Property has fall down?

[Throttle2]

I think luxus hills is normal landed property. It is just a bit crowded as the plot of land is small.

 

but if you can sell it at 2.5mil, why not buy at 1.6mil? but not for staying...

 

The 1st phase units are done and I drove by there. Looks super dusty and hot. I think it will be terrible to live there as there are not big trees, and a lot of construction for the next decade..... considering how slow they are selling...

 

 

IF can sell at 2.5mil why not buy at 1.6mil?

You last paragraph already answered the above question which is base on hindsight.

 

Anyway becos i'm a weirdo, dude.

I choose to spend my money differently.

I'm dont think like the mass market.

sometimes I lose money but I have no regrets losing.

 

 

Bearing in mind, my first private property was a 1820sft walkup beside the botanic gardens.

Old and weird place, which caused all my friends and relatives to wonder why i bot it when i could have bought a standard new mass market type condo instead.

As a single, I lived in great convenience and comfort after spending $80k to do it up (some of you would have seen pictures of it)

I doubled my money there when i sold it.

 

*smile*

Edited January 2, 2012 by Throttle2

[Turbonetics]

Yes. I always believed that cluster housing is a big con by developers.

 

It is merely a condo unit that masquerades as landed only because it is low rise and you get to walk out the ground floor.

 

You share carpark, maintenance, pool, etc.

 

You cannot even reno your facade the way you like because it is part of a shared titled estate. You do not fully own the land you're sitting on.

 

You are being charged $psf of built up floor area at the condo market rate of the district. The actual land on which your unit is built on is no bigger than a 1200 square feet footprint.

 

 

this explains the price difference between landed.

still there are buyers for such houses.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Turbonetics

[Rickster]

Actually new terrace prices now are crazy. i saw one on property guru that is asking for 3.7M. Land size only 1000 odd square feet but build up is 4000 plus.

 

Damn! the market is such now. no longer see land size, only build up.

 

Actually, the built up area of a terrace does count as it is extremely expensive in the range of $500-700K to rebuilt a 3 storey terrace house nowadays.

 

Considering that terrace houses nowadays are going from 1.5-2.5 million/unit... the price to rebuild a terrace is a significant %.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Rickster

[Rickster]

this explains the price difference between landed.

still there are buyers for such houses.

 

Actually it depends on what you are buying the strata-title "landed" cluster housing for...

 

If to stay in it, i don't mind as i like the concept.

 

But to buy it for rental yield, i believe condos will make a better deal.

[Twinturbo]

Some units at major projects released in November and early December 2011 are being returned to their developers, possibly indicating a reflex reaction to the implementation of the additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD), according to market watchers.

 

A report by the Business Times revealed that those who chose not to exercise their option to buy will forfeit a quarter of the five percent option fee, which is equivalent to 1.25 percent of the unit

[Jp66]

Yes. I always believed that cluster housing is a big con by developers.

 

It is merely a condo unit that masquerades as landed only because it is low rise and you get to walk out the ground floor.

 

You share carpark, maintenance, pool, etc.

 

You cannot even reno your facade the way you like because it is part of a shared titled estate. You do not fully own the land you're sitting on.

 

You are being charged $psf of built up floor area at the condo market rate of the district. The actual land on which your unit is built on is no bigger than a 1200 square feet footprint.

 

The carpark is not shared, usually 2 dedicated lots per unit.