Design Gimmick for Development

Nowasday when it comes to property marketing, many gimmick has been incorporated even in the stage of planning design. We heard about super link for the conventional terrace house. We have zero lot bungalow house when in actual it is link house. We have soho or service apartment or studio that is supposed to cater for commercial purpose but in actual it is more of residential driven. The development proponents are so creative and innovative in attracting interest of buyers. The buyers feel extraordinary privillege of getting value-added bargain, of course for the name sake at initial stage without knowing the final product when the agreement was sealed. It reminded me on some people said that in Malaysia buying property is the only deal that people will pay and have no choice but to pay a product that you do not own or sense or feel.

Some like to reckon this as the ladder of social advancement for better quality of life. They reasoned that affordability can be secondary as people more than willing to pay for higher features for a house or a neighbourhood area. For example, people do not mind to pay for a guarded and gated community with security scheme. People like to have a prestige school within their neighbourhood vicinity. People is willing to have more greenery and pay for maintenance fee for having such facilities. People do not mind to maintain a club house in their community provided that it is used exclusively. In capitalising this new aspiration and desire, development proponents are coming up many up trend design, and some time slogan in nature.

Some time, I found that the gimmick as stated in the illustration and advertisement is not reflecting the actual scenario. Commonly we witnessed most of the proposed buildings are surrounded by green and trees as if no other buildings would be built next. We also have many projects served by public transportation but in reality the terminal might be bit far away and it is not within the walking distance. Some might have indicated that ample car parking are available without mentioning that it is not for free but comes with a price. With so many gimmick in place, I presume the buyers would have to assess properly and carefully on any great offer.

For the planning authority, it is their duty to ensure that requirements are complied with and not to be swayed away by every single gimmick. The evaluation should still come back to the principle on safety, health, ecological concern and social objectives. I come across a case about set back in which a developer for zero lot bungalow house scheme requested exemption for minimum distance. However, authority in providing service maintenance argued that the request should be reassessed again as the existing similar development project elsewhere shown that the design causes maintenance problem later. It is difficult for owner to even paint his house wall without getting permission from the neighbouring lot and problem will arise if both the neighbours cannot see eye to eye with each others. Similarly, for the soho/service apartment/studio development, the buyers should have been told that they are paying higher tariff for utilities bill and property assessment rate compared to the conventional residential unit.

I presume we must be alert and rational in making a decision to buy a property instead of blind folded with all the nice gimmick and pictures.