4. |
Housing the growing masses
22 February 2013, TODAY |
I salute all involved in producing the Population White Paper and the URA land use plan for 2030. Anyone in and around the research business will appreciate the complexity of the data and the gargantuan effort involved. Beyond analysing historical data, forward projections were made based on a desire for economic growth to arrive at the theoretical, or what is now considered the worst case scenario, of having a population of 6.9 million people.
Based on that population count, budgets and resources can then be allocated. The primary resource is land and on this land that is slowly expanding in size, capacity plans for utilities such as water, transport, oxygen-generating green spaces and land needed for the military and education are estimated, resulting in the sixty-eight-page URA report titled “A High Quality Living Environment For All Singaporeans: Land Use Plan to Support Singapore’s Future Population, January 2013”.
We see all the headline numbers in both reports but those numbers really just represent less than the tip of the iceberg. What are not visible to readers of both reports are the assumptions that went into the projections. It is not about whether property agents are classified as low-skilled workers or professionals. With so much energy focused on the projected populations in years 2020 and 2030, I am wondering: what is the projected population tree for those years? What is the demographic profile of our country in 2030 in terms of racial mix, gender, age distribution, families, singles, singles with children, etc?
While Chapter 2 (“Sustaining a core Singaporean Population”) highlights the growing proportion of singles and the increasing age of first marriages, I could not find in Chapter 4 (“Population Trajectories”) what might be the projected absolute number and proportion of singles in years 2020 and 2030. Singles represent a growing constituent of our nation and our workforce. In my definition, ‘singles’ includes the never married, divorced, widowed and they can be with or without children. What do they need from society when they age? What are their contributions to society and to the workforce?
What are the assumptions on immigration? Are we welcoming more foreign teenage students say, at about thirteen to fifteen years old and then grooming them for our workforce and for permanent residency? Are we giving out more employment passes to adults of about thirty-five years old to fill the jobs brought in by the Economic Development Board? The different approaches above are significant because the age gaps are wide. Adults on employment passes are more than twice the age of teenage students. The proportion of grooming foreign students for the workforce versus foreign adults who can immediately contribute to workforce will impact in a big way the shape of the population tree (and the ‘Old-Age Support Ratio’). Along with this decision of taking them in younger or older, the capacity required of our schools, hospital beds, housing, and transport would have to be planned differently. Students are likely to stay in hostels for a few years before requiring private or HDB housing and they generally need less medical care. Adults on employment passes generally do not go for hostels but the demand on healthcare might be higher.
I wish the authorities will release all relevant data, charts, assumptions and forecasts of these reports so that we have a clearer picture of the way forward.
As a property agent, my biggest concern is with the projected number of residential units. The attention grabbing headline numbers are superficial and I would love to see detailed assumptions of how the numbers stack up.
If we do reach 6.9 million in 2030, point 5.24 on page 57 of the Population White Paper says, “Sufficient land for homes has been set aside for an additional 700,000 homes from today, and more in the longer term if there is a need.”
And from URA Land Use Plan, point 3.2 on page 9 says, “Today, there are about 1.2 million housing units, of which 0.9 million are HDB flats. To support the projected 2030 population range, we will set aside enough land to develop up to 1.9 million homes, an increase of 700,000 housing units from today. Of these units, 90,000 private housing units (including Executive Condominiums) and 110,000 public housing units will be completed by 2016.”
Therefore, excluding the 200,000 units that are expected to be completed by 2016, we need another 500,000 new residential units between 2017 and 2030, about 35,000 new units per year.
This is my biggest concern about the White Paper. I believe we need much more than 500,000 new units as the replacement of old HDB flats have to be accounted for.
Over the past two decades, some HDB flats have been upgraded to extend their useful life. Others have outlived their purpose as low cost, no frills, public housing and have been demolished, some under the Selective Enbloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). Since 1995 the Housing Development Board (HDB) has demolished about 112,132 dwelling units to date (Item F in Table 1), rental flats and SERS.
There is no precise expiry date for HDB flats. The decision to put a cluster of HDB blocks under SERS will depend on many factors such as the deterioration of the existing flats, the construction quality of old, the cost of maintaining old flats, the need to optimise and intensify land use. While I would hate to see some of the charming old neighbourhoods disappear, certain clusters of flats will release more value if redeveloped as private housing, such as the odd single block at Moulmein Road, seven blocks along Farrer Road or the thirteen blocks in Tanjong Rhu at Kampong Arang. Certain clusters, such as those around Tanglin Halt Food Centre and Commonwealth Crescent can be redeveloped as HDB blocks which are more than ten storeys, more efficiently laid out with improved facilities for handicap access, improved carparks and community facilities.
Table 1: Number and age of HDB flats (dwelling units)
|
Number of flats |
Item |
Number of flats built in 1960 to 1970 |
117,225 |
(A) |
Number of flats built in 1971 to 1980 |
241,343 |
(B) |
Number of flats built in 1981 to 1990 |
309,007 |
(C) |
|
|
|
Total number of flats completed to date: |
1,028,974 |
(D) |
Number of flats under management as at 31 March 2012: |
916,842 |
(E) |
Number of flats demolished to date (D)-(E): |
112,132 |
(F) |
|
|
|
Assuming no further demolitions from now till year 2030: |
|
|
Number of flats over 40 years of age in 2020 (A)+(B)-(F) |
246,436 |
(G) |
Number of flats over 50 years of age in 2030 (A)+(B)-(F) |
246,436 |
(H) |
Number of flats over 40 years of age in 2030 (A)+(B)+(C)-(F) |
555,443 |
(I) |
Source: HDB FY2011/2012 report, IPA
From Table 1, we see that if no more HDB flats are demolished from now, there will be 246,436 flats (Item H) which will be more than fifty years old in 2030. If we start to consider the flats from when they cross the forty-year mark, then by 2030, we would have to keep an eye on 555,443 flats (Item I). I must qualify that this is a theoretical exercise. In actual fact, some SERS projects have already been completed and the empty blocks of flats await demolition, such as the four blocks in Zion Road or the eight blocks in Ghim Moh Road.
Assuming the oldest 246,436 flats which were completed before 1980 are more than forty years old in 2020. These will need to be demolished and replaced before 2030 so that the total number of new units required between 2017 and 2030 will increase from 500,000 to 746,436.
If only 500,000 more units were to be built between 2017 and 2030, the increase of 35,000 units per year is relatively manageable in terms of the resources of the construction industry, developers and HDB. But if we had to cater for up to 246,436 additional replacement flats, then the average goes up to about 53,000 new units per year over the fourteen-year period. This will be higher than today’s break-neck pace of residential construction, which if you would ask the construction industry, is a strain on manpower resources and perhaps a potential risk to construction punctuality and quality.
The simultaneous demolition of 246,436 flats and building of 746,436 new dwelling units over the next seventeen years will make the whole Singapore a bigger construction site than ever before. With each residential project running over three to four years, at any one time we may expect around 200,000 units in various stages of construction. The whole country could be resonating with the sound of piles. Ouch!
On top of the construction of roads, MRT lines, new commercial hubs, industrial estates, etc, we are potentially adding road diversions, traffic slowdowns and increasing noise and dust pollution, plus other interim inconveniences. These transitional pains are not cost-free to the economy and certainly not to the residents affected by the massive number of projects around the island.
Will we ever get the chance to enjoy living in the space we are building for ourselves?