Landed homes lift private property market

[Localite]

Need expert advice on landed property investment. Is a regular shaped land, i.e. squarish or rectangular, critical in the purchase of landed property? What do you guys think if the property is sitting on a 'L' shape land? What is the impact on the valuation of the property in future if I wish to get rid of it? Thanks.

The issue with L shaped land is that you cannot expand the house foot print as if it is regular shaped. The L shaped appendage can only be a garden or pool - so restricted. Just like PES in condo, you cannot simply add it. What you should do is remove the L-shaped portion and discount it - say 50% - before you add it.

[Condorich]

The issue with L shaped land is that you cannot expand the house foot print as if it is regular shaped. The L shaped appendage can only be a garden or pool - so restricted. Just like PES in condo, you cannot simply add it. What you should do is remove the L-shaped portion and discount it - say 50% - before you add it.

That's one way and a common way even for condo's PES. You might want to consider the price to pay for the square shape and consider the absolute quantum for that wasteful L space. That's another way.

The solution, buy surrounding land and make it more rectangle or squarish. Avoid triangle shape.

[Blue]

Think its too late to buy a landed property now as prices has really gone up to high in too short a time!

Land is still considered cheap but it's the rebuilt cost that makes the price of new landed houses high.

[Condorich]

Land is still considered cheap but it's the rebuilt cost that makes the price of new landed houses high.

Can use this map to check for land info. Under Hybrid. Quite neat!

http://www.onemap.sg/index.html

[2824]

saw a few new corner terraces with triangular build up due to the triangular land parcel along serangoon garden way. Guess they are trying to maximise the build up.

[Condorich]

Here is FEO's advertisement for Katong Seaview Palace where Lucky Heights is located.

Booking fee only $500! No need to throw blank cheque.

To give some perspective to the earning power then. Please refer to this

http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/lky19730320.pdf 20 Mar 1973 - In Parliament

It is 18 years, since 1955, when the salary for the post of Chief Minister, and subsequently Prime Minister, was fixed at $3,500

Do you know their salary now?

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...269330/1/.html

President SR Nathan will get $3.2 million dollars, this is up from the current $2.5 million while both Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who earned $2.7 million each last year, will now get paid $3.04 million each.

[jlrx]

To give some perspective to the earning power then. Please refer to this

http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/lky19730320.pdf 20 Mar 1973 - In Parliament

It is 18 years, since 1955, when the salary for the post of Chief Minister, and subsequently Prime Minister, was fixed at $3,500

Do you know their salary now?

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...269330/1/.html

President SR Nathan will get $3.2 million dollars, this is up from the current $2.5 million while both Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who earned $2.7 million each last year, will now get paid $3.04 million each.

This just shows that properties are actually becoming more and more affordable.

In 1970, a Katong Seaview Palace semi-detached at Lucky Crescent was asking $90,000 but the President was earning only $4,000 per month (or $48,000 per year) so it would have taken the President 1.9 years of salary to buy this house at 41, Lucky Crescent.



Today, an equivalent semi-detached (49 Lucky Heights) was transacted at $3.8 million on 28 Dec 2009 but the President is earning $3.2 million per year. So it would take the President only 1.2 years of salary to buy an equivalent house.

The President's salary is one of the best benchmarks to use because there is only one President (we can also use the Prime Minister or Ministers, or the any other job with a limited number).

What many people have wrongly done to claim that properties have become unaffordable is to use graduates' pay as a benchmark.

There are 40 times as many graduates today as in the past but instead of seeing their pay reduced by 40 times because that would have caused a riot, what happened was that property prices went up by 40 times.

However, there is no change to the type of house(s) owned by the top doctor in each field, top lawyer in each major law firm, or top towkay in each business, compared to 40 years ago.

[proud owner]

This just shows that properties are actually becoming more and more affordable.

In 1970, a Katong Seaview Palace semi-detached at Lucky Crescent was asking $90,000 but the President was earning only $4,000 per month (or $48,000 per year) so it would have taken the President 1.9 years of salary to buy this house at 41, Lucky Crescent.



Today, an equivalent semi-detached (49 Lucky Heights) was transacted at $3.8 million on 28 Dec 2009 but the President is earning $3.2 million per year. So it would take the President only 1.2 years of salary to buy an equivalent house.

