A lot of Disneyland architecture though, which looks very out of place in many areas.
[quote=“Feiren”]
You are touching on an important point here. Taiwan’s legal software is missing to make this happen. Taiwan has building management committees that collect funds from residents but they don’t enforce the covenants to take care of the buildings. It probably doesn’t make economic sense to try. In the US at any event, people don’t care for the outsides of their houses and mow their lawns because they are aesthetes. The homeowner’s association will sue your ass if you break the rules that you agreed to when you bought the property (the covenants that run with it). They will win and the court decision will be enforced.
Also, given that housing prices are going up anyway, I don’t think that a nice exterior really does very much for your property values in most cases.[/quote]
The laws are in place - see here: cpami.gov.tw/chinese/index.p … &Itemid=53
Management committees in new buildings can and do enforce building covenants. However, they were not enforced in the past and many of these buildings are still standing.
Since property owners sit on the management committee, they have an incentive to maintain the exterior of the building.
There is an amnesty in place for any illegal building in place before 1994, so the old tiepi rooftops will stay. However, laws are generally enforced against new illegal building (at least in Taipei).
Do these laws apply to individual apartment blocks or only to those large complexes?
Not really. In my Taoyuan apartment a new management committee tried to get elected promising to lower monthly fees (because they would no longer maintain gardens, pools, and powerwash buildings periodically). They were defeated but they still got about 30% of the vote. Many people really don’t care.
Feiren is also right that the outside doesn’t matter when it comes to the value. My apartment is worth the same as one in a nearby community that is completely shabby on the outside.
That’s true, but in practice it’s ineffective, because as with any committee it ends up being run by an inner clique of people with their own agenda. Besides, the committee is not directly responsible for maintenance because the elected managers invariably have no actual experience with looking after a large, complicated building; they just hand it off to a third party. Our building has been through three or four management companies in just two years, because they’re all useless. They collect their fees, and simply wait to get kicked out with 6-12 months’ worth of unspent cash in their pockets. Nice work if you can get it.
As a couple of people mentioned back there, what’s required are effective, enforceable covenants and some tweaks to the law to introduce some actual responsibility. As things stand, the buck can be passed round and round in circles.
Unless the person who wants to fit illegal extensions is on the management committee.
Yes, I’m both pleased and surprised to see that happening. There are (were) some shitty concrete slab piles appearing (illegally) on the Danshui riverbank, and I notice at least one of them has had the plug pulled. It’s possible they just ran out of cash, but I’m hoping the gov’t inspectors are actually clamping down. In that particular case, though, it’s a case of “nice try, but no cigar”. There’s now an unfinished hulk that will stand there for the next 40 years until nature takes its course.
[quote=“tommy525”]http://taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/04/09/2003529870
No doubt you are all aware of this case. About the wangs refusal to move. Cases like these make it hard to redo Taipei. Allegations of mafia invested construction companies making illegal gains etc etc. The Wangs by the way, got more then 70 million Taiwan dollars in compensation IIRC. Not really chicken feed. They supposedly asked for 500 million Taiwan dollars (but they say thats not true).
Who said what, who is lying etc. Who stands to gain ,etc. Its a right mess and an example of how hard it is to rebuild.[/quote]
New homes for sale in Xindian are 70 million for less than 40 pings. And we are talking cookie cutter, run of the mill, termite mound kind of stuff, nothing fancy nor a stand alone home. The Wangs will have a hard time finding a home suitable for a large family in a central location. The building company will build several 70 million apartments in the “space” previously occupied by their home.
OTOH, I do agree that eyesores must be removed, but them do them all, do not single out specific profiots for what looks too much like private gain. Social housing it ain’t. We do need more houses. Affordable houses. We do need to get rid of the eyesores, but with a plan.
I think there are two sets of laws.
One concerns buildings that are illegal in any case - for instance tiepi rooftop extensions, iron bars that protrude by more than a certain distance and so on.
The other concerns building covenants. When developers sell a property, the purchaser is required to sign the covenant. On new buildings, this typically prevents the owner from adding bars to the windows. If an owner breaches the covenant, they can be fined by the city government and ordered to restore the building to its original condition. The covenant can only be changed if a majority of the residents agree.
Not really. In my Taoyuan apartment a new management committee tried to get elected promising to lower monthly fees (because they would no longer maintain gardens, pools, and powerwash buildings periodically). They were defeated but they still got about 30% of the vote. Many people really don’t care.
Feiren is also right that the outside doesn’t matter when it comes to the value. My apartment is worth the same as one in a nearby community that is completely shabby on the outside.[/quote]
But that is Taoyuan - and they still lost.
The exterior definitely does make a difference to building value. Look at the difference in prices for new builds and 10-20 year old high rises.
Unfortunately, in Taiwan, YES.
