Darthrevan Supercharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 it was edited for better reflection finally, a breath of fresh air ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadX Moderator September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 finally, a breath of fresh air Tks...we are not a journalist club where drama and 'headlines that attract' pull crowds. call a spade a spade....period! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabian Turbocharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 yeah you didnt buy many units. just 1 nia... 1 Block Soya and Picnic are so lucky! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asd78 Clutched September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 Why should URA intervene if there's a demand for these apartments? Should be left to free market forces to decide. You are right....not everyone can afford big units for investment...these smaller units give those who wish to own a pte apartment but couldnt do so due to monetary issues, now a chance to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasonjst 3rd Gear September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 (edited) this curb will just push up prices for shoebox units. Let's face it, you can't fight the trend of a aging population from the baby boomer generation, more singles, more couples who doesn't want to have kids and more expats when you have a FT policy. All these factors make the demand of shoeboxes very desirable, because they are affordable and easier to maintain, hence, suitable for the lifestyle needs for the group that I have mentioned. Curbing this supply will just make the demand even higher and pushing up prices for the existing shoebox units. The right move is to control the demand, which is obviously a more difficult job. I also could not rationalise the fact that shoeboxes will add to more traffic congestion. Why should that be so? Larger units means more people living in it and may means more ownership of cars from that one large unit. Infact, larger units may contribute to more traffic because besides going to work, the family may also need to transport their kids to school. I would prefer to have a block of 50 shoeboxes beside me than a block of 20 larger units because the total occupants in that 20 larger units may be more than the 50 shoeboxes. So how would shoeboes contribute to traffic congestion? Seems for distracting attention away from poor road planning and FT policy which to me is a bigger contributor to traffic congestion. Yes fully agree . Want to curb shoeboxes , at least must come out an alternative option for these group of people first ma . If I belong to this group , need a house with a small buget of 500K , than how ? I cant affort to buy 2 to 3 room condo right ? Can buy BTO or not ? :angry: Edited September 5, 2012 by Jasonjst Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe 3rd Gear September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 Why should URA intervene if there's a demand for these apartments? Should be left to free market forces to decide. URA just made supply limited and demand not dropping. in short, we can expect price increases for shoebox! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasonjst 3rd Gear September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 URA just made supply limited and demand not dropping. in short, we can expect price increases for shoebox! In short everything up lah ! These people cant buy shoebox , will turn to HDB resales Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lala81 Hypersonic September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 A lot of people believe in free market forces but lack the insight of how to use regulations to control what is a force of nature. It's like trying to control the course of a river through a populated area. That's what regulators must do. Letting the river run at random is not always the desired outcome. In general, I approve of the policy though the other issues must be addressed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp4wn Turbocharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 A lot of people believe in free market forces but lack the insight of how to use regulations to control what is a force of nature. It's like trying to control the course of a river through a populated area. That's what regulators must do. Letting the river run at random is not always the desired outcome. In general, I approve of the policy though the other issues must be addressed. exactly (and i think its a decent policy as well) ... letting the market dictate prices would hurt genuine buyers even more, since the richer guys with money would just gobble everything up. we're a nation of property owners, not renters ... hopefully it stays that way ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icedbs Turbocharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 (edited) exactly (and i think its a decent policy as well) ... letting the market dictate prices would hurt genuine buyers even more, since the richer guys with money would just gobble everything up. we're a nation of property owners, not renters ... hopefully it stays that way ... Issue is, curbing it will hurt genuine buyers even more...because now, shoeboxes will become even more expensive!! However, it is the reason they gave which I find it funny. Reasons like 1) Traffic congestion. (huh?...what has that got to do with houses size?) 2) Shoebox not conducive in having kids (hello, when has size of house becomes a key factor in having kids? If that's the case, HDB should just build all 5rms and do away with anything smaller) Edited September 5, 2012 by Icedbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe 3rd Gear September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 Issue is, curbing it will hurt genuine buyers even more...because now, shoeboxes will become even more expensive!! However, it is the reason they gave which I find it funny. Reasons like 1) Traffic congestion. (huh?...what has that got to do with houses size?) 2) Shoebox not conducive in having kids (hello, when has size of house becomes a key factor in having kids? If that's the case, HDB should just build all 5rms and do away with anything smaller) maybe govt wants ppl to have families and having more shoeboxes, though not the decisive factor, certainly doesn't help or encourage this. so best to just put some curbs in place. the shoebox buyers must be smiling now. cos FT that come here usually will rent small apartments. and if a lot more FT will