The President's salary is one of the best benchmarks to use because there is only one President (we can also use the Prime Minister or Ministers, or the any other job with a limited number).

What many people have wrongly done to claim that properties have become unaffordable is to use graduates' pay as a benchmark.

There are 40 times as many graduates today as in the past but instead of seeing their pay reduced by 40 times because that would have caused a riot, what happened was that property prices went up by 40 times.

However, there is no change to the type of house(s) owned by the top doctor in each field, top lawyer in each major law firm, or top towkay in each business, compared to 40 years ago.

by the way ... almost every country is making adjustments to their bonus pay out to bankers ...

are our ministers bonus being reviewed ?

[Condorich]

This just shows that properties are actually becoming more and more affordable.

In 1970, a Katong Seaview Palace semi-detached at Lucky Crescent was asking $90,000 but the President was earning only $4,000 per month (or $48,000 per year) so it would have taken the President 1.9 years of salary to buy this house at 41, Lucky Crescent.



Today, an equivalent semi-detached (49 Lucky Heights) was transacted at $3.8 million on 28 Dec 2009 but the President is earning $3.2 million per year. So it would take the President only 1.2 years of salary to buy an equivalent house.

The President's salary is one of the best benchmarks to use because there is only one President (we can also use the Prime Minister or Ministers, or the any other job with a limited number).

What many people have wrongly done to claim that properties have become unaffordable is to use graduates' pay as a benchmark.

There are 40 times as many graduates today as in the past but instead of seeing their pay reduced by 40 times because that would have caused a riot, what happened was that property prices went up by 40 times.

However, there is no change to the type of house(s) owned by the top doctor in each field, top lawyer in each major law firm, or top towkay in each business, compared to 40 years ago.

You never fail to impress me. However, I would not agree with your example. Do not take 1% of the population and apply it to the rest of the population. Maybe a further 10% to 20% the most (since >80% of Singaporeans stay in HDB).

When we talk about affordabilty, fresh graduates pay are usually used and that the prices of new HDB is the subject of study, not landed.

But you have your point about the rich, they are simply getting richer.

[focus]

by the way ... almost every country is making adjustments to their bonus pay out to bankers ...

are our ministers bonus being reviewed ?

Yup. Probbaly reviewing to the upside as they have lead singapore out of recession and wealth is being created in the stock market & Property & COEs.

Ho Ching also need to be rewarded with another President's badge or something like that for her role in bringing Temasek out of the pits.

[proud owner]

Yup. Probbaly reviewing to the upside as they have lead singapore out of recession and wealth is being created in the stock market & Property & COEs.

Ho Ching also need to be rewarded with another President's badge or something like that for her role in bringing Temasek out of the pits.

i cant help but think that ang mo guy who led temasek briefly then resigned ... was an interim man ..while she 'stay out' to avoid the blame ..of buying those banks and so high price and later sell and cut loss ..

now shes back

[jlrx]

You never fail to impress me. However, I would not agree with your example. Do not take 1% of the population and apply it to the rest of the population. Maybe a further 10% to 20% the most (since >80% of Singaporeans stay in HDB).

When we talk about affordabilty, fresh graduates pay are usually used and that the prices of new HDB is the subject of study, not landed.

But you have your point about the rich, they are simply getting richer.

It does not make a difference whether a further 10% or 20% or even 100% of the population is considered.

Property prices can increase but never become more unaffordable vis-a-vis each segment of the population, because the percentage of each type of housing has remained roughly unchanged through the decades.

Property becomes more unaffordable only because of human hallucination. Once the hallucination is removed, then prices become very affordable.

For example, a 75th percentile GP (out of approximately 4,000) should compare himself with a senior nursing officer in the 1960's, when there were fewer than 1,000 doctors in Singapore, because that would be what he would have been in the 1960's.

This GP (estimated earning $15,000 per month) will then find the house his stays in very affordable as it is the same type of house that a senior nursing officer would stay in the 1960's (probably an RCR intermediate terrace or a CCR condo).

However, if this doctor hallucinates that he should afford (based on his own earning power rather than inheritance) the same GCB that his father who was just an average GP (50th percentile and lower than the son) in the 1960s could afford, then of course he will complain that properties have become unaffordable.

