Faber Residence Pricing Review: How It Compares To Nearby Resale And New Launches
Clementi is often associated with its central hub around the MRT and mall, but Faber Walk sits in a very different sub-market: a landed enclave beside Sungei Ulu Pandan. Faber Residence capitalizes on this privacy and exclusivity, while also benefiting from its proximity to Nan Hua Primary and the wider D5 amenities.
In this pricing review, we’ll benchmark Faber Residence’s $PSF and quantum against District 5 peers, evaluate whether its landed-enclave positioning justifies the pricing, and assess potential exit strategies. Specifically, we’ll ask: will exclusivity and school proximity help it hold value, or will limited scale and transaction volume dampen its long-term resale prospects?
Quick Summary:
- At an indicative $1,995 psf, Faber Residence sits on the higher end locally, but its smaller unit sizes keep overall prices in the low-to-mid range.
- Among current new launches, Faber Residence is one of the most affordable projects both in D5 and across the OCR.
- Its unit mix leans toward three- and four-bedders, directly matching upgrader demand, while two-bedders still cater to younger buyers facing tight supply.
- Its land plot has a lower breakeven psf than nearby ELTA, giving the developer more room to price competitively while also holding the Nan Hua Primary School 1-km advantage.
Our key considerations when looking at Faber Residence’s pricing
These are the main issues we’ll take into consideration:
- D5 performance – How has D5 been doing across segments and tenures compared to the rest of the market?
- Relevant resale alternatives – Which resale condos sit within range of Faber’s launch prices, and have they been profitable?
- Nearest competitors – How Faber’s prices and layouts stack up against the closest current options.
- New launch context – Where Faber ranks among today’s launches, broken down by bedroom type.
- Exit strategies – Relevant supply and demand, as well as future developments nearby.
These are the current indicative prices for Faber Residence
| Unit type | Estimated size (sq ft) | Indicative starting price | Indicative starting $PSF |
| 2 Bedroom | 646 | $1,290,000 | $1,997 |
| 3 Bedroom | 797 – 1,044 | $1,590,000 | $1,995 |
| 4 Bedroom | 1,119 – 1,270 | $2,390,000 | $2,136 |
| 5 Bedroom | 1,485 | $3,190,000 | $2,148 |
Let’s start by looking at condo performance in D5 in general
This takes into account all transaction types, for a quick snapshot. We’ll look at a 10-year transaction history:
All tenures
| Year | D5 | All non-landed private properties |
| 2014 | $1,269 | $1,289 |
| 2015 | $1,186 | $1,180 |
| 2016 | $1,218 | $1,232 |
| 2017 | $1,257 | $1,304 |
| 2018 | $1,430 | $1,435 |
| 2019 | $1,478 | $1,560 |
| 2020 | $1,536 | $1,513 |
| 2021 | $1,659 | $1,600 |
| 2022 | $1,633 | $1,712 |
| 2023 | $1,940 | $1,869 |
| 2024 | $1,857 | $1,886 |
| Annualised | 3.88% | 3.88% |
Over the past decade, D5 has moved largely in step with the wider condo market. The annualised growth rate works out to 3.88 per cent, identical to the national average.
Now, let’s look specifically at 99-year leasehold condos in D5
| Year | D5 | All non-landed private properties |
| 2014 | $1,170 | $1,195 |
| 2015 | $1,184 | $1,104 |
| 2016 | $1,227 | $1,166 |
| 2017 | $1,256 | $1,230 |
| 2018 | $1,364 | $1,359 |
| 2019 | $1,499 | $1,474 |
| 2020 | $1,568 | $1,453 |
| 2021 | $1,689 | $1,517 |
| 2022 | $1,665 | $1,595 |
| 2023 | $1,908 | $1,783 |
| 2024 | $1,884 | $1,854 |
| Annualised | 4.88% | 4.49% |
Leasehold condos in D5 moved almost exactly in tandem with the wider market, with a negligible difference of 4.88 versus 4.49 per cent. Faber Residence is leasehold, but that doesn’t appear to be an advantage or drawback in D5.
