# Singapore Is Making En-Bloc Sales Easier For Older Condos — Should Ageing HDB Estates Follow?

- **Source:** Stacked Homes
- **Published:** 2026-09-13T13:33:51.000Z
- **Author:** Ryan J. Ong
- **Original:** https://stackedhomes.com/singapore-is-making-en-bloc-sales-easier-for-older-condos-should-ageing-hdb-estates-follow/
- **Topics:** HDB & Public Housing, Private Residential, Government & Policy

## Featured rationale

A similarly tiered VERS threshold may ease renewal of ageing HDB estates, although attractive replacement homes and manageable costs could prove more decisive for resident consent.

## AI summary

Proposed private en-bloc rules lower consent thresholds to 70% for projects aged 40–59 years and 65% for those aged at least 60 years.

## Original article

Recent changes to en-bloc rules have made it easier for ageing condos to go up for collective sale*.

*It will make it easier to secure consent for the collective sale. Whether or not the sale succeeds is a different matter, and one that I am less optimistic about.

If we can make it easier for condominiums to attempt a collective sale, why not apply that to ageing HDB developments as well? That seems to be the gist of the conversation between MinLaw and MND right now.

This topic is especially relevant because last August the government announced no future plans for further Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) sites. This means that from now on, the end point for HDB flats is either going to be the Voluntary Early Re-Development Scheme (VERS), or a simple continuation to the end of the 99-year lease.

VERS applies to selected HDB flats, aged 70 years and above. Owners vote on whether the Government should buy back these flats before the 99-year leases expire. In return, the owners are compensated based on the remaining lease, and will have earlier access to replacement units with fresh leases.

There’s no announced voting threshold for VERS that has been publicly revealed at the moment. But in the private market, recently proposed changes lower the consent requirement from 80% to 70% for developments aged 40 to 59 years, and to 65% for those aged 60 years and above.

In short, the older the project is, the lower the threshold of consent needed. The question on my mind is whether VERS should similarly adopt a lower threshold, based on the age of the flats in question.

Broadly speaking, I do think it will be necessary for VERS to have a lower threshold.

While HDB developments and private residential projects are very different, there are some similarities that will cross lines. Even in a condo, en-bloc sales are notoriously difficult to push through.

For HDB projects – which also tend to have a higher density of households – there’s an added dimension: more of the units will be homes rather than investment assets. Also, as multiple blocks may undergo SERS at once, more households are involved and this means greater effort in seeking a common-enough consensus.

Thus, I think it is likely that resistance to moving out will be higher in HDB projects, compared to private housing.

But this is also why I feel that simply lowering the threshold may not move the needle sufficiently. Since we’re taking a page from the private housing segment, in terms of tiered threshold requirements, let’s also take a second page:

The en-bloc scene in the private residential market has been stagnant, to put it mildly. Small and privately owned land parcels are still able to successfully en-bloc, but the sale of very large land parcels / projects has been limited.

And while there are many reasons for this – such as the attractiveness of recent Government Land Sale sites – one of the main culprits remains the cost of a replacement property. After an en-bloc sale, the proceeds may not suffice to pay for a property in an equally strong location, at least not a unit that’s of the same size.

VERS has a potential advantage here: the Government has said it will prepare replacement housing options in advance, including coordinating nearby land parcels for new flats. This removes a major source of uncertainty that private en-bloc sellers face.

Nonetheless, that still won’t make the process gripe-free. One consideration is that older flats tended to be built much larger. This is especially true for the owners of scarce flat types like maisonettes or jumbo flats, which are now among the older units (although this is admittedly a very small number of flats).

There are also, inevitably, owners who feel they could get a better outcome selling on their own, versus accepting the Government’s pay-out. I’ve spoken to several owners who feel that’s still true even if that event happens further down the road, and the negative impact of lease decay on their property value has worsened.

From my perspective, I think they’re being overconfident – since by that time, the 70-year mark financing and CPF usage will be limited or non-existent for buyers. Perhaps this confidence is currently propped up by the high prices that even very old flats can still fetch, but I think this will change after we see the closing years of the first failed VERS.

In light of this, lowering the threshold for VERS may help, but the most promising way to encourage it lies in the replacement units.

I’ve observed that the most significant difference between SERS and VERS is that there wasn’t a need to convince anyone of SERS. Whether or not you were happy with the replacement options, it was going to happen, end-of-story.

But with VERS, we want to convince homeowners to take the deal so we can renew our ageing estates. It also helps to contribute to a wider, invisible safety net: it results in fewer people outliving their lease.

