Silom Question

[GWR]

CPB urged to abandon plan to turn historic Silom Club into highrise - Bangkok Post, July 10, 2006

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/09Jul2006_news002.php

As is normal with the BP, after a few hours the link expires. Anyone have any info to match this headline, like the name and location. I have a feeling that this is the same property which was offered to a 'respectable' establishment a long time back and was declined on the grounds that it was too seedy for their mission. It appears that the CPB isn't always too choosy about its tenants.

[ncr]

I just retrieved this from the Bangkok Post's archives:

CPB urged to abandon plan to turn historic Silom Club into highrise

ANCHALEE KONGRUT

The Silom Club, one of the country's oldest sport clubs, may be forced to close. Its new owner, the Crown Property Bureau (CPB), wants to turn the 89-year-old property - located on Si Wiang road in the Sathorn area - into a highrise building, after winning a legal battle. Poor maintenance has left the building in a dilapidated state, but the club's executive board maintains the club is more than just an old structure. It was the place where tennis took root in what was then Siam. Founded in March 1917 by Chao Phraya Sridhamadibes, a minister of various ministries including justice, foreign affairs and finance, the Silom Club was an exclusive place for judges and justice ministry officials. It was a decade before it opened to members of the public, where they could choose between snooker tables and rooms for reading, meeting and playing poker.

Historical records show that the Prince of Phitsanulok, a son of King Chulalongkorn and an avid tennis player, competed in a tennis tournament in 1920. King Prajadhipok graced the club once, to watch a tennis match in 1927. ''This is a club that was once part of a prominent social scene with fond memories,'' said Prachitr Srijaiyanta, the board chairman. It was Chao Phraya Sridhamadibes who donated four rai of his land for the club. The land was later used as collateral with the CPB for 50,000 baht of loans, used to pay for the club's development. Since the club could not pay back the debt, it lost its ownership through a court order to the CPB, which took over the property. In 2003, the CPB increased the rent from 40,000 baht per year to 300,000 baht. The rent is to go up to 600,000 baht this year and 900,000 baht in 2009.

Pol Maj-Gen Prachitr said the club would continue to fight. He said he would appeal again and would petition His Majesty the King. According to Pol Maj-Gen Prachitr, the club has 300 members. More than half are non-paying members. As a non-profit organisation, the club charges a monthly fee of 400 baht. Pol Maj-Gen Prachitr said the club takes pride in offering low-priced services to the public. ''We are to maintain our principles as a non-profit sports club. It's true that the club looks sad but this is not the heart of the matter,'' he said. ''It would be sad to see this non-profit sports club die. ''

Yachai na Songkhla, 81, son of Chao Phraya Sridhamadibes and a former director of Chulalongkorn Hospital and dean of Chulalongkorn University's faculty of medical science, said his father loved the club. ''I saw tears welling up in his eyes when the club was engulfed with fire,'' said Dr Yachai, referring to a blaze which hit the club in 1937. The building was also damaged during World War Two. While conceding the club's golden era had passed, Dr Yachai frowned on the idea of demolishing it completely. He said the CPB could do society a great service by allocating some space to the club, to allow residents and office workers in the area to have a place to socialise. It would be a shame to demolish it completely. ''This plot originally belonged to my father. He even tried to protect it by seeking Royal Patronage from King Rama VII. It would be unfair if it just disappeared,'' he said.

A source in the CPB said the agency is determined to develop the building, which is in a prime business district, into a highrise. The source said since the club was not on the national heritage list, the CPB should have a free hand on what to do with the property. However, Prathoomporn Vajrasthira, lecturer on international politics at Chulalongkorn University, urged the CPB to show ''conservation spirit'' by preservingthe vintage clubhouse building. The club has the potential to be a luxurious place on a par with the Sport Club on Henri Dunant road or the British Club on Surawong road, she said. It would be an ideal venue for international tennis tournaments, given its role as the birthplace of tennis in Thailand, she said. ''It is unfair to stop the CPB from maximising profits, as this plot is worth a billion baht. But Bangkok needs a direction in development. One cannot keep knocking old buildings down,''she said. Assoc Prof Prathoomporn said she was sad to see the demolition of beautiful villas, vintage houses and even a Catholic cemetery. ''One day, even temples in prime areas will be demolished to build another Paragon shopping complex. There might be no more beautiful old town areas left for future generations.''

