NV residences

[teddybear]

I am thinking that based on your reasoning, those conserved properties' owners must be crying until no tears! (because properties so old, some >80 years old, still have to maintain like original new condition, cannot tear down and rebuild - but why they don't tell Govt that properties already >40 years so cannot maintain anymore and must tear down? - Or this is not true because properties in Singapore should be able to last >200 years especially we have strict building guidelines and assessment?).

IMO freehold and 99 not much diff., if the condo can still stand after 40 years, it will be too expensive to maintain it then. So IMO buying 99 yrs at a comparatively cheaper price than FH in about same location is a smart choice and smarter if intends to rent out only. Then at 30 yrs onwards, the enbloc game begins. (IMO - buying a 99 yrs makes a diff if buying not brand new or less than 90 yrs left - so this kind need to consider harder.)

[proud owner]

IMO freehold and 99 not much diff., if the condo can still stand after 40 years, it will be too expensive to maintain it then. So IMO buying 99 yrs at a comparatively cheaper price than FH in about same location is a smart choice and smarter if intends to rent out only. Then at 30 yrs onwards, the enbloc game begins. (IMO - buying a 99 yrs makes a diff if buying not brand new or less than 90 yrs left - so this kind need to consider harder.)

yur theory holds true in a DOWN trend ..

in most cases, when mkt retrace down, LH tends to fall more than FH ..

so if you are a buyer and a believer of the said 'theory' , that would be a perfect time to buy LH

however, in a BULL run like what we have seen in the last 4-5 yrs, LH are almost the same price as FH , at around the same location, in most areas..

so you are not buying any cheaper ...

30 yrs down the road, developers will need to pay up alot to top up the lease, back to 99yr .. and if costs remains high, enbloc will be very difficult, compared to FH..where developers need not top up lease..

i am not saying your theory doesnt work ..but it depends on which part of the market trend we are in, to decide between LH and FH

in general, most people still prefer FH ...

[proud owner]

I am thinking that based on your reasoning, those conserved properties' owners must be crying until no tears! (because properties so old, some >80 years old, still have to maintain like original new condition, cannot tear down and rebuild - but why they don't tell Govt that properties already >40 years so cannot maintain anymore and must tear down? - Or this is not true because properties in Singapore should be able to last >200 years especially we have strict building guidelines and assessment?).

you have a valid point ...

i have seen conservation GCB too .. old like fk ..and nobody wants even when selling cheap ..

[jencrs]

yur theory holds true in a DOWN trend ..

in most cases, when mkt retrace down, LH tends to fall more than FH ..

so if you are a buyer and a believer of the said 'theory' , that would be a perfect time to buy LH

however, in a BULL run like what we have seen in the last 4-5 yrs, LH are almost the same price as FH , at around the same location, in most areas..

so you are not buying any cheaper ...

30 yrs down the road, developers will need to pay up alot to top up the lease, back to 99yr .. and if costs remains high, enbloc will be very difficult, compared to FH..where developers need not top up lease..

i am not saying your theory doesnt work ..but it depends on which part of the market trend we are in, to decide between LH and FH

in general, most people still prefer FH ...

Just a question on this topping up on lease. Must the developer always top up the lease back to 99 years no matter how many years left on original lease? Ignoring whether it makes sense or not.

Is there any other difference between 99 and 999 years other than the time?

[bargain hunter]

i think hillcrest villa's developer didn't top up to 99. lease remains started at 1992 even though TOP last year!

Just a question on this topping up on lease. Must the developer always top up the lease back to 99 years no matter how many years left on original lease? Ignoring whether it makes sense or not.

Is there any other difference between 99 and 999 years other than the time?

[proud owner]

i think hillcrest villa's developer didn't top up to 99. lease remains started at 1992 even though TOP last year!

maybe the developer bought it cheaper with 90 yr lease ... thinking msot buyers wouldnt notice tat they are buyer a 90 yr lease condo

[Komo]

If not mistaken nv will be left 90 years lease by the time top...

[bargain hunter]

sorry, gotta retract my last posting. streetsine does not seem to be accurate. recent transactions show lease starts at 2006 so they probably made a mistake earlier on. i think now i do not know of any development whose lease was not top-up to 99 years.

maybe the developer bought it cheaper with 90 yr lease ... thinking msot buyers wouldnt notice tat they are buyer a 90 yr lease condo

[Mabel]

I don't disagree with you in that you must be buying cheaper 99 yr than FH in the same location or better still, slightly better location than the FH in the same vicinity and it must be cheaper (IMO at least 15%) than the FH and in a down trend, the margin should be higher like at least 25%.

yur theory holds true in a DOWN trend ..

in most cases, when mkt retrace down, LH tends to fall more than FH ..

so if you are a buyer and a believer of the said 'theory' , that would be a perfect time to buy LH

however, in a BULL run like what we have seen in the last 4-5 yrs, LH are almost the same price as FH , at around the same location, in most areas..

so you are not buying any cheaper ...

