Analysts said flats sold under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) may be losing their relevance, as the gap in the housing market they previously served is now covered by Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.
The income ceiling to qualify for a BTO flat was recently raised to S$10,000 - the same as DBSS flats.
Since the public outcry over the record-breaking asking prices of a previous DBSS launch, Centrale 8, and the following clamp-down on land sales for such projects, some analysts believe the days of DBSS projects are numbered.
But in the housing market, it's all about location and pricing.
Belvia in Bedok is the latest DBSS project to be launched.
It saw a healthy crowd, receiving more than 200 applications on its first day.
Mr Raymond Chia, CEO of CEL Development, said: "Bedok Reservoir is a mature estate; we feel there's a ready demand. If you look at houses around here, they are mainly 20 to 30 years old. People who've grown up in the area, they are familiar with the surroundings and amenities. Out of convenience and to be near their parents, this can be a choice to them."
And instead of being a negative impact, Mr Chia sees the outcry over Centrale 8 as a "talking point".
Developer Sim Lian's Centrale 8 made the news in June when its highest asking price for a DBSS flat was S$880,000 - almost as expensive as Executive Condominiums, which boast amenities such as swimming pools and tennis courts.
Sim Lim eventually backed down and slashed S$100,000 off its priciest units.
The 488-unit Belvia project has 3-room to 5-room units, and an indicative price of S$570 per square foot.
"Transport is quite convenient, and a new MRT is coming up. And it's near to the PIE and if you want to go somewhere it's very convenient," said one Singapore resident.
"I grew up in the East, and my parents are just staying nearby. I think the location is tied with the price. So I believe with the new MRT to be built, I think the price to pay is justifiable," said another.
Market watchers point out that DBSS projects are public housing and have to be priced accordingly.
Mr Mohd Ismail, CEO of PropNex, said: "DBSS price should be at least 20 per cent cheaper than executive condos, or slightly more; it could be about 25 per cent, that would be ideal.
"It would make very little sense for someone to pay a high price where the differentiation between executive condos and (DBSS flats) is not even 20 per cent. Then I think you're not entering into a good deal."
Two other DBSS projects will be launched later this month in Clementi and Jurong.
Source: CHANNEL NEWSASIA Updated Oct 15, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Foreign ownership rules: When the Government intervenes ...
The issue of foreign ownership of private residential properties has been a fairly hot topic of debate for newspaper readers recently.
Sensational news reports on foreigners buying private housing properties in Singapore never fail to draw many online comments, and some of the more unbiased and thoughtful comments have made it into print in the letters-to-the-editors section.
While some have called for some kind of ban, others asked that foreign buying be restricted to certain areas or types of properties or for us to adopt rules similar to those found in other countries such as Australia.
At the same time, there was also some robust defending of the status quo. It is not the duty of the Government to provide every local household with a private property as these are not basic but luxury goods. It is simply not possible with our scarce resources.
Foreign ownership of residential properties, particularly land, is an acutely sensitive topic in many countries, particularly in less developed ones. We do not have to look further than our neighbours, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.
It has to do with the general income levels and with the economic progress achieved by the local population. Natives want a level-playing field and not have all the prime or quality properties taken away by rich foreigners, perceived to have an unfair advantage with their ample wealth.
Sometimes, it is psychological as land is considered sacred. In some of the oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries, the only way foreigners could own property in their own name was on man-made islands such as The Palm Islands - Palm Jumeirah, Palm Jebel Ali and Palm Deira in Dubai and The Pearl-Qatar in Qatar.
The Palm Islands are artificial peninsulas constructed of sand dredged from the bottom of the Persian Gulf on which major commercial and residential projects are built.
The Pearl-Qatar is a man-made island covering 400ha and consists of luxury apartments and town homes, penthouse and villas besides various other commercial developments.
Until recently, foreign ownership of private residential property was also a non-issue in Singapore and in Hong Kong, but talk to some Hong Kongers these days, even among the wealthier ones, and you sense a deep resentment against Chinese nationals who have been buying up residential properties in the former British colony in droves.
What capped the debate for me was a letter to the press published on Wednesday by Associate Professor Kelvin F K Low, the associate dean (external relations) of the Singapore Management University's School of Law.
He was responding to an earlier letter which argued for no government intervention in the private property market. Besides the strict rules on foreign buying of public housing flats, he reminded readers that there are already existing restrictions in the private housing market.
