Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 45 of 100

Thread: PES & Roof Terrace to be treated as GFA

  1. #41
    Junior

    User Info Menu

    Default

    This is all from developer perspective. Of course they profited from it. But as a buyer of such units, what he gets is a private terrace with a price on it. The value can only go up not down, all else being equal, as there is no more supply.

  2. #42
    Junior

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proud owner
    For explanation sake

    Say the GFA is 200,000 sqft..
    Of which developer will pay govt for 150,000 sqft to build actual units..

    Govt Gives 50,000 sqft to developer FOC for use, as garden, walkway, Roof Garden etc... Developers are allowed to use 10 pct of this 50,000 sqft as pay of the actual unit like balcony PES and RT

    But developers from 2004 ish onwards til today, have been selling that 50,000 sqft of free GFA to PH buyers. Or unit with which balcony

    The free GFA was a gift to developer build something that All residents of the condo to enjoy, instead only those few units with RT had it...

    That's what I meant IT was free but developer sold to PH buyers

    Yes .... thanks I got that part.

    Its this statement that got me puzzled.

    Will future buyers of of such resale unit willing to pay for that space which all now know was Free of charge?

    In my mind, why would future buyers be not willing to pay for the space? It should be transparent to them whether the space was originally free or not.

    With CM7, people are now even more willing to pay for that space. Again, it doesn't matter whether the developer (or resale house owner) got it free or not.

  3. #43
    Junior

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Actually my concern with this policy change on PES/RT is its applicabilty on existing units... ie. units already built up.

    The way it is worded seems to imply that it does not apply to existing units but only to developing or yet to be developed units. For example, it seems to imply that the developer designs the covers but the owner reserves the right install.

    extracted from appendix 1

    Covers
    a. Coverings can be allowed on private RTs. To avoid ad-hoc coverings of private RTs by individual owners downstream, covers are to be designed upfront to be well integrated with the overall design of the development and approved as part of the development application process. Developers can propose a single cover design, or a few designs for the buyers to choose from.


    This would be impossible for properties that has already been developed since the developer would not have made such provisions. Can a homeowner the design his own?... of course subject to MCST's approval.

  4. #44
    Be Heard, not the Herd

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adrianmtsg
    For current owner, many mcst does not permit cover over PES/RT area. Now they can. That will mean bigger live in area for this unit. .
    You are totally mistaken. The policy applies to new developments from 12 Jan 2013( whose applications have not been approved) where the PES and RT are counted towards the GFA. For existing and old developments, if the PES and RT were free and not counted towards the GFA under the old rules, then you still CANNOT build any cover over them.

    Read carefully...
    Last edited by fclim; 12-01-13 at 23:54.

  5. #45
    Newbie

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fclim
    You are totally mistaken. The policy applies to new developments from 12 Jan 2013 where the PES and RT are counted towards the GFA. For existing and old developments, if the PES and RT were free and not counted towards the GFA under the old rules, then you still CANNOT build any cover over them.

    Read carefully...
    really? .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •