actual road that is in front of the building hasn't had it's width changed

We aren't talking about some road width here, whether its too wide or not wide enough.

The main topic here is whether this building was built illegally or not.

 

I did not measure the road and I seriously doubt that you did. But the first photo is  fairly recent and you can clearly see the width has changed compared to the 2nd photo taken about 4+ years ago.

And regarding my point (and I know where you're heading with your question), I don't necessarily have to have one and I actually couldn't  care less if this thing gets built or not. But I do have a hidden point and it's  about an injustice done to this developer by the City Hall that is not transparent with its investigation, haven't made its reports public,very sneaky, secretive and extremely quiet for questionable reasons that started stinking to high heavens.

if this thing was allowed to be built all the way to the top, don't you think it took TWO to make it happen?!?!

And if it was illegally built, then  someone intentionally looked away while it was being built.

I don't accept that  colossal bridges, buildings, overpasses, tunnels don't get inspected during construction. That's bs!

 

That's what I'm talking about, otherwise who cares if the road is narrow or wide..

1 hour ago, pattayadude said:

We aren't talking about some road width here, whether its too wide or not wide enough.

The main topic here is whether this building was built illegally or not.

 

I did not measure the road and I seriously doubt that you did. But the first photo is  fairly recent and you can clearly see the width has changed compared to the 2nd photo taken about 4+ years ago.

And regarding my point (and I know where you're heading with your question), I don't necessarily have to have one and I actually couldn't  care less if this thing gets built or not. But I do have a hidden point and it's  about an injustice done to this developer by the City Hall that is not transparent with its investigation, haven't made its reports public,very sneaky, secretive and extremely quiet for questionable reasons that started stinking to high heavens.

if this thing was allowed to be built all the way to the top, don't you think it took TWO to make it happen?!?!

And if it was illegally built, then  someone intentionally looked away while it was being built.

I don't accept that  colossal bridges, buildings, overpasses, tunnels don't get inspected during construction. That's bs!

 

That's what I'm talking about, otherwise who cares if the road is narrow or wide..

 

Actually it is you, in posts #52 & #82 who brought up the subject of the road being widened. In fact you bumped the old thread in order to post it.

Now you are suggesting that it isn't what you are talking about. (?)

 

So why revive the thread with that particular anecdote and then repeat it?

Road width is the same....

Why non of those condo buyers in that building come  here online to explain what its all about.

6 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

Road width is the same....

You stick to your belief and I will to mine.How's that...

3 hours ago, pattayadude said:

You stick to your belief and I will to mine.How's that...

     You can both stick to your beliefs because the road width has nothing to do with the condo's construction being held up.

2 hours ago, newnative said:

     You can both stick to your beliefs because the road width has nothing to do with the condo's construction being held up.

"road width in relation to allowable height of a building" was the excuse the City had to throw in to justify the stoppage after the public outcry. Nobody knows who are the powerful people  opposing this project and are actually  behind this stoppage, but I can run a wild guess and be right. It's pretty obvious.

I was only suggesting that the developer may use the road widening a form of argument to fight this in courts.It's just an opinion and I am entitled to it in a forum such as this.I don't care if they do or not.

I don't even care if a group of "treehuggers" opposing this project come together and blow it up.

Most of them don't even know where the lookout is or haven't been there in ages.LOL

45 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

"road width in relation to allowable height of a building" was the excuse the City had to throw in to justify the stoppage after the public outcry. Nobody knows who are the powerful people  opposing this project and are actually  behind this stoppage, but I can run a wild guess and be right. It's pretty obvious.

I was only suggesting that the developer may use the road widening a form of argument to fight this in courts.It's just an opinion and I am entitled to it in a forum such as this.I don't care if they do or not.

I don't even care if a group of "treehuggers" opposing this project come together and blow it up.

Most of them don't even know where the lookout is or haven't been there in ages.LOL

Road width was only 1 of the excuses, no? There was also issues with the 'incorrect' number of elevators also being cited at the time.

