Today is judgement day for Ban Plainern, the residence of the late Prince Naris, with the state to decide whether a controversial 36-storey condo project that will tower over this cultural landmark will go ahead amid fears that permanent damage could occur during the construction process.
The project comprises two structures, a 36-storey condominium and 7-storey building that will serve as a facilities area and car park.
In its initial plan, the higher building was to stand close to Ban Plainern but escalating opposition to the project prompted the operator to switch the position of the buildings, moving the main residential building a bit further away.
Sirinya Wattanasukchai is a columnist, Bangkok Post.
Even though the developer has promised advanced construction technology, members of the Chitrabongs family, descendants of Prince Naris, who live in the residence, have expressed concern the construction could adversely affect the 80-year-old Tamnak Tuk, a concrete structure that was designed by the prince built with the use of local expertise and wisdom.
Last week, MR Chakrarot Chitrabongs, a cultural expert and former permanent secretary for the Culture Ministry, submitted letters to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, asking it to look into the work of the experts who reviewed the environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports.
The Bangkok Post talked to MR Chakrarot Chitrabongs and MR Kalaya Tingsabadh, two of the family members, about their concerns.
Why shouldn’t a 36-storey condo be built on the plot?
MR Chakrarot: We want society to be aware of the value of Ban Plainern as a national heritage item. It isn’t just a private residence for our family, it has served as a Thai music school and every year we open the place for public visits on Naris Day.
Prince Naris, “The Father of Siamese Craftmen”, who was on Unesco’s list of important people, spent his final years at Tamnak Tuk where his relics are still kept in his bedroom on the second floor.
There are two reasons to oppose this project. One is about inappropriateness. According to Thai belief, a child or those of lower rank must not stand higher than an adult. If the condo is built, a large number of strangers will come and stay in a higher position. This is inappropriate.
The other is about possible damage. Although we haven’t seen the actual construction plan, the depth and the vibration of the foundation laying process for the 36-storey building will likely damage the Tamnak Tuk. If that is the case, there’s no way to repair or renovate this invaluable structure.
Ban Plainern sits on a 13-rai plot, adjacent to the site designated for the condo project. The residence, with constant renovation work, remains largely unchanged.
As it is situated 40cm lower than the condo site, the residence will become a water-retention site for the condo. The subsequent moisture will damage the foundations of Tamnak Tuk which is made of wooden poles.
The condo, if approved, will dwarf this historical building of great value.
Can there be a compromise? How many storeys would the family find acceptable?
MR Chakrarot: The family has discussed this. We don’t welcome any high-rise and we don’t want the condo to be built. We can’t compromise.
Despite some adjustment, with the higher building being located further away, the seven-storey facility building is still too high and both buildings are still too close to the Tamnak Tuk.
However, we don’t have the power to terminate the project. We only hope that the developers will come to their senses and drop the project.
What does the family think the plot should be turned into?
MR Chakrarot: We are not in a position to tell the developers, who are professionals, what to do or not to do. They should know how to change a project that isn’t well received by the public.
We, the residents who will be directly affected, were not informed of the project before. We learned about it only when we saw an advertisement sign in front of the plot.
Had we known the developer’s wish to turn the plot into a skyscraper, we would have persuaded them to drop the idea before it came this far.
Now we are only krengjai (too uncomfortable to speak up).
There is a new tall building next door to the residence, the 25-storey building of the Metropolitan Electricity Authority. What was the impact when that construction was in progress?
MR Chakrarot: It wasn’t all easy. But the MEA had informed us about their plan, which comprised of two buildings, a 16-storey and 25-storey structure, even before they drew up the blueprint.
Besides, my father was an MEA employee and we used to see doctors at the hospital there.
Before construction, we were allowed to express our concerns to the architect who agreed to switch the location of the 25-storey structure to the other side of the plot.
The taller building is 118.5 metres from the Tamnak Tuk and 80m from the Tamnak Thai (wooden traditional house); while the smaller building is closer, 80m away from the Tamnak Tuk and 30m from the wooden house.
Due to strong vibration during the construction process of the MEA building, some artefacts were damaged. More importantly, the function of the building is also different.
The MEA building will be used as an office only, meaning it will be busy during the daytime. Nobody lives there.
With its historical value, why doesn’t the family register the residence with the Fine Art Department as an archaeological site?
MR Chakrarot: We have no faith in the archaeological site registration.
Once the residence is registered, we will have to transfer the ownership and the rights to manage it to the Fine Art Department.
If registered, we need approval from the department before we can renovate or repair the house. That’s too complicated. We have our own ways of doing things and we don’t want the department to tell us what to do or not to with our house.
If we had registered with the department, we could not oppose the project as the ownership wouldn’t belong to us any more.
What do you think about the EIA approval process?
MR Kalaya: We feel we have not been treated fairly. During the survey to assess the environmental impact, some people warned us how tricky the process could be.
Any of our answers could be twisted to the advantage of the developers who paid for the EIA report. We were recommended to submit letters to the authorities to show our opposition in written form.
As residents who will be directly affected by the construction, we haven’t been provided with enough information or chances to discuss our concerns.
We haven’t seen the revised construction plan that was submitted to the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning on Oct 11 and that means we don’t really know if our concerns have been addressed.
At the beginning, the expert panel seemed responsive to our concerns, but at some point that changed, and they started acting as a negotiator instead, trying to persuade us to compromise, and now it seems we are being forced to accept whatever is included in the revised proposal.
