# Older Condos Could Soon Find It Easier To Go En Bloc — But That May Not Mean More Successful Sales. Here’s Why

- **Source:** Stacked Homes
- **Published:** 2026-09-06T12:56:32.000Z
- **Author:** Ryan J. Ong
- **Original:** https://stackedhomes.com/older-condos-could-soon-find-it-easier-to-go-en-bloc-but-that-may-not-mean-more-successful-sales-heres-why/
- **Topics:** Private Residential, New Launches, Government & Policy

## Featured rationale

The changes may increase collective-sale attempts, but abundant GLS supply, rising land betterment charges and owners’ replacement-cost needs could continue limiting successful transactions.

## AI summary

Singapore proposed lowering en-bloc consent thresholds to 70% for 40–59-year-old developments and 65% for those over 60 years old.

## Original article

Do the rules really support the en-bloc sale of ageing projects?

On August 4, the government proposed changes that govern en-bloc consent thresholds in the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill. The changes include a proposed 70% threshold for 40–59-year-old developments, and 65% for developments over 60 years old. It also floated the possibility of tiered thresholds, where older developments would require progressively less consent.

The stated aim of the adjustments is to spur the redevelopment of large and ageing properties, which would contribute to the supply of new private residential developments and offer an ‘out’ for property owners faced with the eroding property values due to decaying land leases.

But here’s what I think will happen, under the current circumstances: The number of en-bloc attempts will go up, but the low success rate will remain the same.

The proposed legislative changes, if they pass, will go a long way toward bringing more ageing properties to market, by helping more collective sale committees launch the sale of their properties. But the proposed changes deal with one particular bottleneck – namely, the process of getting sufficient owner consent to launch a collective sale tender – but does very little to address the economic bottleneck.

Part of this boils down to the availability of Government Land Sales (GLS) sites and other development opportunities developers might prefer to take up.

Since GLS sites offer an alternative source of development land, the government supply of land for tender competes with the private en-bloc market. And between the two choices, some developers typically prefer GLS sites.

The bidding process for GLS sites is more straightforward compared to the complexities of some en-bloc negotiations. There’s no need to deal with minority objections to the sale, changes to the reserve price, or last minute legal action by dissenters.

As a result, it is a significant factor when the government has significantly ramped up GLS supply in recent years. In 2024, the total GLS supply translated to about 11,110 new private homes coming online – the highest increase in new condo supply since 2013.

This was followed by close to 9,800 units as a result of all of the successfully tendered GLS sites from the 2025 programme. This year, the 2H2026 Confirmed List alone contains another nine sites, capable of yielding at least 4,745 private homes.

It’s not just the fact that the quantity of GLS sites has been high, but the quality of the sites being released has been hard to ignore.

Consider the New Upper Changi Road site in Bedok, which closed earlier this week. You might think that the bid price of $1.4 billion ($1,537 psf per plot ratio) by UOL Group, CapitaLand Development, and Singapore Land, would be off-the-charts for a suburban location like that. But I, and other developers, seem to think that it isn’t.

In general, most developers know what they’re doing when it comes to putting a value on land, and the catchment of buyers that they can rely on for their new project. And Bedok provides a very deep pool of potential buyers. It’s close to several estates that have a large and underserved catchment of HDB upgraders, and the site is close to an MRT station and malls in the neighbourhood.

In contrast, consider some of the en-bloc hopefuls that have appeared on the market in recent months, such as High Point. This is a freehold condo at 30 Mount Elizabeth, in prime District 9. The development just relaunched its collective sale tender, after its fifth attempt in April this year closed without a successful bidder.

The asking price in terms of $PSF is much higher of course ($2,645 psf), although the total comes to just around $580 million. But I would argue that between the two options – the GLS site in New Upper Changi Road and High Point – the GLS site is the safer and more reliable option for some developers.

In that case, simply making it easier for the owners of an old condo to launch a collective sale attempt doesn’t make much difference. Even if the required level of consent is achieved, the high number of appealing GLS sites will see a lot of them get overlooked, even in traditionally prestigious and prime locations.

The effective land rate of the New Upper Changi Road GLS site also reflects a related issue: the cost of a replacement unit for en-bloc sellers

There was a time when an en-bloc seller could simply look just beyond their immediate neighbourhood, if they found themselves priced out of a replacement in the same location.