Moreover, it’s a significant help to older Singaporeans who have lifelong dependents; it allows the inheritance of a flat with a fresh lease by dependents who – for reasons we shouldn’t judge – are unlikely to afford a unit of their own throughout their lives.

When it comes to convincing people to choose VERS, a lot of the weight will be on the replacement housing options. This will have to be treated with greater emphasis than we’ve seen in previous SERS exercises: not just with nice brochures anymore, but early “wind-ups” in the same way new launch condos do it.

Perhaps if we let residents walk through mock-ups, visit the replacement neighbourhood, and sit down with someone who can explain their household’s costs and moving timeline. The authorities might even want to consider putting in some showflats at the HDB Hub. Residents should have a concrete picture of how life in the replacement home would work, long before any actual voting takes place.

As for the actual models and showflats and brochures, this is the same kind of intensive, high-touch marketing used for new launch condos. This will add to the cost of VERS, but it’s probably something HDB will need to take a page from; at least for the first few VERS exercises.

Lowering the consent threshold is, I think, just one small part of what will be a rather expensive and involved process. But some of that added expense is the cost of asking people to uproot their lives. The first few VERS exercises will also set expectations for what comes after. If residents see replacement homes with manageable costs and practical support, subsequent exercises will see better success rates.

Meanwhile in other property news…

What happens if a tenant sues over property defects? The result is enlightening for tenants and landlords alike.

Amberwood may be leading the pack, being one of the earliest condos in Holland Plain. Here’s what to expect so far.

If you’re fortunate enough to be owning two condo units today, should you sell them both to buy a landed home? Check out our insights into a reader’s question on this.

When it comes to rental in Jurong, the tenant base used to just be industrial. But today, there are office workers, students, faculty, and more who seek to rent there. Here’s a look at how the area’s rental is changing.

Weekly Sales Roundup (31 August – 06 September)

Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)

PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE

GRAND DUNMAN | $5,282,000 | 2131 | $2,478 | 99 yrs (2022)

TERRA HILL | $4,738,000 | 1894 | $2,501 | FH

VELA BAY | $4,113,000 | 1378 | $2,985 | 99 yrs (2025)

ELTA | $4,098,000 | 1776 | $2,307 | 99 yrs (2024)

SPRINGLEAF RESIDENCE | $3,429,000 | 1453 | $2,360 | 99 yrs (2024)

Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)

PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE

UNION SQUARE RESIDENCES | $1,280,000.00 | 463 | $2,765.00 | 99 yrs (2024)

NARRA RESIDENCES | $1,317,000.00 | 560 | $2,353.00 | 99 yrs (2025)

THE LAKEGARDEN RESIDENCES | $1,564,100.00 | 678 | $2,306.00 | 99 yrs (2023)

OTTO PLACE | $1,598,000.00 | 872 | $1,833.00 | 99 yrs (2024)

KASSIA | $1,621,000.00 | 753 | $2,151.00 | FH

Top 5 Most Expensive Resale

PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE

THE CLAYMORE | $8,127,000 | 2680 | $3,032 | FH

MARINA COLLECTION | $6,800,000 | 4725 | $1,439 | 99 yrs (2007)

TEMBUSU GRAND | $5,900,000 | 2691 | $2,192 | 99 yrs (2022)

LEONIE GARDENS | $5,700,000 | 3261 | $1,748 | 99 yrs (1990)

HILLTOPS | $5,360,000 | 1550 | $3,458 | FH

Top 5 Cheapest Resale

PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE

PARC ROSEWOOD | $650,000 | 431 | $1,510 | 99 yrs (2011)

PEOPLE’S PARK COMPLEX | $688,000 | 463 | $1,486 | 99 yrs (1968)

RIPPLE BAY | $715,000 | 484 | $1,476 | 99 yrs (2011)

PARC BOTANNIA | $778,000 | 506 | $1,538 | 99 yrs (2016)

KINGSFORD . HILLVIEW PEAK | $790,000 | 549 | $1,439 | 99 yrs (2012)

