# Why Smaller Condo Developments Often Score Lower For Construction Quality In Singapore

- **Source:** Stacked Homes
- **Published:** 2026-07-12T12:59:02.000Z
- **Author:** Ryan J. Ong
- **Original:** https://stackedhomes.com/why-smaller-condo-developments-often-score-lower-for-construction-quality-in-singapore/
- **Topics:** Private Residential

## Featured rationale

The findings may encourage condo buyers to scrutinise developers’ construction records and experience rather than assuming smaller, bespoke projects necessarily provide superior workmanship.

## AI summary

Among 167 private residential projects assessed by BCA, boutique developments comprised 28 of 48 projects in the three lowest Conquas bands but only 17 higher-ranked projects.

## Original article

Between a mass-market condominium built by a property conglomerate and a small-scale boutique project by a local developer, which would you probably assume is the ‘better’ development?

Some people might have the impression that it’s the latter – the boutique project – based on the assumption that exclusivity and descriptions like ‘bespoke’ or ‘artisanal’ when describing a new residential development implies a high standard.

At face value this seems reasonable, since a team of people working hard on a couple of developments would be done with more care and attention to detail. That’s part of the perception some people may have of boutique condos, but recent findings by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) suggest differently.

According to the statutory board, which is under the Ministry of National Development, boutique residential projects – defined here as projects with fewer than 50 units – tended to receive worse Construction Quality Assessment System (Conquas) ratings over the past six years.

Conquas is the BCA’s framework for assessing construction workmanship and major defects in completed buildings; you can read more about it here.

It noted that among its assessment of 167 private residential projects, 48 received the three lowest Conquas bands (Bands 4 to 6). Of these 48 lower-rankers, 28 were boutique developments.

There were also 119 high-ranked projects which fell within the Band 1 to Band 3 ratings. Among these, boutique projects were greatly underrepresented with only 17 of these types of residential developments making it into these ranks.

Note: The difference between the developer bands can be quite significant. Among Band 1 developers, fewer than one unit in 1,000 had major defects after TOP. But among Band 6 developers, the number rose to around 80 units in 1,000.

But why would this happen?

Interestingly, one possible explanation involves something many Singapore homebuyers actually prefer: Non-Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC).

According to Professor Sing Tien Foo of the NUS Business School (see the linked article), smaller developments tend to rely less on PPVC construction systems. But this method of building benefits from factory-controlled production and stringent quality checks.

Non-PPVC projects involve more construction and assembly work being carried out on site, where workmanship becomes more susceptible to weather conditions and variations. For example, tasks like tiling, waterproofing, or installing windows all depend on the skill and consistency of the workers. Two different builders can produce noticeably different results.

This is quite different from PPVC methods, where everything is made first in a factory – there the environment is controlled, production is more standardised, and inspections happen before the modules leave the factory.

(To be clear: this is not to say PPVC produces better results, just that the results tend to be more consistent.)

This is a bit ironic, since more homebuyers tend to prefer non-PPVC projects because the units that are created tend to give owners more freedom to remove the walls and adjust a unit’s layout to accommodate their lifestyle needs.

But non-PPVC methods are just the tip of a very large iceberg.

There are other factors to consider as well. Larger developments – particularly those backed by highly capitalised property developers – have deeper pockets and are able to reap significant economies of scale in terms of development and construction. They can justify dedicated quality control teams, deploy more extensive testing and inspection, and rely on the best-in-class builders.

At the very least, it is usually the case that developers behind large projects simply have more experience managing the myriad factors that bring a development together. A powerhouse like CapitaLand or Far East Organization have had years to refine their QA systems, whereas a smaller and less capitalised developer may just be on their second or third project. There’s no comparison.

Ironically, one of main draws of a boutique project may also be a contributing factor. Large projects are repetitive – if you’re building over 300 versions of the same three-bedder layout, the work is very efficient, and any defects are quickly spotted and fixed. But boutique projects may only build a handful of units with the same layout, and in some cases nearly each unit is unique or has some individual quirk.

None of this means buyers should suddenly avoid boutique developments.

