En-bloc sales ‘fracture’ communities, veteran architect says

SINGAPORE — Like many Singaporeans, veteran architect Tan Cheng Siong is watching the latest en-bloc craze closely — but for a different reason.

Two of the property developments which he had designed, Pearl Bank in 1976 and Pandan Valley in 1978, could be reduced to rubble if their ongoing collective sale bids succeed.

The 81-year-old founder of Archurban Architects Planners did not mince his words in an interview with TODAY on Thursday (Feb 8), when he said that the processes of en-bloc sales — which are shaking up the property market again after the previous wave a decade ago — are disruptive to communities and society here at large, and are “very unjust and tyrannical almost”.

“There are always a few rabble-rousers who start the whole game and, in the end, it may not be the best solution. (Then) those people who have been enjoying their large homes cannot enjoy another one (while) the value or surplus of the land is being siphoned off by developers.”

When a collective sale was proposed in 2011 at his own condominium home, The Atria at Meyer near the Tanjong Rhu area, he opposed it immediately. “Why do you want to sell a freehold property, something that you can pass on to your sons to your grandchildren? Why sell (the appreciating property) cheap?” he questioned.

In one of the latest developments, a group of residents at Pandan Valley, a freehold condominium off Holland Road, has started work to try and set up a collective sale committee in March. “It’s a pity,” Mr Tan said when he heard of this.

Known for designing the iconic horseshoe-shaped Pearl Bank Apartments in Outram near Chinatown, Mr Tan is seeing how the residents there are making a fourth attempt at a collective sale. They just launched a second tender on Thursday after attaining the requisite 80 per cent consent required.

“This profit-driven solution is not sustainable and, hence, after every wave, there will come a saturation, and then everyone waits for another wave,” he said.

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

“Meanwhile you have created so much friction, so much fracture among residents and communities, it is going to hurt the willingness to put our care into our (living space) and that’s very, very sad. We should correct that quickly.”

The Land Titles (Strata) Act needs to be addressed as well, he pointed out, referring to how the provisions “encourage people to uproot from where they live”, and have a “let’s get rich by destruction” mentality, instead of staying put to “add value” to the community.

He added: “This is not quite appropriate especially if we want to encourage a sense of community, a sense of togetherness, and a sense of place in Singapore.”

He discovered this when a “voluntary conservation” project that he and his partner Daniel Law embarked on at Pearl Bank three years ago hit a snag, although they managed to get 92 per cent consent from residents on the redevelopment, aimed at giving the building a fresh lease of life.

Under the law, they needed to get unanimous consent to realise the project, which would see the building receive conservation status, as well as the erection of a 27-storey residential block with an infinity pool and a rooftop garden integrated with the Pearl Bank facade. The Urban Redevelopment Authority had said at the time that it was necessary for all subsidiary proprietors to agree to the proposal as it affects the entire development.

“So you need 100 per cent consent to protect a building, but 80 per cent to strike it off the surface of the earth,” Mr Tan said.

If left unaddressed, the country will “reach a point when every home is just a market value to be realised or reaped very quickly”, he added. “This mentality and sentiment is not healthy for our younger generation.”