Top 5 Biggest Winners

PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD

THE CLAYMORE | $8,127,000 | 2680 | $3,032 | $3,863,000 | 30 Years

MIRAGE TOWER | $4,200,000 | 1744 | $2,409 | $1,932,000 | 16 Years

CLEMENTIWOODS CONDOMINIUM | $2,570,000 | 1679 | $1,531 | $1,669,100 | 20 Years

THE METROPOLITAN CONDOMINIUM | $3,000,000 | 1399 | $2,144 | $1,573,020 | 19 Years

KING’S MANSION | $3,290,000 | 1604 | $2,051 | $1,480,000 | 9 Years

Top 5 Biggest Losers

PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD

MARINA COLLECTION | $6,800,000 | 4725 | $1,439 | -$5,870,240 | 19 Years

THE COAST AT SENTOSA COVE | $3,550,000 | 2562 | $1,386 | -$665,800 | 20 Years

MARINA ONE RESIDENCES | $2,150,000 | 1130 | $1,902 | -$160,809 | 10 Years

KOPAR AT NEWTON | $1,730,000 | 689 | $2,511 | -$88,630 | 4 Years

THE LAKEGARDEN RESIDENCES | $1,564,100 | 678 | $2,306 | -$27,900 | 1 Years

Top 5 Biggest Winners (ROI%)

PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD

LAKEHOLMZ | $2,048,000 | 1507 | $1,359 | 210% | 20 Years

CLEMENTIWOODS CONDOMINIUM | $2,570,000 | 1679 | $1,531 | 185% | 20 Years

CENTRAL GREEN CONDOMINIUM | $2,100,000 | 1292 | $1,626 | 168% | 27 Years

BOTANNIA | $2,275,000 | 1270 | $1,791 | 163% | 18 Years

BAYSHORE PARK | $1,108,000 | 947 | $1,170 | 152% | 26 Years

Top 5 Biggest Losers (ROI%)

PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD

MARINA COLLECTION | $6,800,000 | 4725 | $1,439 | -46% | 19 Years

THE COAST AT SENTOSA COVE | $3,550,000 | 2562 | $1,386 | -16% | 20 Years

MARINA ONE RESIDENCES | $2,150,000 | 1130 | $1,902 | -7% | 10 Years

KOPAR AT NEWTON | $1,730,000 | 689 | $2,511 | -5% | 4 Years

THE LAKEGARDEN RESIDENCES | $1,564,100 | 678 | $2,306 | -2% | 1 Years

Transaction Breakdown

Follow us on Stacked for news and updates on the Singapore property market.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 新加坡正让较旧共管公寓的集体出售更容易——老化组屋区是否应跟进？

近期对集体出售规则的调整，让老化共管公寓更容易进入集体出售程序*。*这将使争取集体出售同意更容易。至于出售能否成功则是另一回事，…

近期对集体出售规则的调整，让老化共管公寓更容易进入集体出售程序*。

*这将使争取集体出售同意更容易。至于出售能否成功则是另一回事，而我对此并不那么乐观。

如果我们能让共管公寓更容易尝试集体出售，为何不把同样做法套用到老化的组屋发展项目上？这似乎就是律政部（MinLaw）与国家发展部（MND）眼下讨论的核心。

这个议题尤其切题，因为去年8月政府宣布，未来不再规划新的选择性整体重建计划（SERS）地段。这意味着从现在起，组屋单位的终点要么是自愿提早重建计划（VERS），要么就是简单地把99年地契用到期满。

VERS适用于屋龄70年及以上的特定组屋。业主将投票决定政府是否应在99年地契到期前回购这些单位。作为回报，业主将按剩余地契年限获得补偿，并能更早获得带有全新地契的替换单位。

目前尚未公开宣布VERS的投票门槛。但在私人市场，近期拟议的调整将同意门槛从80%下调：屋龄40至59年的项目降至70%，屋龄60年及以上的项目降至65%。

简而言之，项目越老，所需同意门槛就越低。我在想的是，VERS是否也应按相关组屋的屋龄，同样采用更低的门槛。

总体而言，我认为VERS确实有必要设定更低的门槛。

尽管组屋发展项目与私人住宅项目差异很大，但仍有一些相似之处会跨越两者。即便在共管公寓，集体出售也向来难以推进。

对组屋项目而言——其住户密度往往也更高——还有另一层因素：更多单位是自住房，而非投资资产。此外，由于多个组屋座可能同时进行SERS，涉及的家庭更多，要争取足够一致的共识也更费力。

因此，我认为组屋项目中对迁出的阻力，很可能高于私人住宅。

但这也是我认为仅下调门槛未必足以真正改变局面的原因。既然我们在分级门槛要求上借鉴了私人住宅市场的做法，那就再学一招：

说得客气一点，私人住宅市场的集体出售局面一直停滞不前。小型、私人持有的地块仍能成功集体出售，但超大地块／项目的出售则相当有限。

尽管原因很多——例如近期政府售地地段颇具吸引力——但主要症结之一仍是置换房产的成本。集体出售后，所得款项未必足以在同等优质地段买到物业，至少买不到同样面积的单位。

