From Paul Chan Poh Hoi 04:45 AM Jun 14, 2012
I disagree with Mr Conrad Raj's commentary "Not too small for comfort" (June 7) that we should leave shoebox apartments to market forces. Are we trying to rival Hong Kong? We should address this unhealthy trend for the sake of future generations.
Does the Urban Redevelopment Authority condone the building of more 35-square-metre units? Rather than being non-committal, it should indicate the size of a self-contained residential unit with basic amenities that would provide decent living.
In the 1960s, the Housing and Development Board built 41-sq-m two-room flats with compressed amenities, a vast improvement from living in squalor. Public housing prices then were commensurate with the income of ordinary folks. But now, when Singapore is one of the best places to work and live in Asia, instead of building larger flats for a better lifestyle for Singaporeans, property developers are increasingly offering 37-sq-m shoebox units for up to S$1 million.
The smallest units approved were 24-sq-m. With columns, corners, walls, partitions and doors, can this provide a decent bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and healthy living area?
We could build a limited, controlled number of shoebox apartments if demand warrants the supply, but we do not want to be the city with the most number, or highest proportion, of shoebox apartments.
As a premium city, we should not challenge First-World codes of building practice and technical specifications for decent dwelling. Our lawmakers must specify the minimum internal nett area, with self-contained basic amenities, approved for development.
Hence, government intervention is necessary. Perhaps 60 sq m is feasible. Yes, singles or couples can live comfortably in a 37-sq-m unit. But why not a better quality life if the law were to state the minimum is 60 sq m?
/todayonline
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Jonathan0503
