With the abrupt change that accompanied the arrival of European art and architectural styles during the late 19th century, Bangkok of the 20th century emerged as an international city, emulating Western urban formation and leaving behind its former structure of canals and teak buildings along the riverside. “Venice of the East” was effaced; replacing it are layers of different modern architectural styles, in which “modern” is defined variously according to different contemporaneous Euro-American architectural currents, imported into Thailand through different means. Over the century, however, the fabrication of “the East-meets-West” architecture occasionally occurred. But by the end of the century, the mass of concrete high-rise buildings has become an unprecedented image of Bangkok’s skyline.

The proliferation of Western influence on Bangkok architecture during the first half of the century was largely due to the sociopolitical reformation during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It began in the last decades of the 19th century when King Rama V (Chulalongkorn, 1853–1910) officially introduced Western practices of both sociopolitical structure and city formation. Given the government’s incentive to modernize Thailand, the imported culture was no longer perceived as foreign practice, but as fundamental composition of national modernization process, to which Western- style practices were not only imposed on, but also adapted to, the existing condition of Thai society.

By 1920 neoclassical architecture outshone other types of buildings, particularly in the heart of the present-day Bangkok’s old town due to the large number of royally imported Italian artists and architects. The Grand Palace’s new complex, including the Barommabhiman Palace and the Royal Innercourt division, the Dusit Palace complex, and a group of Ministries’ buildings along Rajdamnern Road, were among the foremost evidences. Some of the outstanding Thai and foreign architects of the period included Prince Narissaranuwattiwongs (Vimanmek Palace and Benjamabopitr temple), Carl Dohring (Bangkhunprom Palace), and M.Tamanyo (Anantasamakom Palace).

As favor for European-derived architecture grew, foreign artists, architects, and engineers flooded into the country to design new buildings, while many young Thai scholars went aboard to study and also to experience the culture of the other hemisphere. When they returned to Thailand, many of them reset the standard of the Thai lifestyle, which in turn radically altered Thai mentality and daily life practices, and their influence could be observed even more clearly in architecture of the later period; Western influence was manifested not merely by the exterior, but more importantly through the use of space and the emulation of Western daily life practices inside the building. Consequently, the development of Thai architectural design from the 191 0s through the 1930s could be called an experimental period, the moment in which Thai architects attempted to create space that not only accompanied more “modern/civilized” practices, but also suited tropical weather. Different combinations of materials and technology gave rise to various architectural styles and building forms, as can be seen in the architectural evidences of the Marukkatayawan and the Klaikangvol Palaces.

Meanwhile, in 1934, seven professional Thai architects, Pra-Sarojrattananimman, Luang-Burakarmkovit, Nart Pothiprasat, M.J.Ithithepsan Kridakorn, M.J.Votayakorn Voravan, Sivavong Kunchorn na Ayudthaya, M.J.Prasomsavat Suksavat, and Chitrasen Sanitwongs, established the first national association of architectural professionals under the name of Association of Siamese Architects (ASA). The book Pattanakarn Tang Satapatayakarm, one of a few comprehensive books on modern Thai architectural history, mentioned that the designs of these seven architects, exemplifying that of other contemporaneous Thai architects, were influenced largely by the concept taught during the early 20th century at the Beaux-Arts School, a place where many of them were trained. In fact, the omnipresent trend of the Beaux-Arts school during the early 20th century was known for its search for national identity within the formation of modern-style architecture; consequently, an emulating political concept was indeed gradually implanted and flourished among Thai architects during that period of time.

Such political incentive in architectural design became even more solidified through the rise of different political leaders after the political situations of the 1932 revolution, which changed the national political structure from absolute monarchy to democracy, and after the rise of nationalism during World War II. The political fragments unwittingly geared Thai society toward a search for a unifying discourse, a way to express the nation’s identity. The idea in designing public buildings shifted from the sole expression of the government, as had occurred in the dynastic dynamic, to the representation of collective identity—a “modern” identity of democratic Thailand. The elaborate decorative styles became outdated as they were seen to symbolize feudalism; modern architectural style of different trends in Europe were adopted as a solution for an identity search, a situation resembling that of many other countries at the same period. The use of simple geometric forms and a playful arrangement of both horizontal and vertical planes became dominant. Although many of the contemporaneous buildings were destroyed during the bombing of World War II, one could still find images of buildings built during this period, such as the shophouse along Rajdamnern Road and that of the adjacent neighborhoods including the former Chalerm-Thai theater.

