For those looking to buy/rent at Marina Bay...

One Shenton will be the latest residential development at Marina Bay to achieve completion, with the temporary occupation permit (TOP) expected this month. This is according to a report in the latest edition of THEEDGE SINGAPORE.



City Developments Ltd’s 341-unit One Shenton was designed by world-renowned architect Carlos Ott and comprises of two gleaming towers of 50 and 43 storeys linked by a podium with 11 retail units. The 99-year leasehold development contains a mix of units featuring one bedroom (with or without study) to four bedrooms. There are also penthouses, sky suites and sky villas.

Like most buyers of property in Districts 1 and 2 in the CBD, the majority of purchasers at One Shenton are investors expecting strong rental rates and future capital appreciation, says Kelvin Cheong, an associate director of Dennis Wee Realty Pte Ltd. “Rental rates at One Shenton will probably be in the same range as that of The Sail @Marina Bay. However, One Shenton cannot command the same rates as Marina Bay Residences, whose location offers unobstructed sea views for most of its units.”

Owners are already asking agents to put their units up for rent. Desmond Tan, division director of resale agency at HSR, estimates that one-bedroom units sized at 517 to 1,001sqft (for those that come with a study) have asking monthly rental rates of $4,000 to $4,800, while two-bedroom units of 904 to 1,227sqft are going for $5,300 to $5,500.

One Shenton’s three-bedroom units measuring 1,455 to 1,604sqft are likely to indicate $6,000 per month – similar to The Sail, which commands $5,700 to $6,500 depending on layout.

At Marina Bay Residences, on the other hand, three-bedroom units command $8,000 to $9,000 a month, as the three- and four-bedroom apartments there have private lift entrances.

At the soft launch in January 2007, units at One Shenton were sold at $1,500 to more than $2,000psf. At least 70% of the 341 apartments were snapped up during the preview. The highest average price achieved was $2,757psf, or a total of $5.2 million, for a four-bedroom, 1,894sqft on the 44th floor in June 2007.

In the week of Jan 18 to 25, 2011, One Shenton saw two transactions at $1,970 and $1,999psf, according to caveats lodged with URA Realis. The highest price was set on Jan 21, when an 850sqft, one-bedroom unit on the 23rd floor changed hands in a sub-sale for $1.7 million. This represented a 22.4% capital gain for the seller, who bought the unit for $1.39 million ($1,633psf) from the developer during its launch four years ago. The other transaction, also a sub-sale, was for a 36th-floor, 581sqft unit, which was sold for $1.14 million.

The latest asking price at One Shenton is from $2,040psf or so, says Cheong. This is slightly lower than the 1,111-unit The Sail also by City Developments and Keppel Land’s 428-unit Marina Bay Residences. The Sail has an average asking price of $2,050psf, while owners at Marina Bay Residences are indicating $3,130psf, he adds.

In the most recent transactions there, based on URA Realis data, a 1,184sqft, 10th-floor unit at The Sail changed hands for $2.6 million ($2,196psf) in the resale market on Jan 13, while a 1,636sqft unit at Marina Bay Residences went for $5.12 million ($3,130psf) on Jan 7.

Definitely waaaaaay too rich for the wife and I, but may be good information for those of you with a couple of spare millions. If you buy a one-bedder at One Shenton for $1.7 million and assuming a rental of $4.8K/month, the rental yield comes up to be around 3.4% - still decent especially if you consider the pittance you get from putting money in the bank these days.

.

Sales status: Canberra Residences

MCC Land’s 320-unit Canberra Residences in Sembawang has sold 160 of the 200 preview units. The average prices of typical units range from $830 to $860psf with sizes varying between 614sqft and 2,250sqft. The project will be officially launched tomorrow.



Project Details
Project Name: Canberra Residences
Location: Canberra Drive, Sembawang (District 27)
Developer: MCC Land (Singapore) Pte Ltd
Tenure: 99-years Leasehold
Site Area: Approx. 242,920 sq ft 
Total No. of Units: 320
No. of Carpark Lots: 320
Estimated TOP: November 2015
Description: Proposed Condominium Housing Development comprising 13 blocks of 5-storey residential buildings with Attic, basement carpark, swimming pool and clubhouse facilities.



More details and floor-plans can be found at the following website:
http://www.canberra-residences.com.sg/

.

Enact a law to bar "pro-enbloc" residents from management council...really?

The wife and I came across the letter below in the ST Forum page today.

We agree wholeheartedly and empathize with the writer that alot of what she said does happen at estates with so-called "enbloc potential". However, is it really fair to enact a law that bar residents with enbloc intentions from sitting on a management council? Afterall, it is usually a democratic election process, whereby an AGM is held and council members are voted in through majority votes.

The bigger question here is if the "pro-enbloc" residents can be motivated enough to band together and assume office on an estate's management council, why can't the "anti-enbloc" residents step forward to do the same? If it is indeed true that many of the residents within that estate are against enbloc, some of these "anti-enbloc" residents should be able garner enough votes to become management council members. 