VERS在这方面有一个潜在优势：政府表示会提前准备替换住房选择，包括协调附近地块兴建新组屋。这消除了私人集体出售卖家所面对的一大不确定性。

尽管如此，这仍不会让过程毫无怨言。一个考量是，较旧的组屋往往建得更大。这对复式组屋（maisonette）或特大户型组屋（jumbo flat）等稀缺户型的业主尤其如此，这些单位如今多已属于较老的一批（尽管数量确实很少）。

也难免会有业主觉得，自行出售的结果会好过接受政府的补偿款。我与几位业主交流过，他们仍认为即便这件事发生得更晚、地契折耗对房价的负面影响已经加重，情况依然如此。

在我看来，他们过于自信了——因为到那时，屋龄70年这一节点上，买家能获得的贷款融资和公积金（CPF）使用将受到限制，甚至无法使用。或许这种信心目前仍被即便很旧的组屋仍能卖出高价所支撑，但我认为，在我们看到首个失败的VERS走到尾声之后，这种情况就会改变。

有鉴于此，下调VERS门槛或许有帮助，但最有希望推动它的办法，还是在替换单位上。

我观察到，SERS与VERS最显著的差别在于：SERS根本不需要说服任何人。无论你对替换方案满不满意，它都会发生，没有商量余地。

但就VERS而言，我们希望说服业主接受方案，以便更新老化组屋区。这也能织就一张更广、看不见的安全网：减少有人活过地契年限的情况。

此外，这对有终身受养人的年长新加坡人是很大的帮助；它让受养人能够继承一套带有全新地契的组屋——而出于我们不应评判的原因，这些受养人一生中很可能买不起自己的单位。

说到说服人们选择VERS，很大一部分分量会落在替换住房选择上。这必须比以往SERS项目更受重视：不再只是漂亮的宣传册，而要像新盘共管公寓那样，提前做“预热”。

或许可以让居民走进样板间、参观替换社区，并与能说明其家庭成本和搬迁时间表的人面对面沟通。当局甚至可以考虑在组屋中心（HDB Hub）设置一些样板房。居民应在真正投票很久之前，就对替换住房的生活有具体概念。

至于实际模型、样板房和宣传册，这与新盘共管公寓所用的高强度、高接触营销是同一类做法。这会增加VERS的成本，但建屋发展局（HDB）大概需要借鉴这一招；至少前几轮VERS项目应当如此。

下调同意门槛，我认为只是这场相当昂贵且繁复的过程中的一小部分。但其中部分额外支出，正是请人们连根拔起、重新安置生活的成本。前几轮VERS项目也会为后续设定预期。如果居民看到替换住房成本可控、支援切实，后续项目的成功率就会更高。