999-year/freehold properties
| Year | D5 | All non-landed private properties |
| 2014 | $1,357 | $1,505 |
| 2015 | $1,192 | $1,438 |
| 2016 | $1,188 | $1,470 |
| 2017 | $1,275 | $1,501 |
| 2018 | $1,580 | $1,617 |
| 2019 | $1,330 | $1,797 |
| 2020 | $1,245 | $1,688 |
| 2021 | $1,364 | $1,812 |
| 2022 | $1,463 | $1,995 |
| 2023 | $2,030 | $2,111 |
| 2024 | $1,742 | $2,003 |
| Annualised | 2.53% | 2.90% |
Freehold projects in D5 also move close to the wider market; but they lag by a small margin (2.53 per cent versus 2.9 per cent.)
From this we can see leasehold has performed a little bit better for D5, even if it’s nothing to shout about; but it does mean buyers don’t have to worry about Faber Residence having a 99-year lease if they are looking at an exit in the near term.
Now let’s compare the performance of D5 condos to the three regions: the CCR, RCR, and OCR
Let’s also compare it against the performance of the various regions
All tenures
| Year | D5 | CCR | RCR | OCR |
| 2014 | $1,269 | $1,971 | $1,408 | $1,062 |
| 2015 | $1,186 | $1,846 | $1,383 | $1,010 |
| 2016 | $1,218 | $1,968 | $1,390 | $1,008 |
| 2017 | $1,257 | $1,940 | $1,464 | $1,053 |
| 2018 | $1,430 | $2,161 | $1,594 | $1,139 |
| 2019 | $1,478 | $2,294 | $1,726 | $1,225 |
| 2020 | $1,536 | $2,181 | $1,681 | $1,229 |
| 2021 | $1,659 | $2,318 | $1,808 | $1,252 |
| 2022 | $1,633 | $2,451 | $1,893 | $1,381 |
| 2023 | $1,940 | $2,512 | $2,102 | $1,518 |
| 2024 | $1,857 | $2,330 | $2,159 | $1,653 |
| Annualised | 3.88% | 1.69% | 4.37% | 4.53% |
From the above, we see that D5’s price movements are quite aligned with the RCR and OCR band (and below the CCR still.)
The standout year was 2023, when D5 jumped to $1,940 psf, effectively narrowing the gap with the RCR ($2,102) while remaining well ahead of the OCR ($1,518). This was due to the sharp uptick in prices following COVID.
However, this involves all condos including freehold. So for a more precise look, we should separate the leasehold and freehold comparisons:
99-year leasehold properties
| Year | D5 | CCR | RCR | OCR |
| 2014 | $1,170 | $2,073 | $1,453 | $1,025 |
| 2015 | $1,184 | $1,857 | $1,417 | $993 |
| 2016 | $1,227 | $2,106 | $1,420 | $999 |
| 2017 | $1,256 | $1,984 | $1,509 | $1,050 |
| 2018 | $1,364 | $2,153 | $1,636 | $1,139 |
| 2019 | $1,499 | $2,319 | $1,739 | $1,225 |
| 2020 | $1,568 | $2,226 | $1,714 | $1,222 |
| 2021 | $1,689 | $2,327 | $1,873 | $1,228 |
| 2022 | $1,665 | $2,311 | $1,970 | $1,354 |
| 2023 | $1,908 | $2,316 | $2,186 | $1,520 |
| 2024 | $1,884 | $2,312 | $2,230 | $1,661 |
| Annualised | 4.88% | 1.10% | 4.38% | 4.95% |
We see a mostly similar pattern. Over the past decade, D5 leasehold units mostly kept the same pace as the RCR and OCR. It’s also unsurprising that the CCR showed such low percentage gains, as projects in the CCR have a much higher base price.
999-year/freehold properties
| Year | D5 | CCR | RCR | OCR |
| 2014 | $1,357 | $1,940 | $1,415 | $1,261 |
| 2015 | $1,192 | $1,855 | $1,320 | $1,178 |
| 2016 | $1,188 | $1,896 | $1,339 | $1,135 |
| 2017 | $1,275 | $1,939 | $1,404 | $1,100 |
| 2018 | $1,580 | $2,203 | $1,526 | $1,161 |
| 2019 | $1,330 | $2,316 | $1,715 | $1,260 |
| 2020 | $1,245 | $2,182 | $1,640 | $1,238 |
| 2021 | $1,364 | $2,341 | $1,690 | $1,326 |
| 2022 | $1,463 | $2,551 | $1,774 | $1,518 |
| 2023 | $2,030 | $2,638 | $1,948 | $1,514 |
| 2024 | $1,742 | $2,371 | $2,044 | $1,597 |
| Annualised | 2.53% | 2.03% | 3.74% | 2.39% |
The results are a bit different from the leasehold segment. Here we see that 999-year/freehold projects managed to very slightly edge ahead of the OCR, unlike leasehold counterparts. But the margin is so slim (2.53 per cent in D5 versus 2.39 per cent in the OCR) that it’s not really significant.