But in 2026, there’s less certainty of that. Most of us are used to viewing the areas and neighbourhoods in the OCR as traditionally the most affordable geographical segments of the housing market. But the steady increase in the price of development sites, like the New Upper Changi Road plot, throws that perspective into question.

Broadly speaking, the gap between average land prices in the OCR and more central regions has narrowed substantially over the past few years. Average condo prices in the CCR were around $1,942 psf in 2014, with prices in the RCR reaching $1,401 psf and $1,069 psf in the OCR.

By 2025, these prices had risen to around $2,620 psf, $2,357 psf, and $1,769 psf, respectively. (We covered this price trend in a previous article). In short: CCR was around 82% more expensive than the OCR in 2014, but only about 48% more expensive by 2025.

Yes, the OCR is still cheaper; but its relative discount has become considerably less pronounced. And bear in mind, an ageing condo facing the negative impact of lease decay could see even lower prices in the en-bloc market.

This places owners attempting a collective-sale in a difficult position. They need sufficiently high sale proceeds to buy a suitable replacement home, and even if they settle for an OCR alternative housing prices have become relatively more expensive. But reaching for higher reserve prices in their enbloc, the less likely developers will bite.

So en-bloc sellers face a double whammy: GLS sites compete for developer dollars, and even in a successful sale owners may end up having to compromise on the size or the location of their replacement home.

From my perspective, simply reducing the quota needed for consent starts to look anaemic, in light of this much more significant bottleneck.

Then there are Land Betterment Charges (LBC), which aren’t exactly getting cheaper either.

This is a tax payable when a site is enhanced, such as intensifying the land use by building a new condo with more units than the building it replaced. Developers pay the LBC and the rates are reviewed twice a year.

From September 2026, we saw LBC rates for non-landed residential use increase by an average of 3.4%. Rates rose in 70 out of 118 sectors in Singapore, ranging from about 1% to 29% increases.

This is another factor that developers will have to take into account, when it comes to accessing how much they’re willing to fork out to pay for an enbloc site. Given the narrowing margin between owners’ needs, and what developers can afford, raising the LBC does little to help. This brings me back to the same issue: we’ve lowered the consent threshold, but all of this is still going on in the background.

If the objective is the vital urban renewal of ageing residential properties, perhaps the incentives need to be more targeted

I don’t think the solution is to make every en-bloc sale easier or more profitable. The last thing we want is another late 2010s en-bloc frenzy, which was even worse for how high it pushed new launch prices.

Instead, it may make more sense to identify specific ageing developments, where redevelopment is vital, and tweak the rules for these one-off cases. And this could take several forms: certain sites – like gigantic former HUDC estates – might come with longer ABSD deadlines for developers, flexibility on LBC, or related incentives.

At this point, someone is going to protest that every old condo owner gets an en-bloc windfall in this way. But I very much doubt it will come to that: for the very oldest estates, the remaining lease hampers any lottery effects. A 50- to 60-year old project on a declining 99-year leasehold tenure will already sell for much lower, even if there’s a premium over resale values, this is balanced out by the higher replacement property costs.

This is especially true for owners of older, larger units. Even with a marginal premium, they will likely find that the same amount of space, in a comparable location, requires a substantial top-up.

So, I don’t think targeted assistance is the equivalent of “winning the en-bloc lottery” as we saw in earlier decades. For now though, the proposed changes make it easier for the collective of owners to say ‘yes’, but there’s still no change that prompts a developer to say yes as well. As a result, I expect the new rules will produce more en-bloc attempts. But whether they produce more successful en-blocs is what I still hold in doubt.

Meanwhile in other property news…

Over the past few months, we looked at the performance of over 260 condos with two-bedder units over five years. Here’s a rundown on the top performers and what they have in common.

What can we expect from The Serra Residences? Here’s some initial insights from agents and others on the ground.

Is an Executive Maisonette (EM) a good buy for a larger family, and what are the later factors to consider? Check it out in our reply to a reader.

Is District 14 (which includes Geylang) a good place for rental assets and rental yield? Check out the intricacies of this challenging area, in our Stacked Pro deep dive.

