Revise rules on collective sales for young estates

[reporter2]

Revise rules on collective sales for young estates

Dec 23, 2017


I agree with Ms Koh Hui Hwa that we are unnecessarily destroying buildings which may still be useful when we sell them en bloc (Selling en bloc: Are residences not built to last?; Dec 20).

With the recent collective sale fever, estates as young as 20 years old or less are jumping onto the bandwagon.

This will unnecessarily uproot many families.

Selling en bloc is not just about monetary gains - there are social and psychological costs involved as well.

Perhaps the Strata Titles Board could review its rules governing the process to sell en bloc.

This could save buildings from unnecessary destruction and prolong the lifespan of all liveable estates.

This will also promote cohesiveness and the kampung spirit in estates.

Chua Soo Leng (Ms)

[Arcachon]

We need more kampung because visitor like to see how backward the country is.

[teddybear]

I strongly agree with this!

It is a terrible waste of resources and bad for environment to be tearing down properties that are even <40 years old just for enbloc!

Gov should just change the rules that enbloc <40 years old must get 100% consent!

Those >40 years old may be just need 90% consent and those >50 years old just need 80% cosent!

Concrete buildings are known to last for several hundred years! So what is 50 years concrete building? Too young to tear down!

Revise rules on collective sales for young estates

Dec 23, 2017


I agree with Ms Koh Hui Hwa that we are unnecessarily destroying buildings which may still be useful when we sell them en bloc (Selling en bloc: Are residences not built to last?; Dec 20).

With the recent collective sale fever, estates as young as 20 years old or less are jumping onto the bandwagon.

This will unnecessarily uproot many families.

Selling en bloc is not just about monetary gains - there are social and psychological costs involved as well.

Perhaps the Strata Titles Board could review its rules governing the process to sell en bloc.

This could save buildings from unnecessary destruction and prolong the lifespan of all liveable estates.

This will also promote cohesiveness and the kampung spirit in estates.

Chua Soo Leng (Ms)

[teddybear]

The age of a property has nothing to do with backward, and this is a terrible stupid idea to even suggest that!
US has many more old buildings and ugly buildings and you telling us US is more backward than Singapore?!

I think Singapore has been too "backward" and naive in thinking!
Despite all the advances, Singaporeans' way of living and thinking is really no better than that of Malaysia and Vietnam!

We need more kampung because visitor like to see how backward the country is.

[Arcachon]

I strongly agree with this!

It is a terrible waste of resources and bad for environment to be tearing down properties that are even <40 years old just for enbloc!

Gov should just change the rules that enbloc <40 years old must get 100% consent!

Those >40 years old may be just need 90% consent and those >50 years old just need 80% cosent!

Concrete buildings are known to last for several hundred years! So what is 50 years concrete building? Too young to tear down!

http://www.cee.ntu.edu.sg/NewsnEvent...ust%202014.pdf

Will you build a house for more than 100 years knowing you can stay only for 99 years.

[Arcachon]

The age of a property has nothing to do with backward, and this is a terrible stupid idea to even suggest that!
US has many more old buildings and ugly buildings and you telling us US is more backward than Singapore?!

I think Singapore has been too "backward" and naive in thinking!
Despite all the advances, Singaporeans' way of living and thinking is really no better than that of Malaysia and Vietnam!

I like Singapore way of doing thing after staying in France for 8 years 8 months, Arizona for 30 months and Milano for 20 months. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence until you get to stay there.

[teddybear]

Since the house has a 99-years lease, obviously the developers have a obligation to ensure that the building can last at least 99 years right?
If can last at least 99 years, why tear down when they are only 20 years old?
A waste of manpower, resources, damaging to environment right?!

http://www.cee.ntu.edu.sg/NewsnEvent...ust%202014.pdf

Will you build a house for more than 100 years knowing you can stay only for 99 years.

[Kelonguni]

Only 2 sentences:

1. Meeting Singapore’s long term needs.

2. Never allowing Teddy to have an actual example of a 99 LH that has run to 0 years and zero value. At least not in his lifetime.

Since the house has a 99-years lease, obviously the developers have a obligation to ensure that the building can last at least 99 years right?
If can last at least 99 years, why tear down when they are only 20 years old?
A waste of manpower, resources, damaging to environment right?!

[Fiona2004]

you are great!

[proud owner]

We cannot compare buildings in Europe to those in Singapore...

The cold Preserves the building
While the heat and humidity 'age' the building faster.

The older condos > 30 yrs old ... many of them have the following issues:

roof leakages
water seepage thru walls
Choked sewage pipe
Burst underground pipe
damaged roads (old tree root issue)
etc

these cost a lot to maintain, and the cost will continue to go up with more frequent repairs/replacement
owners are not willing to pay more in maintenance charges

rent for such old condos stays low, or gets lower as it gets older ...

in the long run only makes sense to enbloc