A new coat of paint spells trouble down the horizon as your neighbors (or others who happened to walk/drive/ride by) think you’re stashed to the max.
Furthermore, why make your home stand out amongst the uglies when all you’re doing is inviting thieves and what-not.[/quote]
It shouldn’t be made to stand out, butrather the norm of everyone having nice, clean, painted, safe envvironment, where you don’t have to duch for life whenever one tile falls off your buikding’s facade…
It can be done in Central America -OK, to be honest, a bit overdone- s why not here?
[quote=“Icon”][quote=“tommy525”]http://taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/04/09/2003529870
No doubt you are all aware of this case. About the wangs refusal to move. Cases like these make it hard to redo Taipei. Allegations of mafia invested construction companies making illegal gains etc etc. The Wangs by the way, got more then 70 million Taiwan dollars in compensation IIRC. Not really chicken feed. They supposedly asked for 500 million Taiwan dollars (but they say thats not true).
Who said what, who is lying etc. Who stands to gain ,etc. Its a right mess and an example of how hard it is to rebuild.[/quote]
New homes for sale in Xindian are 70 million for less than 40 pings. And we are talking cookie cutter, run of the mill, termite mound kind of stuff, nothing fancy nor a stand alone home. The Wangs will have a hard time finding a home suitable for a large family in a central location. The building company will build several 70 million apartments in the “space” previously occupied by their home.
OTOH, I do agree that eyesores must be removed, but them do them all, do not single out specific profiots for what looks too much like private gain. Social housing it ain’t. We do need more houses. Affordable houses. We do need to get rid of the eyesores, but with a plan.[/quote]
As far as I can tell, the Wangs will get five properties in the new building - a total of 150 ping PLUS 5 car parking spaces. They certainly don’t seem to be the helpless victims they have been made out to be.
Not really. In my Taoyuan apartment a new management committee tried to get elected promising to lower monthly fees (because they would no longer maintain gardens, pools, and powerwash buildings periodically). They were defeated but they still got about 30% of the vote. Many people really don’t care.
Feiren is also right that the outside doesn’t matter when it comes to the value. My apartment is worth the same as one in a nearby community that is completely shabby on the outside.[/quote]
But that is Taoyuan - and they still lost.
The exterior definitely does make a difference to building value. Look at the difference in prices for new builds and 10-20 year old high rises.[/quote]
It matters to a slight degree. New buildings command more because they have other facilities such as elevators and well, because they are new and their value rises faster than older buildings. It has little to do with quality as many new buildings are extremely poorly made and start showing age and problems within 6 months.
The market here is completely irrational.
[quote]
Not really. In my Taoyuan apartment a new management committee tried to get elected promising to lower monthly fees (because they would no longer maintain gardens, pools, and powerwash buildings periodically). They were defeated but they still got about 30% of the vote. Many people really don’t care.
Feiren is also right that the outside doesn’t matter when it comes to the value. My apartment is worth the same as one in a nearby community that is completely shabby on the outside.[/quote]
Mucha Man is right, Taoyuan folks don’t care.
Or more correctly, folks that consider they paid enough for a flat/duplex, feel not the slightest inclination to go co-op.
I am exaggerating, av kors, but it always strikes me as rather odd: this whole get together suffer together when it comes to something that is beyond control, such as the weather or train transportation, but this utter blockheadedness about presentation.
For a folk obsessed with face, I for one, can not fathom such a juxtaposition.
Yeah, I really can’t get my head around this case as the level of reporting is just not sufficient. While I think the overall case highlights that the laws favor developers over citizens, and that the city is not going to be improved by what is happening but only made more unaffordable (and will be just as ugly in a few years), I do not think the 75% threshhold is some kind of human rights violation when compensation is so generous.
This is not like the issue of farmers losing their land to bogus “science parks” and getting a tiny amount of money in compensation.
If it is like that -which as MM points out, we are not certain yet- it is a good thing, as certainly the construction company will make a bundle, several times a bundle as a matter of fact. This is no loss to them.
I agree with MM that the market here is wacky twisted.
Not really. In my Taoyuan apartment a new management committee tried to get elected promising to lower monthly fees (because they would no longer maintain gardens, pools, and powerwash buildings periodically). They were defeated but they still got about 30% of the vote. Many people really don’t care.
Feiren is also right that the outside doesn’t matter when it comes to the value. My apartment is worth the same as one in a nearby community that is completely shabby on the outside.[/quote]
But that is Taoyuan - and they still lost.
The exterior definitely does make a difference to building value. Look at the difference in prices for new builds and 10-20 year old high rises.[/quote]
It matters to a slight degree. New buildings command more because they have other facilities such as elevators and well, because they are new and their value rises faster than older buildings. It has little to do with quality as many new buildings are extremely poorly made and start showing age and problems within 6 months.