Weekly Sales Roundup (24 – 30 August)

Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)

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

CANNINGHILL PIERS | $8,388,800 | 2788 | $3,009 | 99 yrs (2021)

RIVER MODERN | $6,842,000 | 1830 | $3,739 | 99 yrs (2025)

GRAND DUNMAN | $5,862,000 | 2379 | $2,464 | 99 yrs (2022)

THE CONTINUUM | $5,482,000 | 1905 | $2,877 | FH

VELA BAY | $4,765,000 | 1582 | $3,011 | 99 yrs (2025)

Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)

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

GRAND DUNMAN | $1,577,000.00 | 710 | $2,220.00 | 99 yrs (2022)

THE SEN | $1,629,000.00 | 678 | $2,402.00 | 99 yrs (2025)

COASTAL CABANA | $1,638,000.00 | 872 | $1,879.00 | 99 yrs (2024)

HUDSON PLACE RESIDENCES | $1,857,000.00 | 689 | $2,696.00 | 99 yrs (2025)

UNION SQUARE RESIDENCES | $1,900,000.00 | 700 | $2,716.00 | 99 yrs (2024)

Top 5 Most Expensive Resale

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

FOUR SEASONS PARK | $7,883,000 | 2260 | $3,487 | FH

DRAYCOTT EIGHT | $6,600,000 | 2896 | $2,279 | 99 yrs (1997)

ST THOMAS SUITES | $5,850,000 | 2605 | $2,246 | FH

BALMORAL POINT | $5,630,000 | 2530 | $2,226 | FH

GRAMERCY PARK | $5,600,000 | 1948 | $2,874 | FH

Top 5 Cheapest Resale

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

THE INFLORA | $660,000 | 463 | $1,426 | 99 yrs (2012)

PALM ISLES | $665,000 | 517 | $1,287 | 99 yrs (2011)

SEA ESTA | $696,000 | 517 | $1,347 | 99 yrs (2012)

KINGSFORD WATERBAY | $700,000 | 484 | $1,445 | 99 yrs (2014)

URBAN VISTA | $722,000 | 441 | $1,636 | 99 yrs (2012)

Top 5 Biggest Winners

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

THE HILLSIDE | $5,180,000 | 2648 | $1,956 | $3,592,000 | 26 Years

KENSINGTON PARK CONDOMINIUM | $2,920,000 | 1668 | $1,750 | $1,882,000 | 31 Years

THE TAMPINES TRILLIANT | $3,000,000 | 2121 | $1,415 | $1,775,000 | 14 Years

THOMSON 800 | $2,650,000 | 1281 | $2,069 | $1,556,000 | 18 Years

KERRISDALE | $2,330,000 | 1270 | $1,834 | $1,472,000 | 18 Years

Top 5 Biggest Losers

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

DRAYCOTT EIGHT | $6,600,000 | 2896 | $2,279 | -$929,600 | 19 Years

ONE SHENTON | $3,050,000 | 1593 | $1,915 | -$802,030 | 15 Years

REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY | $3,000,000 | 1798 | $1,669 | -$650,000 | 12 Years

URBAN TREASURES | $1,100,000 | 635 | $1,732 | -$300,000 | 2 Years

OUE TWIN PEAKS | $1,065,000 | 549 | $1,940 | -$295,000 | 10 Years

Top 5 Biggest Winners (ROI%)

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

SIMSVILLE | $1,850,000 | 1249 | $1,482 | 330% | 21 Years

THE SPRINGBLOOM | $1,433,000 | 893 | $1,604 | 269% | 23 Years

THE HILLSIDE | $5,180,000 | 2648 | $1,956 | 226% | 26 Years

WHITEWATER | $1,275,000 | 1130 | $1,128 | 214% | 24 Years

BAYWATER | $1,880,000 | 1270 | $1,480 | 210% | 21 Years

Top 5 Biggest Losers (ROI%)

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

OUE TWIN PEAKS | $1,065,000 | 549 | $1,940 | -22% | 10 Years

URBAN TREASURES | $1,100,000 | 635 | $1,732 | -21% | 2 Years

ONE SHENTON | $3,050,000 | 1593 | $1,915 | -21% | 15 Years

REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY | $3,000,000 | 1798 | $1,669 | -18% | 12 Years

DRAYCOTT EIGHT | $6,600,000 | 2896 | $2,279 | -12% | 19 Years

Transaction Breakdown

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

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 老公寓集体出售或将更容易——但这未必意味着成功成交会更多。原因如下

规则真的有利于老化项目的集体出售吗？8月4日，政府在《土地业权（分层地契）（修正）法案》中提出调整集体出售同意门槛。拟议调整包括：楼龄40至59年的项目门槛为70%……