Singapore has many well-built boutique projects, and BCA’s findings only indicate a trend. I’d point out some boutique projects have developers at the top of the game as well.

But it does mean that we need to avoid certain assumptions. Just because boutique projects may feel more bespoke and tend towards a more luxurious feel, doesn;t always equate to the overall quality being higher. We can now see that the results, on average, show the opposite.

But given that Singapore has strict standards and regulations throughout the built environment, the bigger concern for boutique projects will be the usual issues. Namely, fewer facilities than larger developments, possibly higher maintenance fees, and a more volatile resale performance.

Here’s a possible refinement we may need to consider in the future for smaller projects and developers.

Since large and small developers in Singapore are worlds apart, I think the rating systems may need to add more context.

Based on what I’ve been led to understand, right now it’s just a banding number but perhaps we need ways to make certain information more visible, such as how many residential projects the developer has completed, the total number of units delivered, or whether it’s a first-time developer.

Two developers may both achieve the same band, but one may have built thousands of homes over several decades while the other has completed only a single boutique project. Thinking aloud, perhaps providing this additional context would give buyers a fuller picture of the experience behind a development, without changing the underlying quality standards.

Developer bandings are based on Conquas track record over the past six years (you can check this on the BCA Quality Housing Portal). A Band 2 developer with 30 projects is quite different from a Band 2 developer that’s now working on its second-ever project. While looking at the list of projects will reveal this, it should be more strongly highlighted for users outside the industry.

Meanwhile in other property news…

Check out our price review of Lentor Garden Residences, and why based on land price, this may be the last shot at a more affordable Lentor area property.

We visited the first condo project in the vicinity of the former Turf Club: Dunearn House. Here’s what’s outstanding about it.

Hazel Park Condominium’s two-bedders manage to stand out, in a part of the West that’s better known for family homes. How so? We took a look on Stacked Pro.

Weekly Sales Roundup (29 June – 05 July)

Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)

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

RIVER MODERN | $3,327,000 | 904 | $3,680 | 99 yrs (2025)

THE ARCADY AT BOON KENG | $3,298,000 | 1281 | $2,575 | FH

TERRA HILL | $3,205,000 | 1335 | $2,401 | FH

THE MYST | $3,191,000 | 1518 | $2,102 | 99 yrs (2023)

LENTORIA | $3,140,000 | 1206 | $2,605 | 99 yrs (2022)

Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)

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

ARINA EAST RESIDENCES | $1,318,000 | 495 | $2,662 | FH

RIVER GREEN | $1,395,000 | 420 | $3,323 | 99 yrs (2024)

UNION SQUARE RESIDENCES | $1,400,000 | 506 | $2,767 | 99 yrs (2024)

THE SEN | $1,620,000 | 678 | $2,389 | 99 yrs (2025)

LUMINA GRAND | $1,678,000 | 969 | $1,732 | 99 yrs (2022)

Top 5 Most Expensive Resale

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

THE PEAK | $8,500,000 | 5522 | $1,539 | FH

CAVENAGH COURT | $6,380,000 | 3703 | $1,723 | FH

LEEDON RESIDENCE | $6,100,000 | 2110 | $2,891 | FH

VIVA | $5,387,250 | 1959 | $2,750 | FH

PEACH GARDEN | $5,025,000 | 2766 | $1,816 | FH

Top 5 Cheapest Resale

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

VIBES @ EAST COAST | $710,000 | 398 | $1,783 | FH

KINGSFORD . HILLVIEW PEAK | $748,000 | 527 | $1,418 | 99 yrs (2012)

MIDTOWN RESIDENCES | $765,000 | 452 | $1,692 | 99 yrs (2013)

HILLION RESIDENCES | $838,000 | 474 | $1,769 | 99 yrs (2013)