With that in mind, the next step is to look at the resale market today.
This will give us a clearer sense of how current resale prices compare to Faber Residence’s launch.
For this comparison, we will use resale and subsale transactions in its immediate vicinity. This will avoid distortions such as developer discount effects.
We will use transactions recorded between 2024 and June 2025, focusing on nearby projects with largely similar unit sizes and layouts.
| Project | Completion year | Tenure | No. of units | Unit mix | Avg size | Avg $PSF | Avg price | No. of tnx |
| FABER CREST | 2001 | 99-year | 360 | 2, 3, 4 | 1313 | $1,232 | $1,616,379 | 15 |
| NEWEST | 2016 | 956-year | 136 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 1566 | $1,322 | $1,857,211 | 8 |
| REGENT PARK | 1997 | 99-year | 276 | 2, 3 | 1043 | $1,355 | $1,418,181 | 16 |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | 2017 | 99-year | 199 condos and 11 landed | 2, 3, 4 | 936 | $1,516 | $1,421,626 | 19 |
| THE INFINITI | 2008 | Freehold | 315 | 2, 3, 4 | 1298 | $1,566 | $2,015,250 | 12 |
| PARC RIVIERA | 2019 | 99-year | 752 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 755 | $1,662 | $1,254,141 | 84 |
| MONTEREY PARK CONDOMINIUM | 2005 | 999-year | 280 | 2, 3, 4 | 1397 | $1,721 | $2,397,111 | 8 |
| BOTANNIA | 2009 | 956-year | 493 | 2, 3, 4 | 1363 | $1,738 | $2,366,566 | 21 |
| HUNDRED TREES | 2013 | 956-year | 396 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 1051 | $1,760 | $1,870,091 | 11 |
| THE TRILINQ | 2017 | 99-year | 755 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 1071 | $1,764 | $1,770,345 | 56 |
| CARABELLE | 2009 | 956-year | 338 | 2, 3, 4, 5 | 1208 | $1,789 | $2,149,860 | 14 |
| TWIN VEW | 2021 | 99-year | 520 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 956 | $1,807 | $1,735,146 | 44 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | 2010 | Freehold | 659 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 1353 | $1,833 | $2,438,690 | 33 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | 2022 | 99-year | 716 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 765 | $1,891 | $1,448,586 | 84 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | 2019 | 99-year | 505 | 2, 3, 4 | 903 | $1,915 | $1,729,864 | 45 |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from $1,995 | |||||||
| CLAVON | 2024 | 99-year | 640 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 854 | $2,041 | $1,751,690 | 118 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | 2023 | 99-year | 1450 condos and 18 landed | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 820 | $2,072 | $1,718,962 | 176 |
The surrounding developments offer a good mix of 99-year and freehold options. We also see a fairly balanced unit mix in nearby projects; these range from compact one-bedders to larger four- and five-bedroom layouts.
