Vietnam's Condo Ownership Debate: 'Limited' vs. 'Perpetual' and Future Urban Development

The debate over whether condominium ownership in Vietnam should be 'limited' or 'perpetual' is intensifying. Architect Pham Trong Thuat argues that this issue extends beyond a simple dichotomy of ownership types, deeply intertwining with broader concepts such as urban redevelopment, land use rights, and the protection of residents' rights. Concerns about the aging and safety of condominiums have led to calls for the establishment of ownership time limits to facilitate demolition and reconstruction. However, Thuat emphasizes that a building's actual lifespan depends significantly not only on its design life but also on construction quality, materials used, environmental factors, and, crucially, maintenance practices. Design lifespans of 50 or 100 years do not automatically signify a building's 'end of life.' While Singapore is often cited as an international example, Thuat notes that its 99-year ownership for HDB flats is a unique public housing program where the state controls land, planning, distribution, and financial support, making it unsuitable for direct application to commercial condominiums. Singapore and Australia's New South Wales employ mechanisms like high consensus rates (80-90%), independent valuations, and court rulings to facilitate building reconstruction or demolition. What should be learned from these examples, Thuat stresses, is not the specific number of years but the 'management mechanism' for when a building's lifecycle concludes. This includes independent inspections, majority-based decision-making, market-based valuations, time-bound dispute resolution, and the protection of minority rights. This approach aims to overcome governance challenges rather than opting for the simpler solution of severing property rights. When a building is declared dangerous, evacuation orders must be mandatory but must also be accompanied by clear plans for temporary housing, a roadmap for resolution, and post-reconstruction rights. Redevelopment plans may also alter land use structures, allocating more space for traffic, greenery, or public areas. These changes should be disclosed early to ensure residents understand the future transformation of the land, the rights to be preserved, and the value addition derived from collective urban investment. Conversely, the financial obligations of the owners themselves are an unavoidable reality. Apartments are also long-term consumer goods subject to wear and tear; the notion of automatically receiving an equivalent new apartment after an old one is demolished without any additional cost is untenable. Increased density through redevelopment might help offset new construction costs, but in areas with overloaded infrastructure, compressing density could weaken the urban body. For feasible redevelopment, a 'redevelopment fund' from multiple sources is necessary, including accumulated maintenance funds, owner contributions, and long-term loans. Residents resettling on-site should have flexible options: paying extra for an equivalent apartment, opting for a smaller unit, deferred payment through mortgages, or selling their rights. Special considerations, such as interest support or suitable resettlement housing, are needed for the elderly, low-income households, or policy beneficiaries, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach. Ultimately, the core question is not whether condominium ownership is perpetual but how property rights transition, how reconstruction costs are shared, and what mechanisms regulate development benefits when a building concludes its lifecycle. Good governance policies should establish a legal framework ensuring residents do not live in fear of collapse, that property rights are not buried with demolished structures, and that the cost of private asset reconstruction does not become a societal burden. Source: VnExpress