30 yrs down the road, developers will need to pay up alot to top up the lease, back to 99yr .. and if costs remains high, enbloc will be very difficult, compared to FH..where developers need not top up lease..

i am not saying your theory doesnt work ..but it depends on which part of the market trend we are in, to decide between LH and FH

in general, most people still prefer FH ...

[Mabel]

Conservation buildings are in a different category. I am still indecisive when it comes to such buildings within a brand new condo because it may mean more expense to maintain it but when these condos were being sold, the conservation buildings were a main selling point. But by and large, most condo don't have conservation buildings within it and are not categorised as such and if go around and look at 30 plus years condos, you can check if their maintenance is higher and their state of maintenance and condition.

I am thinking that based on your reasoning, those conserved properties' owners must be crying until no tears! (because properties so old, some >80 years old, still have to maintain like original new condition, cannot tear down and rebuild - but why they don't tell Govt that properties already >40 years so cannot maintain anymore and must tear down? - Or this is not true because properties in Singapore should be able to last >200 years especially we have strict building guidelines and assessment?).

[Mabel]

Most buildings can be maintained if you really want to, just that it will cost alot more money to do so. Some restructuring work may also be needed and these can be alot of money as time goes by.

[teddybear]

There is an interesting question here - Is it cheaper to:
1) tear down and rebuild a building and hence start with cheaper maintenance costs (but there is 1-off big reconstruction costs not factored in here)
2) keep maintaining as long as the building is safe (even if >100 years old) but with increasing maintenance costs.

For (2), we can see many such buildings overseas where they are 100+ years or even 200+ years and still standing and safe for living. So why need to tear down and rebuild? Is tearing down and rebuild cheaper overall if we include the reconstruction costs? (I doubt so - This is just an illusion caused by en-bloc fever where people make money from en-bloc).

Conservation buildings are in a different category. I am still indecisive when it comes to such buildings within a brand new condo because it may mean more expense to maintain it but when these condos were being sold, the conservation buildings were a main selling point. But by and large, most condo don't have conservation buildings within it and are not categorised as such and if go around and look at 30 plus years condos, you can check if their maintenance is higher and their state of maintenance and condition.

[isaaclim]

sorry, gotta retract my last posting. streetsine does not seem to be accurate. recent transactions show lease starts at 2006 so they probably made a mistake earlier on. i think now i do not know of any development whose lease was not top-up to 99 years.

Generally, developer will not top up the lease. The lease started counting down from the date it being tendered.

[Mabel]

I think in many foreign lands they are unlike small-size S'pore and the option of enbloc may not be there. S'pore also keeps changing the plot ratio and so when the ratio goes up, it's tempting to sell to willing developers at a high costs. But I concur with the view that a FH condo has less pressure to enbloc if they are alright with maintenance and improvement costs. S'pore is still young so we haven't really see these issues yet. But if you look around, our oldest HDB buildings in Queenstown are long gone. Was that because too ex to maintain (I dunno)?

There is an interesting question here - Is it cheaper to:
1) tear down and rebuild a building and hence start with cheaper maintenance costs (but there is 1-off big reconstruction costs not factored in here)
2) keep maintaining as long as the building is safe (even if >100 years old) but with increasing maintenance costs.

For (2), we can see many such buildings overseas where they are 100+ years or even 200+ years and still standing and safe for living. So why need to tear down and rebuild? Is tearing down and rebuild cheaper overall if we include the reconstruction costs? (I doubt so - This is just an illusion caused by en-bloc fever where people make money from en-bloc).

[Mabel]

Teddybear: One interesting case to study is Meadows at Pierce. One of their buildings (the tall one) is actually an old building and is being refurbished etc and re-sold. I dunno what's the reconstruction costs but I doubt it's cheap. Will maintenance be higher in time to come then a brand new building? Meadows has low-rise buildings from scratch too, so in a few years' time, a comparison of maintenance costs between the brand new and reconstructed old buildings may shed some light on whether it's worth re-doing an old building.

