webfact

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

32 posts in this topic

I'm lovin' it.
 
Hopefully the entire building is going to be demolished.

Maybe..
but If the south Pattaya
"Boutique hotel"
demolition team are employed it could take 30 + years !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how long the building can remain in its unfinished state before seriously expensive remedial work would be required to complete it? And if it does become necessary, do all the current buyers have to pay for those works?


Reading Cruncher's copied letter above I just cannot understand why the developer didn't strictly comply with its then-planning permits. Why overbuild etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sharecropper said:

Reading Cruncher's copied letter above I just cannot understand why the developer didn't strictly comply with its then-planning permits. Why overbuild etc?

 

Surely no great mystery: to be able to build and sell more units.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 7:25 PM, YetAnother said:

kidding right ? project this size and they didnt do due diligence ?

Perhaps they thought a few envelopes would be sufficient. No doubt that's how it was done in the past.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sharecropper said:

Does anyone know how long the building can remain in its unfinished state before seriously expensive remedial work would be required to complete it? And if it does become necessary, do all the current buyers have to pay for those works?


Reading Cruncher's copied letter above I just cannot understand why the developer didn't strictly comply with its then-planning permits. Why overbuild etc?

LOL. There is a much larger and older ghost building beside the river in Bangkok that will probably never be "fixed".

 

If they were able to proceed, I'm sure the current buyers would be asked to pay ( again ), for remedial work. Such is the property market in LOS. Of course they could always take the developers to court :cheesy:.

 

However, newbies should always take the word of property developers- after all, what could possible go wrong with buying property in LOS? :smile:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, johng said:


Maybe..
but If the south Pattaya
"Boutique hotel"
demolition team are employed it could take 30 + years !

IMO it wouldn't be demolished. Just left to eventually fall down, like the big ghost building beside the river in Bkk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a tall build in North Pattaya that was left open to the weather since the 1997 crash that did get completed eventually ,also one in Jomtien that was finished but not fitted out,at night there was a single light on in one quite high floor room...maybe the caretaker lived there....now its a swanky hotel...there is also in Jomtien a big failed (1997) 4-5 storey condo complex which is excruciatingly slowly being done up....looks like short term apartments...the squatters and decay still continues in the un renovated section.

The leaning Bangkok riverside tower hasnt fallen down yet it could maybe be "revived" :blink:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Oink said:

This project will never progress as the Thai authorities (who are normally asleep or at lunch) have finally woken up to the fact that a foreign (falang) construction company has taken them for a bunch of idiots.

Being stupid is not an offence in Thailand. But don't tell anyone that they are stupid. That is an offence!

My personal take on this situation does not revolve around the relationship between the developer and authorities, but how the hell did they think they could get away with it?

The whole project is bullshit from start to finish, for more reasons I can even begin to address here!

      You ask how the hell did they (the developers) think they could get away with it?  Assuming they did anything wrong in the first place?  Maybe because they saw other projects 'getting away' with questionable practices.  I can tell you of a new project recently finished that covered over part of their swimming pool and the concrete around the pool with a cover of fake grass when the authorities came to measure the 'green space' on the finished project.  They were short on the green space that had been required for construction approval so that was their solution.  Once the measuring was done and the officials had left, the plan was to remove the cover.   But, the residents are still left with less green space than the EIA had required.  Another condo has put some trees and grass on the condo's roof to meet  its 'green space' requirements--even though the residents aren't normally allowed on the roof.   Several projects have possibly  been built too close to the ocean if you do a strict interpretation of the rules  but the developers apparently had the muscle to get the projects approved.   Likely there are other questionable practices that have been done regarding things like parking space requirements.  TIT.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johng said:

The leaning Bangkok riverside tower hasnt fallen down yet it could maybe be "revived" :blink:

If it's leaning in the direction of the river it may eventually become a bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

Surely no great mystery: to be able to build and sell more units.

 

Victorian detective discovers lack of fecal matter.

 

My point was, WHY would they bother chiseling a few more condos in if the massive downside was (clearly, even at the time) likely to be so commercially severe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, newnative said:

      You ask how the hell did they (the developers) think they could get away with it?  Assuming they did anything wrong in the first place?  Maybe because they saw other projects 'getting away' with questionable practices.  I can tell you of a new project recently finished that covered over part of their swimming pool and the concrete around the pool with a cover of fake grass when the authorities came to measure the 'green space' on the finished project.  They were short on the green space that had been required for construction approval so that was their solution.  Once the measuring was done and the officials had left, the plan was to remove the cover.   But, the residents are still left with less green space than the EIA had required.  Another condo has put some trees and grass on the condo's roof to meet  its 'green space' requirements--even though the residents aren't normally allowed on the roof.   Several projects have possibly  been built too close to the ocean if you do a strict interpretation of the rules  but the developers apparently had the muscle to get the projects approved.   Likely there are other questionable practices that have been done regarding things like parking space requirements.  TIT.

 

Likely there are other questionable practices that have been done regarding things like parking space requirements.

 

Like cut down on construction materials and requirements. and that is the reason why I will never buy a condo here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

 

Likely there are other questionable practices that have been done regarding things like parking space requirements.

 

Like cut down on construction materials and requirements. and that is the reason why I will never buy a condo here.

I was speaking more of fudging the parking space numbers rather than build quality.  But, always good to do your due diligence before you buy, if you buy.  For some, renting is best but not for me.  Let's also remember that it's San Francisco, not Pattaya, where there is a super luxury highrise condo that is both tilting and sinking. I think last check it has tilted 16 inches and sunk by a foot or so.  And, it's London that has hundreds of highrise rental apartments that have been clad in flammable material that makes them potentially huge, deadly torches.  It's also London where the recent highrise apartment that burned was not fitted with sprinklers when it was renovated last year.  Unsafe dwellings, whether rentals or owned, can be anywhere.  You can move from one rental to the next but there is no guarantee the next building will be any safer.  The most you can do with rentals or buys is do as much checking as you can and possibly select a rental or buy that was built by a quality builder with a good reputation and a good track record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2017 at 9:11 AM, sharecropper said:

Does anyone know how long the building can remain in its unfinished state before seriously expensive remedial work would be required to complete it? And if it does become necessary, do all the current buyers have to pay for those works?


Reading Cruncher's copied letter above I just cannot understand why the developer didn't strictly comply with its then-planning permits. Why overbuild etc?

I asked this question here ; https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-long-until-materials-in-this-project-become-degraded.871821/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just demolish it now , its ugly .  

The buyers just have to earn more money and buy something else.  

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 24 July 2017 21:33
Sponsors