STUDIOS @ MARNE | $838,000 | 560 | $1,497 | FH

Top 5 Biggest Winners

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

THE PEAK | $8,500,000 | 5522 | $1,539 | $5,400,000 | 21 Years

VIVA | $5,387,250 | 1959 | $2,750 | $2,562,150 | 17 Years

DORMER PARK | $3,475,000 | 1679 | $2,069 | $2,555,000 | 22 Years

CRYSTAL RHU | $2,808,888 | 1270 | $2,211 | $1,913,888 | 23 Years

LEEDON RESIDENCE | $6,100,000 | 2110 | $2,891 | $1,780,396 | 13 Years

Top 5 Biggest Losers

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

THE SCOTTS TOWER | $1,138,000 | 657 | $1,733 | -$1,058,000 | 13 Years

THE ASANA | $858,000 | 398 | $2,154 | -$222,000 | 4 Years

STUDIO8 | $1,250,000 | 872 | $1,434 | -$56,000 | 14 Years

KINGSFORD . HILLVIEW PEAK | $748,000 | 527 | $1,418 | -$30,050 | 13 Years

ONE SHENTON | $1,098,000 | 581 | $1,889 | -$1,225 | 16 Years

Top 5 Biggest Winners (ROI%)

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

GIFFARD MANSIONS | $2,065,000 | 1755 | $1,177 | 297% | 20 Years

DORMER PARK | $3,475,000 | 1679 | $2,069 | 278% | 22 Years

KOVAN MELODY | $2,380,000 | 1292 | $1,843 | 222% | 19 Years

CRYSTAL RHU | $2,808,888 | 1270 | $2,211 | 214% | 23 Years

THE EDEN AT TAMPINES | $1,420,000 | 1238 | $1,147 | 191% | 25 Years

Top 5 Biggest Losers (ROI%)

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

THE SCOTTS TOWER | $1,138,000 | 657 | $1,733 | -48% | 13 Years

THE ASANA | $858,000 | 398 | $2,154 | -21% | 4 Years

STUDIO8 | $1,250,000 | 872 | $1,434 | -4% | 14 Years

KINGSFORD . HILLVIEW PEAK | $748,000 | 527 | $1,418 | -4% | 13 Years

ONE SHENTON | $1,098,000 | 581 | $1,889 | 0% | 16 Years

Transaction Breakdown

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

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 为何新加坡较小规模共管公寓项目的施工质量评分往往更低

在由大型地产集团打造的大众市场共管公寓，与本地发展商的小型精品项目之间，你大概会假定哪一个是“更好”的项目？有些人或许会觉得是后者——精品项目……

在由大型地产集团打造的大众市场共管公寓，与本地发展商的小型精品项目之间，你大概会假定哪一个是“更好”的项目？

有些人或许会觉得是后者——精品项目——基于一种假设：用“专属”“订制”或“匠心”一类词汇来描述新住宅项目，就意味着高标准。

表面上看这似乎合理，因为一支团队若只专注于少数几个项目，理应更用心、更注重细节。这是部分人对精品共管公寓的观感之一，但建筑与工程管理局（BCA）的最新发现却显示并非如此。

据隶属国家发展部的该法定机构称，精品住宅项目——此处定义为少于50个单位的项目——在过去六年中，往往获得更差的建筑质量评估体系（Conquas）评级。

Conquas是BCA评估竣工建筑施工工艺与重大缺陷的框架；你可在此阅读更多相关内容。

该机构指出，在其评估的167个私人住宅项目中，有48个落入Conquas最低的三个等级（第4至第6级）。在这48个较低排名项目中，有28个是精品项目。

另有119个高排名项目落在第1至第3级。其中，精品项目明显代表性不足，仅有17个此类住宅项目进入这些等级。

注：各发展商等级之间的差距可能相当显著。在第1级发展商中，取得临时入伙准证（TOP）后，每1,000个单位中出现重大缺陷的不足1个。但在第6级发展商中，这一数字升至每1,000个单位约80个。

但为何会出现这种情况？

有趣的是，一个可能的解释涉及许多新加坡购房者其实更偏好的东西：非预制预装修体积式建造（PPVC）。

据新加坡国立大学商学院的Professor Sing Tien Foo（见相关链接文章）称，较小规模项目往往较少依赖PPVC建造系统。但这一建造方法受益于工厂可控生产与严格的质量检查。

非PPVC项目涉及更多在现场进行的施工与组装工作，工艺更容易受天气条件与差异影响。例如，铺砖、防水或安装窗户等工序，都取决于工人的技能与一致性。两支不同的施工队伍可能做出明显不同的成果。

