Amber Glades put up for collective sale

Amber Glades in Marine Parade has been put up for collective sale.
The condominium currently occupies a freehold residential site on Amber Gardens.
The site comprises two blocks housing 63 units, with a land area of over 40,000 square feet.
The indicative price is about S$120 million.
This works out to about slightly under S$1,100 per square foot per plot ratio.
This is comparable to the recent sale of Marine Point, which was sealed at SS$1,056 per sq ft per plot ratio.
Each owner could receive between S$1.34 million and S$2.24 million from the collective sale, depending on the size of their unit.
The successful buyer can re-develop the site to accommodate a 22-storey residential block.
This could comprise modern condominium facilities, comprising 100 apartments with an average size of 1,050 sq ft each.
Under the 2008 Master Plan, the subject site is zoned for “Residential” use with a gross plot ratio of 2.8.
The tender will close on March 2, 2011.
Tang Wei Leng, Executive Director of Investment Services at Colliers International, said, “Amber Glades is perhaps one of the last few freehold sites in the Amber area suitable for a mid-sized development.”
She added that “it is in a well sought after residential address in District 15″ and coupled with “its regular shape and dual road frontages, this site would appeal to niche developers who are familiar with the area or developers who are looking to replenish their land banks.”
Source : Channel NewsAsia – 8 Feb 2011

WHEN ESTATE UPGRADING IS THWARTED BY... En bloc roadblocks 

IN RECALLING the en bloc saga of Gillman Heights, the chairman of its sales committee stated that the condominium had to be sold en bloc because it was old and falling into disrepair ('No regrets, despite dear memories of Gillman'; Sunday).


This is a view commonly held among pro-en bloc residents, and it should be addressed. If an estate is old, it can be upgraded using the sinking fund, or through a special one-time contribution by residents. Such upgrading is far cheaper than the potential loss for owners from a collective sale.


As many former Gillman Heights residents quoted in the special report ('For better or for worse'; Sunday) ended up paying more for their new homes - some in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - those who live in old estates worth preserving should learn from such experiences.


There are pro-en bloc residents who often obstruct the improvement of an estate because they wish to profit from an en bloc sale. They prefer to see the estate fall into disrepair so they can cite the high costs of replacing old pipes, water tanks, old tiles and lobby areas subsequently. Such en bloc proponents join management councils and oppose attempts to improve the estate.


While many may argue that the decision on such an issue is best left to subsidiary proprietors, the reality is that few are keen on running for office in any estate, and fewer still are willing to argue with loud neighbours who harbour an agenda.


So, this issue must be solved by a built-in safeguard, which should require residents who wish to run for office to declare that there is no conflict of interest. There should be an automatic opt-out clause for those who harbour an interest in organising an en bloc sale.
There must be a law spelling out a conflict of interest to prevent residents who intend to lobby for an en bloc sale from sitting on a management council or any other official body of the estate that may influence the en bloc process.


A management council, by definition, must work towards the good of preserving, repairing and enhancing the estate and if this is so, pro-en bloc residents should be ineligible for office. 

Grace Francis (Ms)