规则真的有利于老化项目的集体出售吗？

8月4日，政府在《土地业权（分层地契）（修正）法案》中提出调整集体出售同意门槛。拟议调整包括：楼龄40至59年的项目门槛为70%，超过60年的项目为65%。政府还提出了分级门槛的可能性，即楼龄越老的项目所需同意比例逐步降低。

官方称，调整旨在推动大型老化物业的重建，从而增加新私人住宅供应，并为因地契年限衰减、物业价值受侵蚀的业主提供一条“出路”。

但在当前环境下，我认为会出现这样的情况：集体出售尝试会增多，但偏低的成功率将维持不变。

拟议立法修订若获通过，将大幅推动更多老化物业进入市场，因为更多集体出售委员会将能够启动物业出售。但拟议修订只针对一个特定瓶颈——即获得足够业主同意以启动集体出售招标的过程——对经济层面的瓶颈几乎没有触及。

部分原因在于政府土地出售（GLS）地段，以及其他发展商可能更愿意承接的开发机会是否充足。

由于GLS地段提供了另一种开发用地来源，政府供招标的土地供应会与私人集体出售市场形成竞争。在两者之间，部分发展商通常更倾向GLS地段。

与部分集体出售谈判的复杂性相比，GLS地段的竞标过程更为直接。无需应对少数业主反对出售、底价调整，或反对者在最后一刻采取的法律行动。

因此，当政府近年来大幅增加GLS供应时，这便成为一个重要因素。2024年，GLS总供应相当于约11,110套新私人住宅入市——这是自2013年以来新公寓供应增幅最高的一年。

随后，2025年计划中所有成功招标的GLS地段合计可带来近9,800个单位。今年，仅2026下半年（2H2026）确认名单就另有九个地段，预计至少可供应4,745套私人住宅。

不仅仅是GLS地段数量居高，所释出地段的素质也难以忽视。

以本周早些时候截标的勿洛（Bedok）新樟宜上路（New Upper Changi Road）地段为例。你或许会认为，由华业集团（UOL Group）、凯德发展（CapitaLand Development）和新加坡置地（Singapore Land）出价新币14亿元（每地积比新币1,537元/平方英尺），对这样的郊区地段来说高得离谱。但我和其他发展商似乎并不这么认为。

一般而言，大多数发展商在评估土地价值、以及新项目可依赖的买家客群方面都心中有数。而勿洛拥有非常深厚的潜在买家池。它邻近多个组屋区，那里有大量尚未被充分服务的组屋提升客群，且该地段靠近地铁站和周边商场。

相比之下，看看近几个月市场上出现的一些集体出售希望项目，例如High Point。这是位于优质第9区、伊丽莎白山30号（30 Mount Elizabeth）的永久地契公寓。该项目刚刚重新启动集体出售招标，此前今年4月的第五次尝试因没有成功买家而结束。

以每平方英尺新币单价计，要价当然高得多（每平方英尺新币2,645元），尽管总价仅约新币5.8亿元。但我认为，在这两个选项——新樟宜上路的GLS地段和High Point——之间，对部分发展商而言，GLS地段是更安全、更可靠的选择。

在这种情况下，仅仅让老公寓业主更容易启动集体出售尝试，并不会带来太大差别。即便达到所需同意门槛，大量有吸引力的GLS地段仍会使许多集体出售项目被忽视，即便是传统上声望较高、地段优越的项目也不例外。

新樟宜上路GLS地段的有效地价，也反映出一个相关问题：集体出售业主置换单位的成本

曾几何时，如果集体出售业主发现自己买不起同一地段的置换住房，只需把目光投向紧邻社区之外即可。

但到了2026年，这一点已没那么确定。我们大多数人习惯把中央区以外地区（OCR）的社区视为住房市场中传统上最实惠的地理板块。但开发地段价格的稳步上升，例如新樟宜上路地块，让这一看法受到质疑。

总体而言，过去几年OCR与更靠近市中心区域的平均土地价格差距已大幅收窄。2014年，核心中央区（CCR）公寓均价约为每平方英尺新币1,942元，其他中央区（RCR）达每平方英尺新币1,401元，OCR则为每平方英尺新币1,069元。

到2025年，这些价格分别升至约每平方英尺新币2,620元、每平方英尺新币2,357元和每平方英尺新币1,769元。（我们曾在此前的文章中讨论过这一价格趋势。）简而言之：2014年CCR比OCR大约贵82%，到2025年仅大约贵48%。

