Architects - The Invisible Victims of En-bloc Sales

Friday's Straits Times carried a lengthy article on Singapore's veteran architects whose babies were subjected to the wrecking ball recently, courtesy of enbloc sales. Architects like Victor Chew, Timothy Seow, and William Lim, designed some of the earliest post-independence buildings and condominiums. These landmarks - Beverly Mai, Futura etc - are the true icons of Singapore's modern architecture. Yet in gaining huge windfalls, they are losing, as William Lim said "collective memories". Willaim Lim - "The Red House Bakery in Katong, the National Theatre - these may not be fantastic examples of architecture but they said something to the people"; "But there is no respect for the memories of the invisible public."

Victor Chew's question is poignant - what does a building mean to people? Is it just an investment waiting for the enbloc profit? Is it memories and histories for people who lived there? Is it just a place to stay, in true pragmatic Singaporean style?

Dr Timothy Seow's suggestion is likewise significant - he pointed out that many of the condos he designed were "well-designed buildings which if given a chance to be upgraded, would still be able to take on a new look that is relevant to the times".

Will the government continue to let the market-driven model of urban redevelopment systematically demolish the collective memories and architectural heritage of Singapore's modern era? Or will the government step in and put into place, like what Dr Seow suggested, upgrade schemes for condos which are worth conserving?

It's not impossible, it's a question of will. And if the government's actions in the past were any indication, when there's a will there's a way, as they say.

This article couldn't be more timely. I grew up on the west side of Singapore, and used to imagine Westpeak Condo (currently being torn down) as a giant Transformer (with its noticeable 'head'). Now I will never be able to drive past it and remember my childhood memories.

You can read the article reproduced in condosingapore here.

Print Page

Tags: William Lim, Timothy Seow, Victor Chew, Singapore architects, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, singapore, collective sale

Other Minority Voices - Better Arguments Against Enblocs

I'm greatly heartened to see more forum letters that point to a need to reevaluate the legal practice of enbloc sales. Reprinting them here for all to read - all from Straits Times, two printed and two online. All very well argued. Bravo!

En bloc rules have unintended effect of distorting the market
Straits Times Forum Online
by Waleed Hanafi
7th Feb 2007

In the article excerpting a speech by Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, 'Maximising the lie of the land' (ST Review, Feb5), there is the claim that Singapore's rules governing en bloc sales of private property are innovative and that the 'happy outcome is that both the individual and public interest are served'.

Singapore's en bloc rules have led to people being forced from their homes and neighbourhoods, and to rampant speculation in the property market.

Rather than maintain their buildings, owners are incentivised to suspend maintenance in order to maximise profit at the expense of those who truly want a home instead of just an investment.

Why use the sinking fund to repair the building when you can just wait until things deteriorate and you can persuade your neighbour to give up and sell out?

Mr Ngiam says he is 'glad to see that the invisible hand of pricing has often worked its wonders'.

In fact, it is the distorting hand of government that has permitted the abrogation of property rights and the distortion of pricing.

If the market was truly efficient, the price of flats would fully reflect the value of the building and the land they stand on.

With construction costs running at about $200 per square foot, how does one explain the sudden jump in value of a property from $1,000psf to $2,400psf simply by destroying the existing building?

It is because the prospect of an en bloc sale encourages short-term thinking and treats buildings as tradable assets, instead of homes.

If one takes the example of Ardmore Park, it is hard to understand any reason for the destruction of pretty much every building on the street and the surrounding neighbourhood. These were sound, desirable residences. What exists now looks like a war zone.

In most other economies, these buildings would increase in value, given their location and quality. If an owner wanted to profit from the increase in valuation, he would sell to a new buyer, not vote for the destruction of the property.

When a building does go en bloc, it is not a triumph of the majority over the individual, as Mr Ngiam asserts, but rather the triumph of the developer, the estate agent, and a few speculators.

The environmental cost of destroying perfectly sound buildings because of this price distortion is inexcusable.

The real cost is borne by those forced to live through the destruction of the existing building and eventual construction of a replacement.

The reality on the ground is quite different than the idyllic picture painted by Mr Ngiam.

Rather than an efficient market in which willing buyer and willing seller set prices, the en bloc rules have had the unintended consequence of distorting the market, disincentivising building maintenance and upkeep, raising housing costs and destroying the quality of life for tens of thousands of residents of Singapore.