We wonder if the writer realized that she has already identified the crux of the problem here, i.e. few (anti-enbloc residents) are keen on running for office in any estate, and fewer still are willing to argue with loud neighbours who harbour an agenda. If the people who are directly impacted by an enbloc process are unwilling to step forward and be proactive in opposing the process, they should not then "cry father cry mother" (to borrow a hokkien term) when the management council of their estate is monopolised by (motivated) pro-enbloc residents.

In our humble opinions (as always), it is the "ostrich, leave it to other people to do something about it" or "the government should make a law to stop this, because we felt victimised despite the fact that we are not prepared to do anything ourselves to safeguard our own interests" mentality that is the real issue here.

And for the record, the wife and I are not currently or have ever been with a "pro-enbloc" camp...

.

Enbloc News: Amber Glades

As reported in The BT today, Amber Glades, a smallish freehold residential development in District 15, has been put up for sale by public tender with an indicative price of about $120 million, or an estimated $1,078psf ppr.

This is the fourth time the property is being offered for collective sale. The first attempt was made in 2007 with a guide price of $145 million or $1,345psf ppr inclusive of development charge. This was followed by a second attempt in 2008. Last August, the owners again put the property on the market, this time with an indicative price of $130 million.

Marketing agent Colliers International says the latest guide price is comparable to the recent sale of Marine Point, which was sealed at $1,056psf ppr.

Amber Glades comprises two 10-storey blocks with a total of 63 units on a regular-shaped 40,917sqft site.

Under the 2008 Master Plan, the site is zoned for residential use with a gross plot ratio of 2.8. Colliers said in their press release yesterday that the successful buyer can re-develop the site to accommodate a 22-storey block comprising 100 apartments with an average size of 1,050sqft each.

Owners are expected to receive between $1.34 million and $2.24 million each from the collective sale, depending on the unit size. The tender will close on March 2.

Here's hoping that it will be fourth time lucky for Amber Glades...

.

So it's goodbye to paper-thin walls at showflats, finally?

Below is an excerpt of a BT report today:

The Ministry of National Development (MND) plans to introduce new regulations to make sure that developers build showflats that accurately represent the actual units in a project, sources told BT.

The move is meant to ensure that buyers are not misled by the interior design work at some showflats, which developers use to entice buyers before a residential development is completed.

Developers have been known to leave out structural walls and columns when building showflats in order to make apartments seem more spacious. Another common tactic is to avoid clearly marking where a balcony starts, which makes living rooms appear larger.

With the new rules,

• Developers will be prevented from leaving out structural walls and columns from their showflats if completed units in the development will have these structures.
• Structural walls in showflats will have to be on the same thickness as those in the actual homes.
• Non-structural walls will have to be clearly marked out.
• Showflat ceiling heights will have to be accurately reflected.
• The transition from the living room to the balcony will also have to be clearly demarcated, although how this can be done is still being finalised.

MND could also mandate that other essential elements such as bomb shelters and service balconies have to be present in showflats, sources added.

The ministry is likely to launch a consultation exercise within the next few weeks before finalising the new regulations. The new rules could then be implemented in the second half of this year, BT understands.

Developers BT spoke to said that the problem of misleading showflats is not all that common in Singapore.

“The bigger boys don’t really do it (build misleading showflats),” one developer said. “But it happens, especially with so many new entrants in the market.”

Of late, a few developments – including those offering mostly small, “shoebox” units – have come under criticism for having showflats with ceiling heights that are “not real”, extending living room spaces into balconies, and extensive use of glass and mirror walls in place of structural walls.

In one extreme case, an entire wall which was supposed to separate one unit’s living room from the next apartment was replaced by just masking tape on the floor – albeit high-end masking tape.

Sometimes, even sales agents who walk prospective buyers through such showflats do not know that they are not accurate representations of the completed units.

The wife and I certainly welcome the proposed new regulations for showflats, which we felt are long overdue. As long as we can remember (and this is dating way back to the 1990s), the actual completed unit of many projects seemed to be somewhat smaller than what we recalled seeing in the showflat of similar size/configuration. This is especially in relation to the bedrooms.

And it is somewhat unfair to put the blame on “new entrants in the market” – if you have been following our showflat reviews, you will find that even established players have been guilty of "vague" representations. How else can you explain the "what you see is not what you get" ceiling heights and “baby grand” straddling between the living and balcony area…?

So what is your pet peeve on the issue of showflat "misrepresentation"? To get the ball rolling, here's one of ours:
You step into a 3+Study showflat, see the frosted-glass wall separating the small Study and the adjacent walkway, and think to yourself "hey, this is an excellent idea as the last thing I need is another concrete wall that takes up additional space". But when you ask the marketing agent if the glass partition comes as an option, the response you get is "Oh, this is just ID. If you want to do this, it is subjected to approval from the condo management after you take possession of the unit, and at your own cost"...

.