Non-Singaporeans cannot buy landed property without consent. Two days ago, Law Minister K Shanmugam said he expected the number of approvals given to permanent residents who want to buy landed homes in Singapore to fall by more than half after the criteria was tightened further recently.
In his letter, Assoc Prof Low said that with the property market regulated at the bottom and at the top, it is those in the middle income bracket who are left feeling the squeeze.
In 1973, the Government introduced measures to prohibit the sale of residential property to foreigners without its consent.
These measures were relaxed in 1975 to allow foreigners to purchase residential property in buildings of six or more storeys.
The measures took form as the Residential Property Act in 1976 but the Act has lost its bite over time. Exemptions were introduced for developments designated "condominiums", which today is almost every new development. In 2006, the need for "condominium" status was itself removed.
However, Assoc Prof Low warned that the decision to change the status quo should not be taken lightly. The Government derives substantial revenues from land sales and any restrictions may affect this revenue.
In his opinion, it may be unthinkable for measures as draconian as in 1973 but the idea of government intervention is "hardly ludicrous". He ended by saying the "precise extent of intervention is a matter of government policy which, in a democracy, must in turn be accounted for come the next General Election".
He took the words out of my mouth.
Source: Today Online by Colin Tan Oct 14, 2011
Sensational news reports on foreigners buying private housing properties in Singapore never fail to draw many online comments, and some of the more unbiased and thoughtful comments have made it into print in the letters-to-the-editors section.
While some have called for some kind of ban, others asked that foreign buying be restricted to certain areas or types of properties or for us to adopt rules similar to those found in other countries such as Australia.
At the same time, there was also some robust defending of the status quo. It is not the duty of the Government to provide every local household with a private property as these are not basic but luxury goods. It is simply not possible with our scarce resources.
Foreign ownership of residential properties, particularly land, is an acutely sensitive topic in many countries, particularly in less developed ones. We do not have to look further than our neighbours, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.
It has to do with the general income levels and with the economic progress achieved by the local population. Natives want a level-playing field and not have all the prime or quality properties taken away by rich foreigners, perceived to have an unfair advantage with their ample wealth.
Sometimes, it is psychological as land is considered sacred. In some of the oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries, the only way foreigners could own property in their own name was on man-made islands such as The Palm Islands - Palm Jumeirah, Palm Jebel Ali and Palm Deira in Dubai and The Pearl-Qatar in Qatar.
The Palm Islands are artificial peninsulas constructed of sand dredged from the bottom of the Persian Gulf on which major commercial and residential projects are built.
The Pearl-Qatar is a man-made island covering 400ha and consists of luxury apartments and town homes, penthouse and villas besides various other commercial developments.
Until recently, foreign ownership of private residential property was also a non-issue in Singapore and in Hong Kong, but talk to some Hong Kongers these days, even among the wealthier ones, and you sense a deep resentment against Chinese nationals who have been buying up residential properties in the former British colony in droves.
What capped the debate for me was a letter to the press published on Wednesday by Associate Professor Kelvin F K Low, the associate dean (external relations) of the Singapore Management University's School of Law.
He was responding to an earlier letter which argued for no government intervention in the private property market. Besides the strict rules on foreign buying of public housing flats, he reminded readers that there are already existing restrictions in the private housing market.
Non-Singaporeans cannot buy landed property without consent. Two days ago, Law Minister K Shanmugam said he expected the number of approvals given to permanent residents who want to buy landed homes in Singapore to fall by more than half after the criteria was tightened further recently.
In his letter, Assoc Prof Low said that with the property market regulated at the bottom and at the top, it is those in the middle income bracket who are left feeling the squeeze.
In 1973, the Government introduced measures to prohibit the sale of residential property to foreigners without its consent.
These measures were relaxed in 1975 to allow foreigners to purchase residential property in buildings of six or more storeys.
The measures took form as the Residential Property Act in 1976 but the Act has lost its bite over time. Exemptions were introduced for developments designated "condominiums", which today is almost every new development. In 2006, the need for "condominium" status was itself removed.
However, Assoc Prof Low warned that the decision to change the status quo should not be taken lightly. The Government derives substantial revenues from land sales and any restrictions may affect this revenue.
In his opinion, it may be unthinkable for measures as draconian as in 1973 but the idea of government intervention is "hardly ludicrous". He ended by saying the "precise extent of intervention is a matter of government policy which, in a democracy, must in turn be accounted for come the next General Election".
He took the words out of my mouth.
Source: Today Online by Colin Tan Oct 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)