That's why I prefer to use as benchmarks jobs that do not suffer from numerical inflation, e.g. President, Prime Minister, Ministers, bank CEOs, the top-earning doctor in each specialty, the top partner in each major law firm, the top towkay in each business (I think we have one here who owns 40+ properties!)

http://forums.condosingapore.com/sho...1&postcount=38

[Localite]

[quote=jlrx]It does not make a difference whether a further 10% or 20% or even 100% of the population is considered.

Property prices can increase but never become more unaffordable vis-a-vis each segment of the population, because the percentage of each type of housing has remained roughly unchanged through the decades.

Property becomes more unaffordable only because of human hallucination. Once the hallucination is removed, then prices become very affordable.

For example, a 75th percentile GP (out of approximately 4,000) should compare himself with a senior nursing officer in the 1960's, when there were fewer than 1,000 doctors in Singapore, because that would be what he would have been in the 1960's.

This GP (estimated earning $15,000 per month) will then find the house his stays in very affordable as it is the same type of house that a senior nursing officer would stay in the 1960's (probably an RCR intermediate terrace or a CCR condo).

However, if this doctor hallucinates that he should afford (based on his own earning power rather than inheritance) the same GCB that his father who was just an average GP (50th percentile and lower than the son) in the 1960s could afford, then of course he will complain that properties have become unaffordable.

************


IMHO I believe ppty can indeed become less affordable even if you view the percentile rankings. A 10% top percentile earner may find a property less affordable now that 30 years ago. For example there is a limited number of GCBs, 2,500 would mean you needed to be in top 1% now but perhaps a 5% would have been sufficient 30 years ago.

In a demographically advancing country like Singapore you might be caught with a double-whammy price increases. One due to real economic increase (which as you said does not really affect affordability) and the second factor due to population increase and change of population mix.

Any thoughts?

[Condorich]

That's for his comments. Just some thoughts.

Rich are getting richer because they were already rich to begin with and what they own before can be sold at a much higher price than what they paid in the past. They could then use the money to buy some more (smaller/cheaper) properties and the cycle continues.

The poor or the average folks will never be in the same league.. They have problems meeting the living expenses or at best be middle income earners. These folks would never be in the same league, unless they break free like George Quek (Breadtalk).

The social divide is clearly evident there, also in many parts of the world.. take Indonesia for example... rich are filthy rich. The poor.....?

A true measure of afforablibity should be a function of household income and not GDP. Though there may be some correlation but it is never a direct correlation. Who cares when the GDP is no 1 in the world but your household income is last in the country.



Your GP = Doctor = General Practicioner.
My GDP = Gross Domestic Product.

[jlrx]

IMHO I believe ppty can indeed become less affordable even if you view the percentile rankings. A 10% top percentile earner may find a property less affordable now that 30 years ago. For example there is a limited number of GCBs, 2,500 would mean you needed to be in top 1% now but perhaps a 5% would have been sufficient 30 years ago.

In a demographically advancing country like Singapore you might be caught with a double-whammy price increases. One due to real economic increase (which as you said does not really affect affordability) and the second factor due to population increase and change of population mix.

Any thoughts?

Thanks to Mickeymousation , the number of GCBs did increase over the years, although not as a percentage of total housing stock.

We see 160,000 sq ft bungalows carved into ten 16,000 sq ft good class bungalows; and 16,000 sq ft bungalows in non GCB areas carved into 8 semi-detaches on 2,000 sq ft land each but 6,000 sq ft of built-in space.

Thanks to Mickeymousation more people can now claim that they stay at "Sixth Avenue" (remember not to ask them whether it's an apartment or a bungalow).

Also, more people can now claim that they stay at district 9, 10 and 11 (remember not to ask how many square inches).

Very soon, everyone can claim to own a private property!

As a nation, it is unavoidable that our abode became smaller when the population increased from 1.6 million in 1960 to 4.98 million in 2009.

However, if you do not mind the size of your abode and consider a GCB a GCB whether it's 150,000 sq ft or 15,000 sq ft; and a district 9 condo a district 9 condo whether it is 2,000 sq ft or 2,000 sq inches, then housing has remained affordable.