come and there's limited shoebox, the value (rental) of those homes will go up. govt cannot just say shoebox value cannot go up. and the way i see it, a lot more FTs are also coming! traffic congestion refers to building shoebox (many units) in for eg a place filled with landed homes. suddenly, there may be more cars around that road. but by and large, shoebox tenants don't really drive. point is Khaw should spend more time in the fundamentals, ensuring HDB remain affordable for Sporeans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp4wn Turbocharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 Issue is, curbing it will hurt genuine buyers even more...because now, shoeboxes will become even more expensive!! However, it is the reason they gave which I find it funny. Reasons like 1) Traffic congestion. (huh?...what has that got to do with houses size?) 2) Shoebox not conducive in having kids (hello, when has size of house becomes a key factor in having kids? If that's the case, HDB should just build all 5rms and do away with anything smaller) plot of land = 2000sqm, plot ratio 2.8. 60278 sqft can be built up. simplified: selling 50sqm apartments means i can get about 112 apartments. (im not factoring in common areas, parking slots bla bla bla, this example is for illustration purposes) now, 100sqm apartments means half of that, 56. dont forget, developer needs to ensure each owner gets at least 1 parking lot. now imagine a place like telok kurau, where you cant even find space to park illegally. everyone is basically buying 1000-2000sqm plots and subdividing like nuts. can you imagine an entire lane where you have 100s of people? as for point 2, the more kids you wanna have, the more space you need ma. they want you to have more kids ma Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lala81 Hypersonic September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 Issue is, curbing it will hurt genuine buyers even more...because now, shoeboxes will become even more expensive!! However, it is the reason they gave which I find it funny. Reasons like 1) Traffic congestion. (huh?...what has that got to do with houses size?) 2) Shoebox not conducive in having kids (hello, when has size of house becomes a key factor in having kids? If that's the case, HDB should just build all 5rms and do away with anything smaller) For HDB, u have a lower salary cap, then u can buy 3rm (4k if im not wrong) otherwise the majority is always 4rm in any development. Traffic congestion i agree is not a strong point. But i believe, more units = more cars. Although the bigger units are more likely to own >1 car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icedbs Turbocharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 (edited) plot of land = 2000sqm, plot ratio 2.8. 60278 sqft can be built up. simplified: selling 50sqm apartments means i can get about 112 apartments. (im not factoring in common areas, parking slots bla bla bla, this example is for illustration purposes) now, 100sqm apartments means half of that, 56. dont forget, developer needs to ensure each owner gets at least 1 parking lot. now imagine a place like telok kurau, where you cant even find space to park illegally. everyone is basically buying 1000-2000sqm plots and subdividing like nuts. can you imagine an entire lane where you have 100s of people? as for point 2, the more kids you wanna have, the more space you need ma. they want you to have more kids ma The parking lot will be inside the condo compound, not eating into the space outside the road. Also, can anyone gurantee that the total occupants in 56 large units will always be less than 100 shoeboxes? That 56 large units may own 2 cars each! The shoeboxes may not even have cars since most could be tenants. Edited September 5, 2012 by Icedbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yewheng Twincharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 People who can't afford should not be buying. Developers who build such apartments and indirectly encourages speculators will bear the brunt of the market when purchasers can't pay up and forced to look for new buyers. They go bust because they build shoebox apartments then so be it because they lack foresight. This is free market force in action. Congestion and Parking issues: URA should have consulted LTA (maybe they did I don't know) or build in road widening measures (its actually present but probably insufficient) when they decide to up the plot ratio thereby increasing density. [thumbsup] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp4wn Turbocharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 The parking lot will be inside the condo compound, not eating into the space outside the road. Also, can anyone gurantee that the total occupants in 56 large units will always be less than 100 shoeboxes? That 56 large units may own 2 cars each! The shoeboxes may not even have cars since most could be tenants. thats a risk i guess the URA isnt willing to take dude. listen man, as a guy in the real estate biz, if i was a developer and i was selling shoebox units, id be pissed because the psf is much greater (which ultimately means a loss of profits). how they intend to make that back up (after tasting that sweet sweet pie) is probably by increasing prices of normal places. (my assumption of course, i could be wrong) so we're back at sq 1 then .. at least units arent getting even smaller then ... lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeshe Turbocharged September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 it was edited for better reflection was wondering wat was the initial title... [laugh] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadX Moderator September 5, 2012 Share September 5, 2012 was wondering wat was the initial title... farking title still there, but i added a few words after the -....ccb ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
ERP Next Phase: New In-vehicle Units (IUs)
ERP Next Phase: New In-vehicle Units (IUs)
Are there loan restrictions with old FH units?
Are there loan restrictions with old FH units?
Hunt The Mouse to find $50,000 Cash
Hunt The Mouse to find $50,000 Cash
Instant noodle sales top 100 billion units a year
Instant noodle sales top 100 billion units a year
Man Beaten Up By Spongebob, Mickey Mouse & Friends
Man Beaten Up By Spongebob, Mickey Mouse & Friends
Sky habitat so far only 42 units lodge in URA
Sky habitat so far only 42 units lodge in URA
Uncle Sam Now Allows Women Folks To Serve In Combat Units
Uncle Sam Now Allows Women Folks To Serve In Combat Units