是的，OCR仍然更便宜；但其相对折价已明显减弱。还要记住，面临地契年限衰减负面影响的老化公寓，在集体出售市场上的价格可能更低。

这让试图集体出售的业主陷入两难。他们需要足够高的出售所得来购买合适的置换住房，即便退而求其次选择OCR替代房源，房价也已相对更贵。但若在集体出售中抬高底价，发展商接手的可能性就会降低。

因此，集体出售业主面临双重打击：GLS地段与之争夺发展商资金，即便成功出售，业主最终也可能不得不在置换住房的面积或地段上作出妥协。

在我看来，面对这一更为关键的瓶颈，仅仅降低同意门槛开始显得乏力。

此外还有土地增值费（LBC），其水平也谈不上变得更便宜。

这是在地段获提升时须缴纳的税费，例如通过兴建单位数多于原建筑的新公寓来提高土地使用强度。发展商支付LBC，费率每年检讨两次。

自2026年9月起，我们看到非有地住宅用途的LBC费率平均上调3.4%。新加坡118个地段分区中有70个上调，升幅约在1%至29%之间。

这是发展商在评估愿意为集体出售地段掏出多少钱时必须考虑的另一个因素。鉴于业主需求与发展商承受能力之间的空间正在收窄，上调LBC并无助益。这又把我带回同一个问题：我们降低了同意门槛，但这一切仍在背景中发生。

如果目标是对老化住宅物业进行关键的城市更新，或许激励措施需要更加定向

我认为解决方案不是让每一宗集体出售都更容易或更有利可图。我们最不希望看到的，是又一次2010年代末那样的集体出售热潮，其更糟糕之处在于把新盘价格推得过高。

相反，更合理的做法或许是识别出重建确有必要的特定老化项目，并为这些个案调整规则。这可以有多种形式：某些地段——例如超大型的前HUDC组屋区——或可为发展商提供更长的额外买方印花税（ABSD）缴税期限、LBC弹性，或其他相关激励。

说到这里，有人会抗议说，这样一来每个老公寓业主都能借集体出售发一笔横财。但我非常怀疑事情会发展到那一步：对最老的屋苑而言，剩余地契年限会抑制任何“中彩票”效应。一个楼龄50至60年、99年地契不断缩短的项目，售价本就会低得多；即便相对转售价有溢价，也会被更高的置换房产成本所抵消。

这对拥有较老、较大单位的业主尤其如此。即便只有微薄溢价，他们很可能发现，要在相当地段买到同样面积，仍需补上相当一笔差价。

因此，我不认为定向援助等同于我们在早几十年所见的“赢得集体出售彩票”。不过就目前而言，拟议修订让业主集体更容易说“同意”，但仍没有促使发展商同样点头的改变。因此，我预期新规将带来更多集体出售尝试。但它们能否带来更多成功的集体出售，我仍持怀疑态度。