There is actually a lot of money to be made from this! Next time when you buy a property, spend less time looking at the fixtures and more time looking at the land.

Just look at my tagline below ... see who has arrived?

[Condorich]

As a nation, it is unavoidable that our abode became smaller when the population increased from 1.6 million in 1960 to 4.98 million in 2009.

There is actually a lot of money to be made from this! Next time when you buy a property, spend less time looking at the fixtures and more time looking at the land.

Yup FH land... your cat out of the bag again. Our population will reach 6.5 million in 201X?

[jlrx]

Yup FH land... your cat out of the bag again. Our population will reach 6.5 million in 201X?

The cat is already out of the bag, otherwise I won't be posting in this "landed" thread.

I could be suffering from "retribution" for preaching PROPERTISM here, that's why I had been unsuccessful in searching for another landed property over the past few months.

Maybe some of the owners had been reading this forum and saw my posts that "property prices will always go up in the long term hence properties should only be bought and not sold" so some of them withdrew their properties from the market, while others jacked up the price sky high.

The paradox of PROPERTISM is that as prices shot through the roof, I could afford to buy only smaller and smaller properties, until eventually I may just have to sit back and become a spectator.

Look at the following three houses (transactions from SISV based on URA data, and photos from Google Maps Street View).

[azeoprop]

Still remembered last time in the late 80s my parents were looking at buying Fudu park and President gardens when they were first released. President gardens was very "old" for a new release, with algae on the walls, but the land area was very huge. Fudu was brand new, I still remembered the launch price was like below 500k......but end up never buy.

Eventually moved to Mayflower gardens feeding mosquitos everyday for 2 years.

[Reporter]

D15 landed hitting $1,734psf!
LANDED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT JOO CHIAT PLACE Terrace House 1 2,680,000 1,546 Land 1,734 Mar-10
And.. Koon Seng Road... Heritage 9.. at $1.4K psf without a parking lot?? Is this correct?

$1,734 psf for District-15 landed?

[jlrx]

$1,734 psf for District-15 landed?

Possible. Look at Blue's post below.

Even Serangoon Garden brand new landed houses already selling above $1000 land psf...opera estate should be higher..

Bgt my landed in Katong (D15) at $1400 land psf!!! But it's newly rebuilt. I'm a happy man!

Did a search in URA, highest land psf in D15 was $1950 psf in Tembeling Road, Katong!

[moneyspinner]

The prices for landed at D15 has now caught up with D10 and D11? Unbelievable! So now those at D10 and D11 landed are better buys isn't it???????????


Originally Posted by Blue
Even Serangoon Garden brand new landed houses already selling above $1000 land psf...opera estate should be higher..

Bgt my landed in Katong (D15) at $1400 land psf!!! But it's newly rebuilt. I'm a happy man!

Did a search in URA, highest land psf in D15 was $1950 psf in Tembeling Road, Katong!

[bargain hunter]

The cat is already out of the bag, otherwise I won't be posting in this "landed" thread.

I could be suffering from "retribution" for preaching PROPERTISM here, that's why I had been unsuccessful in searching for another landed property over the past few months.

Maybe some of the owners had been reading this forum and saw my posts that "property prices will always go up in the long term hence properties should only be bought and not sold" so some of them withdrew their properties from the market, while others jacked up the price sky high.

The paradox of PROPERTISM is that as prices shot through the roof, I could afford to buy only smaller and smaller properties, until eventually I may just have to sit back and become a spectator.

Look at the following three houses (transactions from SISV based on URA data, and photos from Google Maps Street View).

but for the 1st house, its likely that it has been rebuilt (google images are 1 to 2 years ago pictures it seems)? the thing about these historical data is that it doesn't take into account changes (whether just simple renovation or complex tear down and rebuild) unlike condos where not much can be changed except for interior.

[bargain hunter]

doesn't work that way lah. u have to go down and view each house individually to decide which is good value. the wide variety of prices is due to the wide variety of factors to consider. condo prices are more easily comparable if u want to see which price has caught up with what.

The prices for landed at D15 has now caught up with D10 and D11? Unbelievable! So now those at D10 and D11 landed are better buys isn't it???????????