Why demolish perfectly livable old apartments? New isn't necessarily better
Straits Times Forum Online
by Susan Amis (Mrs)
9th Feb 2007

In the craze to sell older condos en bloc, has anyone stopped to consider the consequences of demolishing perfectly livable old apartments and replacing them with new developments? Many expatriates who come to Singapore want to spend their housing budgets on large, older style condominiums because they offer large amounts of space for children to run around in, established gardens, three or four bedrooms and big balconies or courtyards. There is low demand for brand new small apartments for a typical expat family of four.

As these new developments are completed over the next few years, who will be buying the thousands of expensive new apartments on the market? Surely there will be a glut of these types of properties once the developments are completed? Potential buyers who intend to rent out these apartments to high-income earners will need to investigate the pitfalls of investing in these new developments.

Noise pollution from construction sites is also a huge problem and will become worse over the next few years. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a quiet place to live in. Many expats are insisting upon a 'construction clause' in their rental contracts that allows them to break the lease should construction noise from surrounding properties impede their quality of life.

New isn't necessarily better, and a lot of expats are lamenting the current lack of desirable older housing in Singapore.

Ensure no one suffers financial hardship
Straits Times Forum (Printed)
by William Foo Kuo Meng
9th Feb 2007

I AM shocked by the landmark ruling of the Strata Titles Board that losses incurred in one's CPF account are not considered a financial loss in the case of an en bloc sale ('Couple lose fight on collective sale'; ST, Feb 6).

CPF funds are for our retirement, housing and medical needs and are our hard-earned savings.

With the current buoyant property market and frequent en bloc sales, it is time that the rules governing such collective sales be reviewed to ensure that no one else will suffer similar financial hardship as a result of actions beyond their control.

En bloc sales: Have laws to protect minority
Straits Times Forum (Printed)
by Valerie Ong Guek Kim (Mdm)
9th Feb 2007

I REFER to the article, 'Couple lose fight on collective sale' (ST, Feb 6).

I sympathise with the couple who lost the fight when the Strata Titles Board ruled that their CPF principal amount and accrued interest owed to their CPF accounts are not considered a financial loss.

My condominium is also going through an en bloc sale. That very term now sends shivers down my spine. With large estates like Waterfront View and Gillman Heights being demolished, where are the owners to find another abode? Demand is outstripping supply and home prices have escalated. The amount reaped from an en bloc sale would rarely get an owner an equivalent property. New developments that spring up on properties that have gone en bloc are almost double the price per sq foot of the original.

Also, friendship and neighbourliness are thrown aside in the name of progress. En bloc sales are blind to whatever reasons a family may have for not wanting to move, be it proximity to the children's schools, elderly dependants and amenities or plain attachment to one's home or neighbourhood.

So what benefit is there for the majority? It is the developer, the marketing agent and speculators who benefit.

Will the Government consider the environmental cost of destroying perfectly sound buildings in the light of the scarcity of sand that Singapore is facing?

With all the negative consequences of en bloc sales, I request lawmakers to put themselves in the shoes of the minority and protect their quality of life.

Tags: Straits Times, Straits Times Forum, ST Forum, collective sale, real estate, property, enbloc sale, enbloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, condo, collective sales, singapore

Myth #4 - Maximising Land Use

I've read the forum postings in both the Straits Times and the Today newspapers that advocated en-bloc sales. The strongest argument for it, aside from that of financial profit (which cannot be seen as an argument as it is politically incorrect), is that of maximising land use.

Well. If such SPs are so socially concerned about the future of Singapore's land use, then logically, in the name of maximising land use...

• Botanic Gardens ought to be en-bloc'ed, its living residents evicted out of where it is currently located, preferably into Tuas, and the entire land area there redeveloped into private properties or foreign embassies. It is, after all, a waste of prime land*.
• The Istana is located in prime commercial land as well. Perhaps it too should be enbloc'ed and the President evicted to Tuas. Beside the Botanic Gardens so that tourists can visit both at the same time, and enjoy the scenic factories. We can build an Integrated Resort right on the Istana property. Talk about maximising land use.
• Religious buildings in prime land - that's a waste of space too. Let's enbloc the St Andrews Cathedral and the Armenian Church, demolish them and build mini casinos in their place.
• Now what is that wasted empty space in the middle of the city? Oh yes, the Padang. Enbloc, destroy and rebuild in the name of maximising land use!
  