Within the decades following, Bangkok grew from a small Asian capital into a medium-size international metropolitan city. International economic growth during the 1960s and 1970s resulted in a surge of the importation of newer architectural influences from abroad. The design goal in general was no longer to emulate Western modernity, but to drive Bangkok to reach “the international standard,” as represented by other metropolises. Modernism, particularly that of the International Style, became popular among Thai designers and architects, outdistancing other styles. High-rise buildings with sun-shading elements and cement blocks took on a major part in changing the cityscape. New business districts emerged along Sukhumvit, Silom, Rama V, and Sathorn roads, and the preceding ones around the old town began to fade away. All these changes affected the general layout of Bangkok, as the city began to grow toward the East and the North, while its old town, and the western part, including the Thonburi district across the Chao Phraya River, were left remaining more or less with its former skyline.

Another interesting architectural movement during 1960s was the revival of traditional Thai-style architecture. Several designs of M.J.Samaichalerm and M.R.Mitrarun for royal buildings and temporary ceremonial stands reflected the preference of following traditional architectural grammar, but with an adaptation of material and construction technology. A similar attempt of Luang Visalsilpakarm could be seen in his designs of several Buddhist temples, including the elegant Wat Amarintraram. A younger generation such as Pinyo Suwankiri evoked and grounded concerns for traditional Thai architecture in many schools of architecture in Bangkok. The design of traditional Thai architecture in general, however, was utilized quite exclusively for royal and religious ceremonies and related practices.

Despite the challenges of unstable politics and military interference, the period from the 1970s to the 1980s was the beginning of the Bangkok real estate boom, which continued into the next decade before it gradually slowed down by the mid-1990s. Given the rapid growth of the population and the increasing number of immigrants from the countryside, housing and land development predominated over other forms of real estate investment. Agricultural land around Bangkok was developed into residential areas, particularly that extending from the new business districts on the north and east sides.Newly developed and/ or rehabilitated villages sprang up and were eventually integrated to become the city’s new districts. Consequently, Bangkok kept growing with no fully restricting zoning control and proper transportation systems. In addition, the design for Thai suburban real estate development suggested another challenging point in modern Thai architectural development in that, to begin with, it generally reflected that Thai architectural realm encompassed the most influential trend of the era, modernism, merely through the use of materials and through the Western-replicating forms.

A slightly economic decline occurred during the end of 1970s and the beginning of 1980s when fears of Communism throughout Southeast Asia were compounded by political disturbance, along with the energy crisis. Yet the city kept growing, and the number of high-rise buildings in business districts eventually increased, following the strengthening of Thai politics and international connections. By the end of the 1980s, more than half of today’s high-rise buildings in Bangkok’s downtown were constructed. The headquarters of banks and financial companies lined Silom, Sathorn, and Sukhumvit Roads. The offices of Bangkok Bank on Silom Road, designed by Krisda Arunwongs, and Thai Farmer Bank on Paholyuthin Road, designed by Rangsan Torsuwan, created a stir in the Thai architectural design movement, as their designs were the very first recognizable construction of the grand-scale high-rise office buildings. The completion of an international award-wining robot-shape Asia Bank building, designed by Sumet Jumsai, enhanced the world’s recognition of modern Thai architecture. The peak moment of Thai high-rise building culminated with the completion of the one-time tallest reinforced concrete building in Asia, Baiyoke Building, in 1987, designed in chief by an architectural team from Plan Architect, underscoring a virtual transformation of Bangkok’s skyline.

