‘Landmark’ plan riddled with flaws

As a matter of principle, a project that is touted as the “New Landmark of Thailand” should not contain any flaws. But the reality is just the opposite. The project in question is the Chao Phraya river promenade, the 14-billionbaht bike and walkway which, in its first phase, will span 7km on both sides of the river between the Rama VII and Pin Klao bridges. It is an initiative of the National Council for Peace and Order, in a bid to bring back happiness to Thais. The regime assigned the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) to implement the project in a time frame of just seven months — an unreasonably short time for a project of this scale.

Since day one, the promenade project has attracted criticism from academics and members of civic groups who have voiced concerns over the social and environmental impacts from the huge concrete structure that will ruin the views of the majestic river. Things got worse as the BMA, due to its top-down work culture, has failed to be open and listen to public opinion.

For instance, it remained ambiguous on demands that the project needs a master plan for its terms of reference (TOR), which provides guidelines on how it will be developed and an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report.

In fact, it was a major mistake of the BMA to introduce the blueprint for a colossal 20-metre-wide path to the public instead of conducting public consultations. A fierce public outcry prompted the agency to downsize the width to 12 metres. But that is not the point.

What is more important for this costly project is the process — that its implementation embraces public participation. Lack of a proper response on the part of the BMA turned civic groups into project opponents. However, the BMA dismissed their concerns and went ahead with the contract bidding to select the right consortium to conduct a feasibility study.

Then there came a sign that the project is doomed to failure. Two of the three contractors that had expressed interest in bidding for the rights to the feasibility study have walked out from the race before it even started. With only one consortium, comprising Panya Consultants Co, Epsilon Co and Transconsult Co, submitting a tender, the BMA was forced to invalidate the contract bidding.

And the BMA is now stuck while the deadline imposed by the military regime is drawing near. The administration has approached an educational institute to act as an adviser and conduct a feasibility study instead.

This week has seen interesting moves on the part of professionals and civic groups as well as project opponents.

On Tuesday, professional architect networks led by the Architect Council of Thailand reiterated their call about the master plan and public participation. At the same time, they demanded that the BMA abandon the “one section fits all” format.

The networks also aired their frustration that the BMA seemed to disregard their advice on studies and design work that they had previously submitted.

Today, another group of project opponents led by the Siam Society is to once again voice their disagreement with the promenade and call for a review because, to push for the project, a number of laws, including town planning regulations and heritage conservation, have to be bypassed.

Conservationists who have gathered under the heritage protection programme have also vented their frustration that their concerns have never been addressed by the BMA, or the government.

They had submitted a letter to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha asking him to make a U-turn. Yet, the prime minister simply forwarded the letter to his deputy, Gen Prawit Wongsuwon, without making any decision, and the BMA has simply taken its business-as-usual approach.

They are to repeat their demand that the project be reviewed.

Given the staunch opposition, the government and the BMA as well as any educational institute that is to join the project should accept the facts, step back and think.

Forget about the unreasonable deadline and do the right thing: put in place an EIA and embrace public participation and the “bottom-up” principle.

In fact, the opponents of this project are unique in the way they have worked out alternatives for the BMA. The administration should realise that its top-down practices will lead it nowhere.

What is needed is to open up and take into consideration those options.

With an enormous budget of 140 billion baht — all taxpayers’ money — there is no need to rush and ruin our heritage.