What we can learn from other cities about refreshing ageing home buildings

Decisions on renewing old housing stocks get held up because different residents have different interests. How can we break this logjam?

- Phang Sock Yong

The recent episode in Tiong Bahru, where two blocks built in 1949 narrowly failed to meet the 75 per cent threshold required for the Home Improvement Programme, illustrates the challenge of securing a broad collective agreement from residents to go ahead with such a renewal. Despite strong majority support, the process was held back by a handful of opposing and non-voting households.

(ST PHOTO: SHINTARO TAY)

Across the world, particularly in Asia's high-density cities, one growing challenge looms. The housing stock is getting old and needs to be renovated or upgraded. But it is not easy to secure a broad collective agreement from residents to go ahead with this renewal.

The recent episode in Tiong Bahru, where two walk-up blocks built in 1949 narrowly failed to meet the 75 per cent threshold required for Singapore's Home Improvement Programme (HIP), illustrates this problem in a specific context. Despite strong majority support, the process was held back by a handful of opposing and nonvoting households. The problem is that individual incentives often diverge from collective needs.

As buildings age and urgently need to be either upgraded or redeveloped, many residents are unwilling to consent to this. One reason for this is the diverse owner profiles. Owner-occupiers, landlords, elderly residents and foreign owners may all have different preferences regarding the value, timing, and disruption associated with such projects. Some may be desperate for upgrading or redevelopment. For others, especially those who have renovated their homes recently or are landlords with stable rental income, the perceived benefits are limited. Under supermajority rules, this means that even those who passively abstain from voting for renewal can effectively veto the project.