 

The issue of proximity to the shore line as-surveyed has probably been discussed and resolved earlier in the thread. When the site was cleared in 2009 a few years before actual construction began, the boat park/bus park/navy show ground out the front was already there, exactly as it is now, ~105 m from water edge to the foot of the building. I recall that that critical measurement was part of the failed View Talay Jomtien p!ssing contest several years ago but got mired in debate about where one measured the water's edge with regard to tides. Mean sea level (MSL) which is globally acknowledged, industry-standard point of reference versus some notional, farcical measurement by eyeball at noon on the 2nd day of Okh Phansa invented by lawyers whose clients had deeper pockets and thus was accepted in court.

26 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Road width was only 1 of the excuses, no? There was also issues with the 'incorrect' number of elevators also being cited at the time.

 

The issue of proximity to the shore line as-surveyed has probably been discussed and resolved earlier in the thread. When the site was cleared in 2009 a few years before actual construction began, the boat park/bus park/navy show ground out the front was already there, exactly as it is now, ~105 m from water edge to the foot of the building. I recall that that critical measurement was part of the failed View Talay Jomtien p!ssing contest several years ago but got mired in debate about where one measured the water's edge with regard to tides. Mean sea level (MSL) which is globally acknowledged, industry-standard point of reference versus some notional, farcical measurement by eyeball at noon on the 2nd day of Okh Phansa invented by lawyers whose clients had deeper pockets and thus was accepted in court.

 

So what is the latest regarding having to demolish 5000 sqm?

38 minutes ago, midas said:

 

So what is the latest regarding having to demolish 5000 sqm?

a recent update to buyers and investors apparently states that the developer has been ordered to partially  demolish  parts of the building.Details of this order not been revealed by the developer in their update but "partial demolition" is the key word in the update and it's obviously vague.

As far as the 5000sqm overbuilt area:

demolition of 5 floors had been proposed by the developer some time ago as a remedy to fix this issue  but according to my calculations, 5 floors equals to an area of only 2000-2500 sqm and I guess the City Hall got pissed off and replied to this proposal with a partial demolition order.

 

25 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

a recent update to buyers and investors apparently states that the developer has been ordered to partially  demolish  parts of the building.Details of this order not been revealed by the developer in their update but "partial demolition" is the key word in the update and it's obviously vague.

As far as the 5000sqm overbuilt area:

demolition of 5 floors had been proposed by the developer some time ago as a remedy to fix this issue  but according to my calculations, 5 floors equals to an area of only 2000-2500 sqm and I guess the City Hall got pissed off and replied to this proposal with a partial demolition order.

 

but partial demolition of any amount of floor area is no mean feat at that height and will surely test their  strategic and logistical skills

18 minutes ago, midas said:

but partial demolition of any amount of floor area is no mean feat at that height and will surely test their  strategic and logistical skills

 Obviously it's not done with a sledgehammer and some elbow grease.An experienced demolition crew can handle it within a few months with the right machinery and a  good crane to lower the debris.

The top 5-10 floors are slimmer than the floors below. I think they are just single penthouses and 2 units on each floor only.

3 hours ago, pattayadude said:

"road width in relation to allowable height of a building" was the excuse the City had to throw in to justify the stoppage after the public outcry. Nobody knows who are the powerful people  opposing this project and are actually  behind this stoppage, but I can run a wild guess and be right. It's pretty obvious.

I was only suggesting that the developer may use the road widening a form of argument to fight this in courts.It's just an opinion and I am entitled to it in a forum such as this.I don't care if they do or not.

I don't even care if a group of "treehuggers" opposing this project come together and blow it up.

Most of them don't even know where the lookout is or haven't been there in ages.LOL

 

 

They can't use it as an argument, as the road hasn't been widened.

Have you actually visited the site recently? If not, that brings a certain irony to your comments regarding people who haven't visited the lookout recently.

 

Now that you have bumped the thread based of misinformation, you are just repeating the same conspiracy theories that you did before. What's the point of that?

 

 

6 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

 

They can't use it as an argument, as the road hasn't been widened.

Have you actually visited the site recently? If not, that brings a certain irony to your comments regarding people who haven't visited the lookout recently.

 

Now that you have bumped the thread based of misinformation, you are just repeating the same conspiracy theories that you did before. What's the point of that?