During the late 1980s, flat slab and glass wall construction came into favor in designing Bangkok’s high-rise architecture. The growth of the Thai concrete and glass- wall industries supported the movement. The general design of the trend’s new high-rise buildings, such as Thai Airways Building, Sin Asia Building, and Orkarn Building, thus differentiated itself from its predecessors with the surface design’s material and a more elaborate interior decoration. To architects, designing with flat slab and glass wall became, for some time, fashionably intrinsic to high-rise architecture. Yet, to the general public’s perception, buildings with linear strips such as the two Headquarters of Bangkok Bank and Shell Gas Company exemplified the majority of Bangkok’s architecture in the 1980s, but the cloud reflection on the mirror wall of the new Thai Airways office building on Vipavadee Road induced their imagination of the future Bangkok.

Meanwhile, another architectural trend was introduced to Bangkok through the Postmodernism influence. The neoclassical style Amarintr shopping plaza twisted the atmosphere of Erawan Square, from a postwar-World War II modern architectural environment to a reconstructed 19th-century European atmosphere. Yet, as time passed, the Postmodernist trend lost its popularity among architects, but its influence was rooted in the design of individual houses, luxurious housing development in particular.

The continuing escalation of the Thai economy during the early 1990s was a key to the construction of many grand-scale buildings. The National Queen Sirikit Convention Center, designed by Design 103 Architects firm, purposely built to serve as an international convention center, shed light on the use of high-span structure and the concern for energy conservation. The form itself exemplified other buildings in which the architects attempted to combine the form of traditional Thai architecture, the pointed roof in particular, with modern architectural elements. Yet, even though the “East-meets- West” situation has been a longtime concern of modern Thai architects, thus far it has not yet been fully developed, either in terms of form or concept. The closest was that of Dan Wongsprasat’s design of Regent Hotel on Sathorn Road; the architect integrated the design for tropical weather with the simplified form of Thai Panya-roof house into the design of the hotel building and its interior courts. Similar attempts, for example, included Sumet Jumsai’s design of the Dome Building at the new campus of Thammasat University and the Moblex Firm’s design of the Rajmongkol Conference Center inside the Suang Luang Public Garden.

In contrast to the architects’ struggle in conceptualizing and refining modern Thai architecture, traditional Thai architecture during the last half of the century is well regarded and more developed. The complex of Ruen Thai architecture at Chulalongkorn University, designed by Pinyu Suwankiri, has become a significant prototype for late- 20th-century central-Thai region’s architecture. Its elegant atmosphere and serene landscape was occasionally epitomized as the essential characters of traditional Thai architecture. Yet, other variations do exist, such as the sacred complex of the City Shine in the old town center and the solemn Chalerm-prakiet-King-Bhumipol building in front of the National Library.

Unlike the beginning of the decade, the economic crisis in 1997 turned Bangkok into one of the most challenging moments, particularly for that of architectural development. More than 70 real estate projects in Bangkok have been pending, some were sold to foreign owners, but many were left with their half-built structure. The city was then covered with the remains of unfinished construction projects, which yet waited to be revived in times to come. As many noticed, most interruptions over the 200 years of Bangkok’s growth often turned the city itself into a newer and better phase of development.

VIMALIN RUJIVACHARAKUL 

Sennott R.S. Encyclopedia of twentieth century architecture, Vol.1 (A-F).  Fitzroy Dearborn., 2005.

INTERNAL LINKS

FUTHER READING

Association of Siamese Architects, research by Vimolsidhi Horayangkura, Kobkul Indaravichitr, Santi Chantavilaswons, Veera Inpantang, Phattanakarn Naew Kwamkid lae Rupbab kong Ngan Satapattayakarm:

Adeet, Patjuban, lae Anakot (Development of Architectural Form: The Past, Present, and Future), Bangkok: Amarintr Publishing, 1993

Kostof, Spiro, “Architecture and the State,” in A History of Architecture, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995

Saksri, M.R.Nangnoi, Pusdee Tiptus, M.R.Chanvut Voravan, Veera Sajjakul, Lesom Stapitanont, and Bandhit Chulasai (editors), Onkprakop Tang Kaypap Krung Rattanakosintr (Physical Composition of Bangkok), Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 1991

Silpakorn University, The Italian Embassy in Thailand, The Department of Fine Arts, Reports from the First International Conference on Italian-Thai Studies from the Nineteenth Century to the Present, Bangkok, 1997

Tiptus, Pusdee, and Manop Pongstat, Ban Nai Krungtep (Houses in Bangkok), Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 1982