How true..... :(

[GWR]

Thanks for that! It deserves a place here for the reasons you highlighted.

The fact that it is a 'new' acquisition rules out my story completely.

[von Hirschhorn]

… It deserves a place here for the reasons you highlighted …

Not only that moreover as a reminder for real estate developers although they would turn a blind eye and deaf ear, since making money is their only goal no matter how the landscape looks afterwards. Yes, a frozen world in concrete, steel and glass and maybe a single old building here and there, a monument preserved in touch of the past.
Unfortunate on the long term this will not do, far to short-sighted, the same as developing for the sake of some profit only.

[The Enforcer!]

The Silom Club ought to be preserved as there cannot be more than two dozen non-religious buildings left in Bangrak that pre-date World war II?

The Enforcer!

[Scuba22]

You can't blame the property developers for stuff like this, this is a governmental and regulatory failure. It's not the job of a private enterprise to preserve cultural heritage and architectural treasures, their job is to make money for their shareholders. It's the government's job to look after the public interest. If the location isn't protected, you can't really blame CPB for working within the bounds of the law, IMO.

Scuba22

[von Hirschhorn]

It's not the job of a private enterprise to preserve cultural heritage and architectural treasures. It's the government's job to look after the public interest.

Sure, but what if the so called government is to much involved in business or worse is fully controled by that business. Free to speak about their intentions but bound to the rules of power trying to implement these things.

[GWR]

You can't blame the property developers for stuff like this, this is a governmental and regulatory failure. It's not the job of a private enterprise to preserve cultural heritage and architectural treasures, their job is to make money for their shareholders. It's the government's job to look after the public interest. If the location isn't protected, you can't really blame CPB for working within the bounds of the law, IMO.
Scuba22

And surely the CPB is answerable to the philosophy of its own crown!? Or is it?

[Scuba22]

Sure, but what if the so called government is to much involved in business or worse is fully controled by that business.

This is a big problem indeed - it's exactly why business should never EVER be close to government. Noted socialist Adam Smith makes this point very clearly in Wealth of Nations. It's amazing to me that more people don't realize this danger, or don't care.

Scuba22

[Scuba22]

And surely the CPB is answerable to the philosophy of its own crown!? Or is it?

Problem is that there isn't really a single coherent philosophy to be answerable to. There are multiple competing interests involved that make managing the CPB a far more politically sensitive affair than the usual private equity fund. This ain't Berkshire Hathaway.

It's really not easy to figure out who's really calling the shots in these sort of things or why.

Cheers,

Scuba22

[The Enforcer!]

Problem is that there isn't really a single coherent philosophy to be answerable to. There are multiple competing interests involved that make managing the CPB a far more politically sensitive affair than the usual private equity fund. This ain't Berkshire Hathaway.

It's really not easy to figure out who's really calling the shots in these sort of things or why.

Cheers,

Scuba22
Cannot imagine the UK's Crown Estates doing this - suppose they are not political.

The Enforcer!

[Scuba22]

How does the UK Crown Estates work? I thought in the UK technically ALL property belongs to the crown and is leased out on 99-year terms. Is that right? Do they make stipulations on the leases or are they pretty lax?

Let me give you an example of the CPB situation - this is from hearing a senior executive from there venting frustrations. You know Lang Suan, across from Central Chidlom? Everyone on that street belongs to CPB and is on long-term leases to various well-connected people. Since the leases are long-term, when the time comes for lease renewal, the market price for leases shoot up. But inevitably, the well-connected lease-holders have never planned for this, and when it happens they scream and cry that they'll go bankrupt with market prices. The connections go to levels higher than CPB executives, and at that point it becomes a family affair - and all rational business decisions are off. As a result, the CPB's return on its assets are far far lower than they should be. Take a look at the Starbucks on Lang Suan - there's no way the operational profits of that place can support the market rent on that property, but there it is - because I'm certain the owners don't pay market rent to the CPB. That of course makes it that much harder to set up a competing cafe anywhere, since most of us would have to pay market rents. Connected business like this places serious constraints on new businesses coming into the market. Grrrr....

The CPB executive told me that they would like to get rid of all the other stuff they own and hold only SCB and Siam Cement, but vested interests make this near impossible. I'm very suprised they're taking the Silom Club site and turning into high-rises. There's something else going on beyond a straightforward business decision.