Originally Posted by Blue
Even Serangoon Garden brand new landed houses already selling above $1000 land psf...opera estate should be higher..

Bgt my landed in Katong (D15) at $1400 land psf!!! But it's newly rebuilt. I'm a happy man!

Did a search in URA, highest land psf in D15 was $1950 psf in Tembeling Road, Katong!

[jsh]

[quote=jlrx]

The cat is already out of the bag, otherwise I won't be posting in this "landed" thread.

I could be suffering from "retribution" for preaching PROPERTISM here, that's why I had been unsuccessful in searching for another landed property over the past few months.

Maybe some of the owners had been reading this forum and saw my posts that "property prices will always go up in the long term hence properties should only be bought and not sold" so some of them withdrew their properties from the market, while others jacked up the price sky high.

The paradox of PROPERTISM is that as prices shot through the roof, I could afford to buy only smaller and smaller properties, until eventually I may just have to sit back and become a spectator.

Look at the following three houses (transactions from SISV based on URA data, and photos from Google Maps Street View).











[/quote

For the info of forummers no. 153 jalan jarak has been completely rebuilt into a detached house. Its brand new. Thats why it managed to fetch 3.45m which i think is a fair price considering that the facing & layout of the land is not so good.

[moneyspinner]

doesn't work that way lah. u have to go down and view each house individually to decide which is good value. the wide variety of prices is due to the wide variety of factors to consider. condo prices are more easily comparable if u want to see which price has caught up with what.

I thought location is still the primary factor of consideration regardless of whether its landed or not? So location wise, say, for eg Bukit Timah area should be better than say, Katong area, right? Hence, landed properties in Bukit Timah should normally worth more, of course taking into account condition of the house, land size, shape, built up area, proximity to good schools, the neighbourhood, etc.............

[bargain hunter]

For the info of forummers no. 153 jalan jarak has been completely rebuilt into a detached house. Its brand new. Thats why it managed to fetch 3.45m which i think is a fair price considering that the facing & layout of the land is not so good.

thanks for the clarification. that's good info. the land looks more like those triangle shaped ones from the picture.

[bargain hunter]

yes, that's true in general, but the thing with landed is it is much more difficult to generalise than condos. the location may be good, but maybe the land is oddshaped? maybe at a cross junction? as compared to one in east coast, maybe with a seaview or at a quiet cul de sac? too many factors already so its hard to say that prices in D15 has actually caught up with D9, 10 and 11 based on the transactions described.

I thought location is still the primary factor of consideration regardless of whether its landed or not? So location wise, say, for eg Bukit Timah area should be better than say, Katong area, right? Hence, landed properties in Bukit Timah should normally worth more, of course taking into account condition of the house, land size, shape, built up area, proximity to good schools, the neighbourhood, etc.............

[jlrx]

For the info of forummers no. 153 jalan jarak has been completely rebuilt into a detached house. Its brand new. Thats why it managed to fetch 3.45m which i think is a fair price considering that the facing & layout of the land is not so good.

thanks for the clarification. that's good info. the land looks more like those triangle shaped ones from the picture.

That must be the "good work" of many mini-developers who are descending into the three estates above to convert old houses into new ones.

The second photo shows 44 Kingswear Ave being rebuilt (but still stay as single storey).

I was also thinking of being a "mini developer" but unfortunately there are just too many people with the same idea.

Looks like everyone, big or small, wants to become a "developer" these days.

[bargain hunter]

yes, but the really experienced guys move really fast and get news of all the cheap land really fast. no place for us to be mini developers at all.

That must be the "good work" of many mini-developers who are descending into the three estates above to convert old houses into new ones.

The second photo shows 44 Kingswear Ave being rebuilt (but still stay as single storey).

I was also thinking of being a "mini developer" but unfortunately there are just too many people with the same idea.

Looks like everyone, big or small, wants to become a "developer" these days.

[moneyspinner]

yes, but the really experienced guys move really fast and get news of all the cheap land really fast. no place for us to be mini developers at all.

I agree. Just recently, I was trying to get an old detached bungalow at Coronation Road priced at about S$1,ooo psf with the intention of doing an A & A and reselling it. Guess what, on the night before the open house the next the day, I was told by the agent that it was sold!