这与PPVC方法截然不同——后者一切先在工厂完成：环境可控、生产更标准化，模块出厂前即已完成检验。

（需要说明：这并不是说PPVC一定产生更好的结果，只是结果往往更一致。）

这有点讽刺，因为更多购房者往往更偏好非PPVC项目，因为所建单位往往让业主有更大自由度拆除墙体、调整户型布局，以配合自身生活方式需求。

但非PPVC方法只是冰山一角。

还有其他因素需要考虑。较大规模项目——尤其是由资金雄厚的地产发展商支持的项目——口袋更深，能在开发与施工上获得显著规模经济。它们可以配备专职质量控制团队、部署更全面的检测与检验，并依靠一流承建商。

至少通常情况是，大型项目背后的发展商在统筹项目各方因素方面经验更丰富。像凯德（CapitaLand）或远东机构（Far East Organization）这样的巨头已用多年时间完善其质量保证体系，而资金较少的小型发展商可能才做第二或第三个项目。两者无从比较。

讽刺的是，精品项目的主要卖点之一也可能是原因之一。大型项目具有重复性——若你建造超过300套相同的三房户型，作业效率很高，任何缺陷也能迅速被发现并修复。但精品项目可能只建造少数几套相同户型，有时几乎每个单位都独特或带有某种个别差异。

这一切并不意味着买家应突然回避精品项目。

新加坡有许多建造良好的精品项目，BCA的发现仅表明一种趋势。我也要指出，一些精品项目的发展商同样处于顶尖水平。

但这确实意味着我们需要避免某些假设。精品项目或许感觉更订制、更偏向奢华质感，并不总等于整体质量更高。我们现在可以看到，平均结果恰恰相反。

不过，鉴于新加坡在建成环境中有严格的标准与法规，精品项目更大的关切仍是那些常见问题。即：设施可能少于大型项目、维修费可能更高，以及转售表现波动更大。

以下是我们未来对小型项目与发展商或需考虑的一种可能改进。

由于新加坡的大型与小型发展商判若云泥，我认为评级体系可能需要增加更多背景信息。

据我了解，目前只是一个等级数字，但或许我们需要让某些信息更可见，例如发展商已完成多少住宅项目、交付的单位总数，或是否为首次开发商。

两家发展商可能获得同一等级，但一家可能在数十年间建造了数千套住宅，另一家则仅完成一个精品项目。随口想想，或许提供这些额外背景，能在不改变底层质量标准的情况下，让买家更全面了解项目背后的经验。

发展商等级基于过去六年的Conquas往绩（可在BCA优质住宅门户查阅）。一家做过30个项目的第2级发展商，与一家正在做第二个项目的第2级发展商，差别很大。虽然查看项目列表可以看出这一点，但对业外用户而言，这应当被更醒目地突出。

