If I could sum up the city of Bangkok in two words it would be “mega infrastructure”. All over the city there seem to be these humongous fly-over road sections and railways supporting movement throughout the city, which all seems very impressive for a developing nation. However, beneath this grand infrastructure network, there is the other reality, pockets of “informal” communities which are out of sync with the trend or movement towards global city status. 

Our visit brings us to explore these communities against the background of the Baan Mankong programme. We studied communities of contrasting circumstances, one of which is the Lung Talad Kao Wat Pra Ya Krai (LTKWPYK) community, which falls within the Bangkholeam District, and is of particular interest to me due to its continued existence on prime real estate.

The centrality of this community put it in a precarious position in terms of the way it has been and will be developed. Located within this issue of centrality is the value of land and how the process of valuation is linked to the notion of acceptable development standards in order to maintain or enhance property value in general. These development standards are also associated with external factors or pressures relating to a global image of the city and manifest at the community scale in the typology being pursued by the landowner. So, in essence there is an aesthetic dimension and a preconceived idea of what a residential community in an high value area should look like.

Additionally, there is also the issue of density and zoning which affects the LTKWPYK community, which is also linked to the previous point regarding land value. The community is divided in 4 phases. Phase 1 comprises 4 storey apartment blocks which were constructed after a fire which destroyed that area and the other phases remains in an “informal” state. The division into phases is not only limited to a bi-dimensional map but also manifest socially in terms of interaction between phases and the perception of each other within the community, which again is linked to the issue of aesthetics. 

One the one hand, persons who have become acclimatised to apartment living see the other areas of the community as “not good looking” according to them and on the other hand, the rest of the community see the apartment typology as being restrictive and inconsistent with there every day lifestyle (live/work, incremental building, social gathering etc.). This fragmentation of ideals is preventing the community from taking full advantage of Baan Mankong and is affecting their capability to tackle the issues which makes them vulnerable.

One such issue is that a section of the community falls within a commercial zone or strip along the main road and due to the association between the infrastructure or the movement within the city and the high value/demand of properties adjacent to this flow the landowner owner is seeking to develop all other phases in keeping with phase 1 so as to minimise the residential footprint and maximise the potential (accessibility, value) of the commercial area. 

While the actions of the landowner may be curtailed by the fact that there is a national consensus in regards to protecting the integrity of the poor in matters of development (as evident by the very existence LTKWPYK community in this high value area). The community should not take solace in this fact and should organise in a way that enables them to better resist the pressures and build a community consistent with their collective values. 

Christopher Montgomery