• Since 85% of residential properties in Singapore are public housing flats, with the remainder private housing (the only ones allowed to undergo en-bloc), for maximal land use it would make sense to aggressively redevelop public estates on a 10 year cycle (like private en-blocs, which have an 'age requirement' of 10 yrs). Let's see how the heartland voters would feel if they were subjected to 10 year cyclical evictions.
  

Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument of maximising land use would imply the above redevelopments as rational choices. Yet, we don't move the Padang, the Istana, the Botanic Gardens. Why? Because of historical reasons? Because of attachment to place?

Aren't these the very same reasons that minority owners who are against enblocs wish to argue for sometimes? So why the double standard of saying that private properties should be demolished to maximise land, and yet remain silent on these other places?

The hypocrisy of greed. Tsk.


* Acknowledging another blogger who suggested this idea and I read it a long while back :) From singaporelifetimes.blogspot.com.

Tags: land use, maximising land use, collective sale, en-bloc, property, singapore, Istana, Botanic Gardens, Padang

Myth #1 - The Value of 'Human Resource'

My wife and I spent the first 25 years of our lives in Singapore. Like most middle-class citizens of this red dot, we grew up in a progressive slew of increasing house sizes, from flats to terrace to semi-d as our parents accumulated financial capital during the industrial/post-industrial era. We then moved to Europe to study and work for the next 20 years. There we were happy in flats, and we seldom moved. We liked stability, familiarity with our surroundings and community. We stayed on the outskirts of a small but sizeable town (one that's been struggling to gain city status but it never quite achieved it). We had two homes. The first was in the town itself, and was a flat in a building over 90 years old, obviously witnessing various world wars. I'm no architect nor do I know the various terms they use, but it has a gothic look I guess (red brick facade), and while it looks 'old', the interior has been refurbished repeatedly over the decades and is very well-maintained. The second was outside of the town, smaller and just over 30 years old, a baby by that country's building-lifespan standard. It too was well-maintained, with modern amenities.

We moved back to Singapore for me to take up a position in one of the universities here. We bought a flat in District 10, near Holland Village, one of our childhood haunts, and thought we could sink our roots here for the next decade or two. The condominium was built in 1989 making it about 15 years old, an ovary by European building-lifespan standards. We renovated the place which took a year (when we were still overseas).

Exactly 6 mths after we moved 'back home', we received news of the enbloc.

They were going to tear down the entire estate (if it sold), and rebuild a new one. One that can house more people, or to be more realistic, make more money for the developers.

Why do this? Developers and the government call this 'urban renewal'. But it points to the first of a number of (urban) myths about Singapore.

MYTH #1:

For years, it has been drummed into Singaporeans by the government, that we have no natural resources. Our human resources are our greatest asset, which is why the heavy expenditure on defence (to protect the citizens from attacks from unknown sources) and education (to protect the citizens from attacks from unknown sources). The people are the most valuable resource in Singapore.

Not true.

Land is the greatest resource.

People? Repopulating Singapore is a matter of either encouraging its citizenry to become baby producing families (done that), or opening the gates for (suitably qualified) foreigners to become citizens (and become baby producing families). Sure our educated classes are not producing the number of babies the government wants (note this applies only to the educated folks), but there's an ambitious drive to recruit foreigners into the country and get them to settle down here.

Land? That's tougher. We can only reclaim so much land and at specific areas of Singapore. Hell will break loose if those estate owners near the coast with their prized seaview suddenly find themselves removed further from the coastline.

And we can't jolly well invade and annex Johore.

LAND more than humans are our greatest asset. And it is this, and its subsequent 'land value', that is the driving impetus for the recent 'en-bloc fever', as developers fight over each other to snap up 'prime land'. Specifically, these are land in District 9, 10, 11 which are near the shopping belt, the consumer heart that is called Orchard Road. Everything real estate around Orchard Road have shot up in land value, and the stellar increase in land prices has trickled down to areas like ours at Holland V, about 5 minutes driving from Orchard.

Which is why people are willing to sell their grandmothers, or at least evict er I mean relocate them, so that they can buy/sell their prized real estate. Doing so can net you the prestige of being called an "overnight millionaire" from dealing with the bullish property market.

So the next time you hear the diatribe about our people being our greatest asset, think about whether selling your grannie is more profitable, or selling your home (especially collectively).

Tags: land use, land resource, human resource, Enbloccing Singapore, Enblocing Singapore, Enblocking Singapore, collective sale, real estate, property, enbloc sale, enbloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, condo, collective sales, singapore