与此同时，其他房产新闻……

如果租客因房产缺陷提起诉讼会怎样？结果对租客和房东都颇有启发。

Amberwood或许走在前列，它是Holland Plain最早的共管公寓之一。以下是目前可以预期的情况。

如果你今天有幸拥有两套共管公寓单位，是否应该把两套都卖掉去买有地住宅？来看看我们对一位读者这一问题的见解。

说到裕廊的租赁，租客群体过去主要是工业相关人士。但如今，办公室职员、学生、教职人员等更多人都会在那里求租。以下是该区租赁市场如何变化的观察。

每周成交汇总（8月31日至9月6日）

最昂贵的5笔新盘成交（按项目）

项目名称 | 价格（新元） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺单价（新元） | 地契年限

GRAND DUNMAN | 新币5,282,000 | 2131 | 新币2,478 | 99年（2022）

TERRA HILL | 新币4,738,000 | 1894 | 新币2,501 | 永久地契

VELA BAY | 新币4,113,000 | 1378 | 新币2,985 | 99年（2025）

ELTA | 新币4,098,000 | 1776 | 新币2,307 | 99年（2024）

SPRINGLEAF RESIDENCE | 新币3,429,000 | 1453 | 新币2,360 | 99年（2024）

最便宜的5笔新盘成交（按项目）

项目名称 | 价格（新元） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺单价（新元） | 地契年限

UNION SQUARE RESIDENCES | 新币1,280,000.00 | 463 | 新币2,765.00 | 99年（2024）

NARRA RESIDENCES | 新币1,317,000.00 | 560 | 新币2,353.00 | 99年（2025）

THE LAKEGARDEN RESIDENCES | 新币1,564,100.00 | 678 | 新币2,306.00 | 99年（2023）

OTTO PLACE | 新币1,598,000.00 | 872 | 新币1,833.00 | 99年（2024）

KASSIA | 新币1,621,000.00 | 753 | 新币2,151.00 | 永久地契

最昂贵的5笔转售

项目名称 | 价格（新元） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺单价（新元） | 地契年限

THE CLAYMORE | 新币8,127,000 | 2680 | 新币3,032 | 永久地契

MARINA COLLECTION | 新币6,800,000 | 4725 | 新币1,439 | 99年（2007）

TEMBUSU GRAND | 新币5,900,000 | 2691 | 新币2,192 | 99年（2022）

LEONIE GARDENS | 新币5,700,000 | 3261 | 新币1,748 | 99年（1990）

HILLTOPS | 新币5,360,000 | 1550 | 新币3,458 | 永久地契

最便宜的5笔转售

项目名称 | 价格（新元） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺单价（新元） | 地契年限

PARC ROSEWOOD | 新币650,000 | 431 | 新币1,510 | 99年（2011）

PEOPLE’S PARK COMPLEX | 新币688,000 | 463 | 新币1,486 | 99年（1968）

RIPPLE BAY | 新币715,000 | 484 | 新币1,476 | 99年（2011）

PARC BOTANNIA | 新币778,000 | 506 | 新币1,538 | 99年（2016）

KINGSFORD . HILLVIEW PEAK | 新币790,000 | 549 | 新币1,439 | 99年（2012）

获利最多的5笔

项目名称 | 价格（新元） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺单价（新元） | 回报 | 持有期

THE CLAYMORE | 新币8,127,000 | 2680 | 新币3,032 | 新币3,863,000 | 30年

MIRAGE TOWER | 新币4,200,000 | 1744 | 新币2,409 | 新币1,932,000 | 16年

CLEMENTIWOODS CONDOMINIUM | 新币2,570,000 | 1679 | 新币1,531 | 新币1,669,100 | 20年

THE METROPOLITAN CONDOMINIUM | 新币3,000,000 | 1399 | 新币2,144 | 新币1,573,020 | 19年

KING’S MANSION | 新币3,290,000 | 1604 | 新币2,051 | 新币1,480,000 | 9年

亏损最多的5笔

项目名称 | 价格（新元） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺单价（新元） | 回报 | 持有期

MARINA COLLECTION | 新币6,800,000 | 4725 | 新币1,439 | -新币5,870,240 | 19年

THE COAST AT SENTOSA COVE | 新币3,550,000 | 2562 | 新币1,386 | -新币665,800 | 20年

MARINA ONE RESIDENCES | 新币2,150,000 | 1130 | 新币1,902 | -新币160,809 | 10年

KOPAR AT NEWTON | 新币1,730,000 | 689 | 新币2,511 | -新币88,630 | 4年

THE LAKEGARDEN RESIDENCES | 新币1,564,100 | 678 | 新币2,306 | -新币27,900 | 1年

投资回报率最高的5笔（ROI%）

项目名称 | 价格（新元） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺单价（新元） | 投资回报率（%） | 持有期

LAKEHOLMZ | 新币2,048,000 | 1507 | 新币1,359 | 210% | 20年

CLEMENTIWOODS CONDOMINIUM | 新币2,570,000 | 1679 | 新币1,531 | 185% | 20年

CENTRAL GREEN CONDOMINIUM | 新币2,100,000 | 1292 | 新币1,626 | 168% | 27年

BOTANNIA | 新币2,275,000 | 1270 | 新币1,791 | 163% | 18年

BAYSHORE PARK | 新币1,108,000 | 947 | 新币1,170 | 152% | 26年

投资回报率最低的5笔（ROI%）

项目名称 | 价格（新元） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺单价（新元） | 投资回报率（%） | 持有期

MARINA COLLECTION | 新币6,800,000 | 4725 | 新币1,439 | -46% | 19年

THE COAST AT SENTOSA COVE | 新币3,550,000 | 2562 | 新币1,386 | -16% | 20年

MARINA ONE RESIDENCES | 新币2,150,000 | 1130 | 新币1,902 | -7% | 10年

KOPAR AT NEWTON | 新币1,730,000 | 689 | 新币2,511 | -5% | 4年

THE LAKEGARDEN RESIDENCES | 新币1,564,100 | 678 | 新币2,306 | -2% | 1年

成交明细

关注Stacked，获取新加坡房产市场新闻与动态。