 

 

what is your problem with this project? what is the real reason why you oppose it, if you do?.

Does it bother you that it's next to the Pattaya sign? Is it built  too high and blocking your view?

Do you wish you owned a piece of it if you could afford it?

answer these and I will post proof on road widening.

"Misinformation" is your opinion, has no base and you need to prove that I am misinforming followers of less than 5 people on this topic.

Better you look for a daytime job as retirement may have become too boring for you and you looking in forums to mock people instead of offering a new information on important topics

 

this topic is getting too old, has very little followers and the process is not transparent enough to offer followers new information and the court process will be too slow and will take years. I will not quote or post any more on this topic as i am losing interest in it and honestly can't deal with some people's jealousy and hostility on this project  and the grumpiness of a few.

20 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

what is your problem with this project? what is the real reason why you oppose it, if you do?.

Does it bother you that it's next to the Pattaya sign? Is it built  too high and blocking your view?

Do you wish you owned a piece of it if you could afford it?

answer these and I will post proof on road widening.

"Misinformation" is your opinion, has no base and you need to prove that I am misinforming followers of less than 5 people on this topic.

Better you look for a daytime job as retirement may have become too boring for you and you looking in forums to mock people instead of offering a new information on important topics

 

 

 

Am I expected to post a serious reply to that nonsense?

If you have proof of road widening, why didn't you post it in the first instance??

Seems your posts are becoming increasingly childish.

 

I posted some time ago that the project was a no go. What new information are you expecting from me?

I don't have any, so I haven't posted anything more.

Whereas you bumped the thread with nonsense about road widening and seem to be vacillating about whether it is even important.

You just appear to be rambling on about nothing.

 

Post the proof of the road widening. We are all on tenterhooks.

4 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

If you have proof of road widening,

why didn't you post it in the first instance??

Pattayadude posted the proof 2 pages ago, in the form of 2 pictures. 

If you look closely on the bottom left of the first pic, you will see that the traffic going East now uses a new 2-lines street built on what used to be the boats-park. The old 2-lines street is now one way toward West (the marina, lighthouse,...). So we now have 2 lines in both directions (2x2) rather that just the 2 of the old street (2x1). For me - and pattayadude - and nearly everyone but you - it's clearly a road widening 

16 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

Pattayadude posted the proof 2 pages ago, in the form of 2 pictures. 

If you look closely on the bottom left of the first pic, you will see that the traffic going East now uses a new 2-lines street built on what used to be the boats-park. The old 2-lines street is now one way toward West (the marina, lighthouse,...). So we now have 2 lines in both directions (2x2) rather that just the 2 of the old street (2x1). For me - and pattayadude - and nearly everyone but you - it's clearly a road widening 

 

When you have actually visited the location, come back and talk to me again.

Funny, you both have Pattaya within your user names and neither have actually visited the location.

Pea on a pod. Impressive.

*Peas in a pod.....

1 hour ago, KneeDeep said:

 

When you have actually visited the location, come back and talk to me again.

Funny, you both have Pattaya within your user names and neither have actually visited the location.

Pea on a pod. Impressive.

I have been there.  It has been widened and is now a dual carriageway.  Has been since the Navy Review.

13 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

 

When you have actually visited the location, come back and talk to me again.

Funny, you both have Pattaya within your user names and neither have actually visited the location.

I really wonder who hasn't visited the location... 

I walk in this area several days a week - including today - and can assure everyone

that the street in front of the Waterfront is a 2x2 lines. (2 lines in each direction)

 

17 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

Whereas you bumped the thread with nonsense about road widening and //

On ‎14‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 9:58 PM, KneeDeep said:

Road width is the same....

No. The width doubled.

I don't understand what's your point persisting with this ridiculous disinformation 

Had a look from view point earlier, wasn't as bad as expected

To close the subject of the "street in front of Waterfront" 

44 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

To close the subject of the "street in front of Waterfront" 

 Doesn't seem like the condo building blocks much of the view from the mountain.  Can't see what all the fuss was about. 

47 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

To close the subject of the "street in front of Waterfront" 

nice pics pattaya46!..they didn't say"a picture is worth 1000 words" for nothing!..