ShophouseMetropolis

Documented cluster · Phra Nakhon

Bamrung Mueang–Giant Swing rows

ตึกแถวบำรุงเมือง–เสาชิงช้า

The dimensions actually measured

Footprints screened
38morphology only, never surveyed
Median frontage
5.6 mcitywide 5.1 m
Median depth
14.5 mcitywide 13.6 m
Deepest tenth
16.8 mp90 · citywide 27.6 m

Frontage and depth are the short and long sides of each footprint's minimum-area bounding rectangle, computed by scripts/build-shophouse-spine.py over the Overture/OSM screen. A footprint in this set has not been visited: the shape says shophouse, and nothing here says it is one.

What binds these buildings

Computed per footprint from depth, plot and neighbours — not merely listed. A clause counts as binding when this building's own geometry triggers it.

  • MR55 ข้อ 4122 of 38

    Setback from public road centreline: 3 m; 6 m where the road is under 10 m wide, for buildings over 2 storeys or 8 m — including ตึกแถว.

    THE decisive clause. An old shophouse occupies its whole plot because it predates this. Demolish it and the replacement must step back onto ground that, on a 12 m plot, is most of the site — so on many plots you cannot lawfully rebuild what you tear down.

  • MR55 ข้อ 217 of 38

    Each คูหา: width ≥ 4 m (column centreline to centreline); depth ≥ 4 m and ≤ 24 m; ground-floor area ≥ 30 m². If depth exceeds 16 m, an uncovered void of ≥ 10% of ground-floor area between 12 and 16 m depth.

    The 4 m module is a floor set by law. Tirapas's surveyed 4 m module is the regulation made visible.

  • MR55 ข้อ 415 of 38

    Continuous construction ≤ 10 คูหา and total row length ≤ 40 m, regardless of ownership.

    Why long shophouse streets break into readable blocks with gaps. The rhythm you see from the pavement is a fire rule.

Already over the depth cap
0deeper than the 24 m ข้อ 2 allows a new build
Median row length
8 unitsข้อ 4 caps a continuous row at 10
Rows over that cap
8lawful when built, unbuildable now

The interesting number is the third. Where a row exceeds today's cap, the building standing there could not be built again — which means demolition is not a reversible decision, whatever replaces it.

Where the pressure sits

Each footprint is placed on two axes: the appraised land value underneath it, split at the citywide median of ฿3,568,750, and its plot depth, split at 13.6 m — below which a 2 m setback takes a serious share of any compliant replacement.

  • Worth reconsidering1

    High land value, shallow plot.

    Maximum pressure to demolish — and the plot is shallow enough that a compliant replacement loses a serious share of its footprint to the setback. Demolition here is closest to self-defeating, and it is the owner who is least likely to have been told.

  • Genuinely exposed16

    High land value, deeper plot.

    The land is worth enough to justify clearing and the plot is deep enough to absorb a setback. On present rules these are the ones that go, and an argument for keeping them has to be made on carbon, tenure or social capital rather than on the code.

  • Reuse is the easy answer16

    Lower land value, shallow plot.

    Little pressure to clear, and the setback would bite hard if anyone tried. Nothing needs defending here yet — which makes it the cheapest place to test what adaptive reuse actually costs.

  • Not under pressure2

    Lower land value, deeper plot.

    Neither the market nor the code is currently forcing a decision. Worth surveying precisely because there is time to do it properly.

3 of the 38 footprints here carry no quadrant, so the split above sums to 35 rather than 38. That is a join artefact, not a gap in the screen: the pressure layer classifies all 2,433 footprints, but the spine joins the two sets by centroid rounded to five decimal places, and 241 of the 2,433 miss that key by a metre or so. Those buildings have a quadrant; this page cannot currently name it.

Land under one footprint
฿3,612,500median · citywide split ฿3,568,750
District appraisal band
฿62,500฿250,000per m², Treasury appraisal

Appraised value is the base for transfer tax and sits below market, so every figure here is a floor, not an estimate.

What this page cannot tell you

Storeys are known for 35 of the 38 footprints here 3 carry none, and are left null rather than filled with a plausible number. Across the whole spine the same is true of storeys (for two-thirds of the set), tenure, structural condition, road width, build year.

  • Morphology is not proof. A narrow, deep footprint repeating along a street is the shophouse signature, but no field survey has confirmed that any individual building here is one, nor its age, condition or tenure.
  • Appraised value is the base for transfer tax and sits below market, so every land figure is a floor rather than an estimate.
  • The setback exposure assumes a road width, because per-plot road widths are not published — the assumption is stated in SPLITS and can be changed.

Where this comes from

The curve does the work. These rows turn the Giant Swing from an object into a place, holding the street wall while temple, city hall and specialist shops face one another.

Civic-axis corner and curved masonry rows

Period
Rama V era
Kind
commercial street
Register id
FAD-5604 / FAD-5386
District
Phra Nakhon

Documentation: Fine Arts Department GIS register. Every computed figure on this page comes from scripts/build-shophouse-spine.py, which states each rule in its header.

Arkara, N. (2026). Bamrung Mueang–Giant Swing rows — documented shophouse cluster (38 screened footprints) [Data set]. Shophouse Metropolis, BKKx. https://shophouses.nonarkara.org/shophouses/cluster/bamrung-mueang

All 32 clusters · the pressure map · the datasets behind them