The market here is completely irrational.[/quote]
I am talking about the difference in price between new builds (新成屋) and older high rises (中古大樓). Both have elevators, but the market price of new builds is significantly higher. The main reason is that the management of new builds is much better, so they will hold their value. If, as you say, the new builds will end up looking old in a few years, it would be irrational to pay a premium for them. Also, there are differences between the property developers - developers with a good reputation can command a premium.
Since you guys are all talking about the exterior of buildings…
I thought people just didn’t want to spend money and were lazy to maintain the exterior of buildings here, nothing to do with flaunting money. Just laziness and cheapness. Yes, the buildings do make the city look depressing. Our building is supposed to be pink, but it’s more grey now, after only 15 years or so. I know management has the windows washed annually, and they repaint the interior and maintain the floors and other areas very regularly. I wish there was some way to power wash cement highrises. I see these newer buildings made of glass and such and it would seem the exterior is easier to maintain.
Our home in SF is being managed by a property management and they charge 5% of monthly rental to manage, plus other expenses to maintain. As we are a condo, every decision is shared between us and our neighbors. All the homes in the neighborhood need to be maintained ie. repainted every X number of years, sidewalks must not be hazardous, steps leading to our building must be safe and free of cracks/crumbling, no laundry in sight, trees trimmed, even the color of your shutters, siding, window trim, etc. must be aesthetically-pleasing to the public. Everyone takes pride in their house and how it looks, why can’t the people here? And when we meet Taiwanese people in the west, they’re always mentioning how beautiful the homes are, etc. etc. Yet, they don’t bring that back to Taiwan with them.
Yeah, I really can’t get my head around this case as the level of reporting is just not sufficient. While I think the overall case highlights that the laws favor developers over citizens, and that the city is not going to be improved by what is happening but only made more unaffordable (and will be just as ugly in a few years), I do not think the 75% threshhold is some kind of human rights violation when compensation is so generous.
This is not like the issue of farmers losing their land to bogus “science parks” and getting a tiny amount of money in compensation.[/quote]
It was more like 95% in agreement, although the project could have gone ahead without including the Wang property (as they lived in two separate houses) - that however would have reduced the developer’s profit margin.
Tsai was talking about public urban renewal schemes (公辦都更) before the election that would only need agreement from 2 in 3, or even 1 in 2 residents. I support this policy- redevelopment would have to be in the public industry (it could include a certain number of affordable units or social housing units, more public space etc). But you would still have the problem of people who are unwilling to move.
They get fancy degrees too but it doesn’t change the way they think at heart. When they come back to Taiwan they just settle into the same old pattern of doing thing. My guess is that they behave one way in Taiwan and one way in the US, they know Westerners would look down on them if they have trashy houses like here.
They get fancy degrees too but it doesn’t change the way they think at heart. When they come back to Taiwan they just settle into the same old pattern of doing thing. My guess is that they behave one way in Taiwan and one way in the US, they know Westerners would look down on them if they have trashy houses like here.[/quote]
Strange that they are willing to invest huge sums getting fancy degrees from abroad, but are not willing to invest a little improving universities in Taiwan or looking after their shabby homes.
Yeah, I really can’t get my head around this case as the level of reporting is just not sufficient. While I think the overall case highlights that the laws favor developers over citizens, and that the city is not going to be improved by what is happening but only made more unaffordable (and will be just as ugly in a few years), I do not think the 75% threshhold is some kind of human rights violation when compensation is so generous.
This is not like the issue of farmers losing their land to bogus “science parks” and getting a tiny amount of money in compensation.[/quote]
It was more like 95% in agreement, although the project could have gone ahead without including the Wang property (as they lived in two separate houses) - that however would have reduced the developer’s profit margin.
Tsai was talking about public urban renewal schemes (公辦都更) before the election that would only need agreement from 2 in 3, or even 1 in 2 residents. I support this policy- redevelopment would have to be in the public industry (it could include a certain number of affordable units or social housing units, more public space etc). But you would still have the problem of people who are unwilling to move.[/quote]
There is nothing wrong with a threshold but individual rights must be better protected and as you say the public interest has to be at the heart of this. And it is most definitely not. the Wang’s had a house that was more than 100 years old. It was obviously functional and should have been preserved. Urban regeneration in the west is often about redesigning neighborhoods using the original style and foundations: such as turning industrial areas in hipster urban neighborhoods. More public space should also be required but as I wrote above it only is on paper; in reality it gets eaten up by more apartments.
So whether the Wangs were in the wrong in some sense, this was purely about making money and building generic high rises. There was no public good served by it at all. I think we probably agree on that.
As for your point about the value of these new highrises, do you really think they have the value they do? These generic cheaply built tower blocks are worth NT50-70 million a unit? It’s hype. They are valued because investors think they will continue to rise in value and not because they are better made or better managed.