与此同时，其他房产新闻……

欢迎查阅我们对Lentor Garden Residences的价格点评，以及为何基于地价，这或许是在伦多（Lentor）一带入手更可负担物业的最后机会。

我们探访了前赛马场（Turf Club）一带的首个共管公寓项目：Dunearn House。以下是它的亮点。

Hazel Park Condominium的两房单位在以家庭住宅著称的西部区域脱颖而出。如何做到的？我们在Stacked Pro上做了分析。

每周销售汇总（6月29日 – 7月5日）

五大最贵新盘成交（按项目）

项目名称 | 价格 S$ | 面积（平方英尺） | $PSF | 地契

RIVER MODERN | $3,327,000 | 904 | $3,680 | 99年（2025）

THE ARCADY AT BOON KENG | $3,298,000 | 1281 | $2,575 | 永久地契

TERRA HILL | $3,205,000 | 1335 | $2,401 | 永久地契

THE MYST | $3,191,000 | 1518 | $2,102 | 99年（2023）

LENTORIA | $3,140,000 | 1206 | $2,605 | 99年（2022）

五大最便宜新盘成交（按项目）

项目名称 | 价格 S$ | 面积（平方英尺） | $PSF | 地契

ARINA EAST RESIDENCES | $1,318,000 | 495 | $2,662 | 永久地契

RIVER GREEN | $1,395,000 | 420 | $3,323 | 99年（2024）

UNION SQUARE RESIDENCES | $1,400,000 | 506 | $2,767 | 99年（2024）

THE SEN | $1,620,000 | 678 | $2,389 | 99年（2025）

LUMINA GRAND | $1,678,000 | 969 | $1,732 | 99年（2022）

五大最贵转售

项目名称 | 价格 S$ | 面积（平方英尺） | $PSF | 地契

THE PEAK | $8,500,000 | 5522 | $1,539 | 永久地契

CAVENAGH COURT | $6,380,000 | 3703 | $1,723 | 永久地契

LEEDON RESIDENCE | $6,100,000 | 2110 | $2,891 | 永久地契

VIVA | $5,387,250 | 1959 | $2,750 | 永久地契

PEACH GARDEN | $5,025,000 | 2766 | $1,816 | 永久地契

五大最便宜转售

项目名称 | 价格 S$ | 面积（平方英尺） | $PSF | 地契

VIBES @ EAST COAST | $710,000 | 398 | $1,783 | 永久地契

KINGSFORD . HILLVIEW PEAK | $748,000 | 527 | $1,418 | 99年（2012）

MIDTOWN RESIDENCES | $765,000 | 452 | $1,692 | 99年（2013）

HILLION RESIDENCES | $838,000 | 474 | $1,769 | 99年（2013）

STUDIOS @ MARNE | $838,000 | 560 | $1,497 | 永久地契

五大最大赢家

项目名称 | 价格 S$ | 面积（平方英尺） | $PSF | 回报 | 持有期

THE PEAK | $8,500,000 | 5522 | $1,539 | $5,400,000 | 21年

VIVA | $5,387,250 | 1959 | $2,750 | $2,562,150 | 17年

DORMER PARK | $3,475,000 | 1679 | $2,069 | $2,555,000 | 22年

CRYSTAL RHU | $2,808,888 | 1270 | $2,211 | $1,913,888 | 23年

LEEDON RESIDENCE | $6,100,000 | 2110 | $2,891 | $1,780,396 | 13年

五大最大输家

项目名称 | 价格 S$ | 面积（平方英尺） | $PSF | 回报 | 持有期

THE SCOTTS TOWER | $1,138,000 | 657 | $1,733 | -$1,058,000 | 13年

THE ASANA | $858,000 | 398 | $2,154 | -$222,000 | 4年

STUDIO8 | $1,250,000 | 872 | $1,434 | -$56,000 | 14年

KINGSFORD . HILLVIEW PEAK | $748,000 | 527 | $1,418 | -$30,050 | 13年

ONE SHENTON | $1,098,000 | 581 | $1,889 | -$1,225 | 16年

五大最大赢家（投资回报率%）

项目名称 | 价格 S$ | 面积（平方英尺） | $PSF | 投资回报率（%） | 持有期

GIFFARD MANSIONS | $2,065,000 | 1755 | $1,177 | 297% | 20年

DORMER PARK | $3,475,000 | 1679 | $2,069 | 278% | 22年

KOVAN MELODY | $2,380,000 | 1292 | $1,843 | 222% | 19年

CRYSTAL RHU | $2,808,888 | 1270 | $2,211 | 214% | 23年

THE EDEN AT TAMPINES | $1,420,000 | 1238 | $1,147 | 191% | 25年

五大最大输家（投资回报率%）

项目名称 | 价格 S$ | 面积（平方英尺） | $PSF | 投资回报率（%） | 持有期

THE SCOTTS TOWER | $1,138,000 | 657 | $1,733 | -48% | 13年

THE ASANA | $858,000 | 398 | $2,154 | -21% | 4年

STUDIO8 | $1,250,000 | 872 | $1,434 | -4% | 14年

KINGSFORD . HILLVIEW PEAK | $748,000 | 527 | $1,418 | -4% | 13年

ONE SHENTON | $1,098,000 | 581 | $1,889 | 0% | 16年

成交明细

关注Stacked，获取更多新加坡楼市新闻与动态。