与此同时，其他房产新闻……

过去几个月，我们审视了260多个拥有两房单位的公寓在五年内的表现。以下是表现最佳者及其共同点的概览。

我们可以对The Serra Residences抱有怎样的期待？以下是来自代理及其他一线人士的初步见解。

执行共管公寓（Executive Maisonette，EM）对较大家庭来说是好买点吗，后续又有哪些因素需要考虑？请看我们给读者的回复。

第14区（包括芽笼）适合作为租赁资产、追求租金收益率吗？在我们的Stacked Pro深度分析中，了解这一充满挑战区域的种种细节。

每周成交汇总（8月24日至30日）

按项目计最贵的五笔新盘成交

项目名称 | 价格（新币） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺新币 | 地契年限

CANNINGHILL PIERS | 新币8,388,800元 | 2788 | 新币3,009元 | 99年（2021）

RIVER MODERN | 新币6,842,000元 | 1830 | 新币3,739元 | 99年（2025）

GRAND DUNMAN | 新币5,862,000元 | 2379 | 新币2,464元 | 99年（2022）

THE CONTINUUM | 新币5,482,000元 | 1905 | 新币2,877元 | 永久地契

VELA BAY | 新币4,765,000元 | 1582 | 新币3,011元 | 99年（2025）

按项目计最便宜的五笔新盘成交

项目名称 | 价格（新币） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺新币 | 地契年限

GRAND DUNMAN | 新币1,577,000.00元 | 710 | 新币2,220.00元 | 99年（2022）

THE SEN | 新币1,629,000.00元 | 678 | 新币2,402.00元 | 99年（2025）

COASTAL CABANA | 新币1,638,000.00元 | 872 | 新币1,879.00元 | 99年（2024）

HUDSON PLACE RESIDENCES | 新币1,857,000.00元 | 689 | 新币2,696.00元 | 99年（2025）

UNION SQUARE RESIDENCES | 新币1,900,000.00元 | 700 | 新币2,716.00元 | 99年（2024）

五笔最贵转售成交

项目名称 | 价格（新币） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺新币 | 地契年限

FOUR SEASONS PARK | 新币7,883,000元 | 2260 | 新币3,487元 | 永久地契

DRAYCOTT EIGHT | 新币6,600,000元 | 2896 | 新币2,279元 | 99年（1997）

ST THOMAS SUITES | 新币5,850,000元 | 2605 | 新币2,246元 | 永久地契

BALMORAL POINT | 新币5,630,000元 | 2530 | 新币2,226元 | 永久地契

GRAMERCY PARK | 新币5,600,000元 | 1948 | 新币2,874元 | 永久地契

五笔最便宜转售成交

项目名称 | 价格（新币） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺新币 | 地契年限

THE INFLORA | 新币660,000元 | 463 | 新币1,426元 | 99年（2012）

PALM ISLES | 新币665,000元 | 517 | 新币1,287元 | 99年（2011）

SEA ESTA | 新币696,000元 | 517 | 新币1,347元 | 99年（2012）

KINGSFORD WATERBAY | 新币700,000元 | 484 | 新币1,445元 | 99年（2014）

URBAN VISTA | 新币722,000元 | 441 | 新币1,636元 | 99年（2012）

五笔最大赢家

项目名称 | 价格（新币） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺新币 | 回报 | 持有期

THE HILLSIDE | 新币5,180,000元 | 2648 | 新币1,956元 | 新币3,592,000元 | 26年

KENSINGTON PARK CONDOMINIUM | 新币2,920,000元 | 1668 | 新币1,750元 | 新币1,882,000元 | 31年

THE TAMPINES TRILLIANT | 新币3,000,000元 | 2121 | 新币1,415元 | 新币1,775,000元 | 14年

THOMSON 800 | 新币2,650,000元 | 1281 | 新币2,069元 | 新币1,556,000元 | 18年

KERRISDALE | 新币2,330,000元 | 1270 | 新币1,834元 | 新币1,472,000元 | 18年

五笔最大输家

项目名称 | 价格（新币） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺新币 | 回报 | 持有期

DRAYCOTT EIGHT | 新币6,600,000元 | 2896 | 新币2,279元 | -新币929,600元 | 19年

ONE SHENTON | 新币3,050,000元 | 1593 | 新币1,915元 | -新币802,030元 | 15年

REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY | 新币3,000,000元 | 1798 | 新币1,669元 | -新币650,000元 | 12年

URBAN TREASURES | 新币1,100,000元 | 635 | 新币1,732元 | -新币300,000元 | 2年

OUE TWIN PEAKS | 新币1,065,000元 | 549 | 新币1,940元 | -新币295,000元 | 10年

五笔最大赢家（投资回报率%）

项目名称 | 价格（新币） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺新币 | 投资回报率（%） | 持有期

SIMSVILLE | 新币1,850,000元 | 1249 | 新币1,482元 | 330% | 21年

THE SPRINGBLOOM | 新币1,433,000元 | 893 | 新币1,604元 | 269% | 23年

THE HILLSIDE | 新币5,180,000元 | 2648 | 新币1,956元 | 226% | 26年

WHITEWATER | 新币1,275,000元 | 1130 | 新币1,128元 | 214% | 24年

BAYWATER | 新币1,880,000元 | 1270 | 新币1,480元 | 210% | 21年

五笔最大输家（投资回报率%）

项目名称 | 价格（新币） | 面积（平方英尺） | 每平方英尺新币 | 投资回报率（%） | 持有期

OUE TWIN PEAKS | 新币1,065,000元 | 549 | 新币1,940元 | -22% | 10年

URBAN TREASURES | 新币1,100,000元 | 635 | 新币1,732元 | -21% | 2年

ONE SHENTON | 新币3,050,000元 | 1593 | 新币1,915元 | -21% | 15年

REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY | 新币3,000,000元 | 1798 | 新币1,669元 | -18% | 12年

DRAYCOTT EIGHT | 新币6,600,000元 | 2896 | 新币2,279元 | -12% | 19年

成交明细

关注Stacked，获取新加坡房地产市场新闻与动态。