Cheers,

Scuba22

[Tettyan]

The CPB executive told me that they would like to get rid of all the other stuff they own and hold only SCB and Siam Cement, but vested interests make this near impossible. I'm very suprised they're taking the Silom Club site and turning into high-rises. There's something else going on beyond a straightforward business decision.


Well, considering how many dud properties they have in their portfolio (as you point out), wouldn't it be natural for the CPB to try to squeeze as much as they can out of their remaining properties? Or do you suspect something else could be at work here?

[Scuba22]

Well, considering how many dud properties they have in their portfolio (as you point out), wouldn't it be natural for the CPB to try to squeeze as much as they can out of their remaining properties?

Yes, absolutely, but this doesn't seem to be a "remaining property" - it seems like a new acquisition. That goes against what I heard a few years ago about trying to divest as many duds as possible and concentrate on the SCB & SC jewels. As you can imagine, managing and governing a massive diverse portfolio is far more complicated than simply holding two flagships. When I spoke to the CPB person, they indicated an interest in getting simpler - this goes the other way.

Or do you suspect something else could be at work here?

Well, I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory, but I don't have anything specific in mind for this. I'm sure we can engage in some fun idle speculation though!

Scuba22

[The Enforcer!]

I thought in the UK technically ALL property belongs to the crown and is leased out on 99-year terms. Is that right?
Wow! No, sorry, that went out in the year 1215.

There are effectively four types of land in the UK... Crown, State, common and private..

CROWN - property owned in the name of the Crown (often historically from conquest) but more often by purchase. Things like Windsor Castle, Regent Street, Buckingham Palace. Note: not everything owned by monarchy is crown property, much of it is private, i.e. owned by the person not the job.

STATE - property owned for the benefit of the state - Government Buildings, some parks, schools, Council Houses, many Stately Homes donated in leiu of tax etc

COMMON - land designated historically as owned 'by all for all' usually having the word common in the title like ... Wimbledon Common, Tooting Common.

PRIVATE - everything else. Historically by conquest then inheritance, nowadays by purchase. Examples include my house, the Duke of Westminster's estate (i.e most of London's West End) and millions of other private residences, including those owned by Thaksin Shinawatra!

The Enforcer!

[Scuba22]

Enforcer - thanks! Great to learn something new. I think it's that Duke of Westminster/London's West End that threw me - someone mentioned that to me at one point and I probably got the totally wrong idea!

Cheers!

Scuba22

[BangkokPundit]

How does the UK Crown Estates work? I thought in the UK technically ALL property belongs to the crown and is leased out on 99-year terms. Is that right?

As The Enforver stated above this is not correct. Land is not "owned" or does not "belong" to the Crown. However, confusion abounds because technically all land in England is "held of the Crown". This is not limited to England, but also exists in Australia and probably elsewhere. Land "held of the Crown" is not ownership as such, but is related to sovereignity.

In England, an individual's ownership of land is not absolute, they do not have "allodial title", but instead an individual who owns land, will usually own what is known as an "estate in land". This is not a 99 year lease and the term "estate" causes confusion. If the person owns the land outright (for example, the land does not pass to another person on their death), the estate in land they will own will be called an estate in fee simple. Wiki's definition of fee simple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple_absolute) sounds correct to me and is:

Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. How ownership is limited by these government powers often involves the shift from allodial title to fee simple such as when uniting with other property owners acceding to property restrictions or municipal regulation.

[Scuba22]

Ah that's right - I do recall the term "held by the crown"... I thought that meant ownership. My mistake, thanks for the clarification.

Scuba22

[The Enforcer!]

Ah that's right - I do recall the term "held by the crown"... I thought that meant ownership. My mistake, thanks for the clarification.

Scuba22
Right guys ... with you. "Held by the Crown" is the term used to designate what is part of the country and what is not. For example I may buy a house and land but it is still in England ...I cannot take it out!! 'Passport from Pimlico' was a good film but cannot be done (no part of the country can opt out without Parliamentary and Royal Approval as witnessed in the Irish Free State Act 1922 which ceeded the southern Irish counties to Eire)

There is an interesting fact you might not know is that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands whilst "Held by the Crown" are NOT part of the UK!

The Enforcer!