[proud owner]

There is an interesting question here - Is it cheaper to:
1) tear down and rebuild a building and hence start with cheaper maintenance costs (but there is 1-off big reconstruction costs not factored in here)
2) keep maintaining as long as the building is safe (even if >100 years old) but with increasing maintenance costs.

For (2), we can see many such buildings overseas where they are 100+ years or even 200+ years and still standing and safe for living. So why need to tear down and rebuild? Is tearing down and rebuild cheaper overall if we include the reconstruction costs? (I doubt so - This is just an illusion caused by en-bloc fever where people make money from en-bloc).

if you are talking about europe or US ... yes ..
in cool/cold places, the concrete building can last alot longer..compared to baked spore ..

in spore, the buildings are baked in the day, expand, then rain, crack, water seeps into cracks, the next day, same process ..

so the buildings dont last as long as those we see oversea ..

[proud owner]

Teddybear: One interesting case to study is Meadows at Pierce. One of their buildings (the tall one) is actually an old building and is being refurbished etc and re-sold. I dunno what's the reconstruction costs but I doubt it's cheap. Will maintenance be higher in time to come then a brand new building? Meadows has low-rise buildings from scratch too, so in a few years' time, a comparison of maintenance costs between the brand new and reconstructed old buildings may shed some light on whether it's worth re-doing an old building.

construction cost of say 250-300 psf includes tearing down and rebuild ..

to refurbish an old building, will be what is termed AA ..which is usually half the cost of a reconstruction

[teddybear]

You still haven't include the renovation costs, which can range from $60 psf to >$200 psf.

construction cost of say 250-300 psf includes tearing down and rebuild ..

to refurbish an old building, will be what is termed AA ..which is usually half the cost of a reconstruction

[gohsoonk]

NV start date is 2008. You can count from there...

If not mistaken nv will be left 90 years lease by the time top...

[Komo]

Hot lakefront at the other end is going to affect price here. Last release tomorrow may be at higher price!

[BillyCutie]

Hot lakefront at the other end is going to affect price here. Last release tomorrow may be at higher price!

Hey Komo, last release tomorrow referring to lakefront? Not NV right?

[Komo]

Hey Komo, last release tomorrow referring to lakefront? Not NV right?

I'm referring to nv.

[BillyCutie]

I'm referring to nv.

Oh, surprised. Thought there is abt > 20% balance for NV. Unless hot sales recently due to lakefront. Yes, agreed in comparsion, NV looks like a real steal now!!

[feliciacao]

went to the show flat at both NV and Waterview tampines, maybe NV engaged a very expensive ID, cuz waterview looks like another DBSS or EC to me.. even Sim lian's 1st DBSS showflat looks a lot nicer than this i feel.. maybe size wise waterview is bigger since the backyard is huge and there's no baywindow, but i still rather get NV for the price, location and quality.. cuz the agent at waterview said a 3+1 will cost around 970K, NV 3+1 can easily get around 830k+ leh..

[romeo]

i dont think NV 3+1 can get at 830k now..

anyway, heard alot about EC interior n condo interior.. is there such a huge difference..?

[3C]

should be able to get soon, sale hardly moving

[bargain hunter]

46 units sold in nov. median price 841psf. 37 out of 500 launched units left + 142 more unlaunched units to go.

[feliciacao]

i dont think NV 3+1 can get at 830k now..

anyway, heard alot about EC interior n condo interior.. is there such a huge difference..?

nope even level 2 one 870k+ in early Nov, after Nov 17 developer already readjusted the price, agent told me about 1-1.5% increase but i dunno how much exactly.. so 3+1 should be around 900k now i guess..

As for interior, went to NV show flat and Esparis (EC), huge diff i feel, but dunno is it because of the ID engaged by NV is really good, well they are really ex of course, for NV that show flat 3+1 cost maybe about 150k on ID leh, cuz i called that company to ask, haha.. but if I compare Esparis and Waterview at tampines, the diff is not that huge, the ceiling is higher for condos of course, but think Esparis interior is almost the same as DBSS, not sure about newly launched ECs though..

[romeo]

someone wrote in thr forum becoz livia n nv r from cdl.. cdl engage good ID for quality interior..

if i recall, nv master bathroom has no long bath, livia has..

[feliciacao]

err remember that for 4+1, there are a bath tub and a standing shower stall opposite of each other. quite a decent sized bathroom sia..

But for 3+1 and 3+study i can't remember already, think the bathtub and standing shower are together..

for 2+1 and 2+study, i am not sure there's even a bathtub..