Page 2 of 256 FirstFirst 12345678910111252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 2557

Thread: D'Leedon (D10, 99 years leasehold, Capitaland)

  1. #11

    Default

    Considering the outrageous price paid, I always thought the plot is bigger than that. Only 800k+ sq ft and so many units, it's horrible. each unit effectively only 500 sq ft. of "land". Can forget about future enbloc, EVER.

    Maybe they will squeeze in very small units to keep price tag affordable Latest trend.

    Quote Originally Posted by azeoprop
    1555 units in only 838488sqft of land area? More crowded than minton which only have 1145 units in 115910sqft of land area.

  2. #12

    Default

    Don't agree. Still doesn't change the fact they squeezing in more people in the same plot with same shared facilities. Higher density living within the same area - everyone ends up having less space.

    Quote Originally Posted by cashrich
    cannot compare like this. Must use foot print.

    What is the foot print size of the blocks in project A
    versus
    Foot print size of the blocks in project B.

    You will get a more accurate idea of dead space and community space.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Falcon
    Don't agree. Still doesn't change the fact they squeezing in more people in the same plot with same shared facilities. Higher density living within the same area - everyone ends up having less space.
    There's a difference in plot ratio right? I am sharing the difference between a plot of land of the same size but one is with 5 block of low rise flat versus 3 blocks of high rise flat. Obviously the development with less blocks would give more common space even though built up may be higher.

    Anyway it may not be the case here. Unless someone so free to do the study.

  4. #14

    Default

    i agree with u. 15xx units squeezed into 36 storey blocks for 8xxk sq ft of land vs 11xx units squeezed into 17 storey blocks for 1.1xm sq ft of land (is that the case for minton?) may still end up with greater open spaces/unit for farrer court's case.

    i shall use my favourite duchess residences as a comparison since its nearby. 120 units squeezed into 5 storey blocks of 150k sq ft of land. on paper, its like, wow, 1,250 sq ft of land per unit! BUT, since there are 24 stacks and each stack takes up a lot of the land the remaining communal area pretty packed between the 2 row of blocks where all units will face each other. its the same for cascadia, low rise (12 storey), many stacks, takes up a lot of space and leaving much lesser common areas than it would appear on paper given the plot of land.



    Quote Originally Posted by cashrich
    There's a difference in plot ratio right? I am sharing the difference between a plot of land of the same size but one is with 5 block of low rise flat versus 3 blocks of high rise flat. Obviously the development with less blocks would give more common space even though built up may be higher.

    Anyway it may not be the case here. Unless someone so free to do the study.

  5. #15

    Default

    Let's say Singapore is 700 sq km. Do you think it will feel less cramped if you build skyscrapers everywhere and squeeze in 20 million people? Or 3 million people with combination of skyscrapers and low lying homes? By your analogy, a 20 million Singapore full of skyscrapers will feel less crowded and give better quality of life? I'm talking about density - you're squashing more people in a finite plot of land. Facilities and common areas will be stretched as they need to accomodate more people. If all 1555 household x 4 per household = 6,500 people comes down to take a walk in the only 800k sq ft land, you really get a headache. You're making the assumption that people stay in their homes "in the air" and don't come down and use facilities or walk around common area.

    As I say land is finite, squeezing in more people in a finite plot of land will always make it more crowded than what it used to be, i.e. old Farrer Park.

    Quote Originally Posted by cashrich
    There's a difference in plot ratio right? I am sharing the difference between a plot of land of the same size but one is with 5 block of low rise flat versus 3 blocks of high rise flat. Obviously the development with less blocks would give more common space even though built up may be higher.

    Anyway it may not be the case here. Unless someone so free to do the study.

  6. #16

    Default

    Plot ratio and GFA are the governing factors. Capitaland may apply the same strategy for interlace over at this site given the large land area. It may have a few themes and surrounded by greenery.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Falcon
    Let's say Singapore is 700 sq km. Do you think it will feel less cramped if you build skyscrapers everywhere and squeeze in 20 million people? Or 3 million people with combination of skyscrapers and low lying homes? By your analogy, a 20 million Singapore full of skyscrapers will feel less crowded and give better quality of life? I'm talking about density - you're squashing more people in a finite plot of land. Facilities and common areas will be stretched as they need to accomodate more people. If all 1555 household x 4 per household = 6,500 people comes down to take a walk in the only 800k sq ft land, you really get a headache. You're making the assumption that people stay in their homes "in the air" and don't come down and use facilities or walk around common area.

    As I say land is finite, squeezing in more people in a finite plot of land will always make it more crowded than what it used to be, i.e. old Farrer Park.
    oic, ok

    Singapore is really getting cramped. You better be happy with more people on this small island, they help to drive up prices of...what else but properties. Without them, we will not be where we are.

    By your argument, all our parks are not big enough either. If they all go at the same time at the same place.

    BY current pricing, most people have to work longer hours at work, spend less time in their condo, that would work. Someone wrote in the papers that we might really have a problem if our population goes beyond 6.3 million.

    A possible solution? develop islands and go underground.

  8. #18

    Default

    This is possible as garment have invested heavily in the complex mrt network for more than 6.5 mil.

  9. #19

    Default

    Possible - does not mean comfortable.
    I reckon no issue to build higher and more dense to accomodate 6.x m in SG.
    ISsue for me is the road/rail infrastructure. We all start abt the same time, many go to the same area (CBD).

    Imagine this in the future - population of 6.x m, a Monday, heavy rain (slow traffic), a few minor accidents on the expressways and with some (ageing) MRT lines to have some form of service failure = "Blackswan" transport gridlock mayhem. Impossible?


    Quote Originally Posted by DC33_2008
    This is possible as garment have invested heavily in the complex mrt network for more than 6.5 mil.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    According to you scenario, I see bigger and bigger gap between CCR and OCR private property prices (& even HDB flats) as people will try to move closer to central region for easier and faster time to work, to school, to shopping etc by driving and even public transport (and avoid having to squeeze like sardine & stand for the whole 1 hour journey on MRT & bus!)

    Quote Originally Posted by gn108
    Possible - does not mean comfortable.
    I reckon no issue to build higher and more dense to accomodate 6.x m in SG.
    ISsue for me is the road/rail infrastructure. We all start abt the same time, many go to the same area (CBD).

    Imagine this in the future - population of 6.x m, a Monday, heavy rain (slow traffic), a few minor accidents on the expressways and with some (ageing) MRT lines to have some form of service failure = "Blackswan" transport gridlock mayhem. Impossible?

Posting Permissions