Next, we’ll break down our comparison for each unit size
2-bedroom units
| Project | Avg $PSF | Avg price | No. of tnx |
| PARC RIVIERA | $1,637 | $1,049,920 | 44 |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | $1,499 | $1,104,432 | 9 |
| NEWEST | $1,576 | $1,149,229 | 3 |
| REGENT PARK | $1,312 | $1,195,875 | 8 |
| FABER CREST | $1,212 | $1,243,333 | 3 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | $1,889 | $1,274,626 | 41 |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from $1,290,000 | ||
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | $1,893 | $1,297,810 | 21 |
| TWIN VEW | $1,758 | $1,310,688 | 16 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | $2,012 | $1,432,498 | 79 |
| HUNDRED TREES | $1,703 | $1,498,286 | 7 |
| CLAVON | $2,008 | $1,498,800 | 61 |
| THE TRILINQ | $1,807 | $1,503,549 | 16 |
| BOTANNIA | $1,703 | $1,540,000 | 2 |
| THE INFINITI | $1,709 | $1,570,000 | 3 |
| CARABELLE | $1,823 | $1,703,231 | 5 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | $1,858 | $1,820,000 | 3 |
3-bedroom units
| Project | Avg $PSF | Avg price | No. of tnx |
| FABER CREST | $1,247 | $1,575,076 | 9 |
| PARC RIVIERA | $1,673 | $1,586,651 | 13 |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from $1,590,000 | ||
| REGENT PARK | $1,399 | $1,640,486 | 8 |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | $1,553 | $1,647,286 | 7 |
| THE INFINITI | $1,465 | $1,959,600 | 5 |
| TWIN VEW | $1,844 | $1,960,318 | 17 |
| THE TRILINQ | $1,827 | $1,974,231 | 25 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | $1,965 | $2,007,333 | 15 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | $1,942 | $2,020,744 | 20 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | $2,173 | $2,079,790 | 56 |
| CLAVON | $2,120 | $2,125,582 | 27 |
| CARABELLE | $1,774 | $2,215,000 | 5 |
| BOTANNIA | $1,743 | $2,237,364 | 11 |
| HUNDRED TREES | $1,829 | $2,254,000 | 2 |
| MONTEREY PARK CONDOMINIUM | $1,721 | $2,397,111 | 8 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | $1,896 | $2,518,176 | 22 |
4-bedroom units
| Project | Avg $PSF | Avg price | No. of tnx |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | $1,486 | $1,846,667 | 3 |
| PARC RIVIERA | $1,679 | $2,014,278 | 14 |
| FABER CREST | $1,209 | $2,113,333 | 3 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | $1,850 | $2,363,800 | 10 |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from $2,390,000 | ||
| THE INFINITI | $1,585 | $2,418,750 | 4 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | $1,891 | $2,543,750 | 4 |
| TWIN VEW | $1,843 | $2,611,143 | 7 |
| CARABELLE | $1,764 | $2,626,722 | 4 |
| NEWEST | $1,083 | $2,652,500 | 4 |
| BOTANNIA | $1,740 | $2,750,861 | 8 |
| HUNDRED TREES | $1,891 | $2,787,500 | 2 |
| CLAVON | $2,077 | $2,926,643 | 14 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | $2,228 | $3,041,770 | 14 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | $1,655 | $3,265,378 | 5 |
| THE TRILINQ | $1,379 | $3,283,778 | 5 |
5-bedroom units
| Project | Avg $PSF | Avg price | No. of tnx |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from $3,190,000 | ||
| PARC CLEMATIS | $2,005 | $3,385,000 | 2 |
For two-bedroom units, the indicative entry price of $1.29 million puts Faber Residence in the mid-range: higher than older leasehold projects such as Regent Park or Faber Crest, but still below the averages at newer launches like Parc Clematis and Clavon, which cross $2,000 psf.
For three- and four-bedroom units, Faber Residence is cheaper than many resale peers; its older but larger neighbours tend to have a higher quantum.
As for five-bedders, Faber Residence’s indicative $3.19 million is slightly below Parc Clematis ($3.385 million); the only close counterpart with units of this size.
In short, Faber Residence’s two-bedroom units fall in the middle of the market, while the larger units are priced on the lower side compared to many resale alternatives.
Here’s how big the average units of each type are:
2-bedroom units
| Project | Min. size (sqft) |
| PARC RIVIERA | 603 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | 603 |
| NEWEST | 635 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | 635 |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from 646 |
| CLAVON | 678 |
| HUNDRED TREES | 689 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | 689 |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | 700 |
| THE TRILINQ | 700 |
| TWIN VEW | 710 |
| REGENT PARK | 807 |
| BOTANNIA | 818 |
| CARABELLE | 883 |
| THE INFINITI | 904 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | 980 |
| FABER CREST | 990 |
| MONTEREY PARK CONDOMINIUM | 1,023 |
3-bedroom units
| Project | Min. size (sq ft) |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from 797 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | 829 |
| PARC RIVIERA | 904 |
| TWIN VEW | 904 |
| THE TRILINQ | 915 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | 958 |
| CLAVON | 958 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | 990 |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | 1,023 |
| HUNDRED TREES | 1,044 |
| REGENT PARK | 1,130 |
| CARABELLE | 1,130 |
| FABER CREST | 1,141 |
| BOTANNIA | 1,163 |
| NEWEST | 1,195 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | 1,216 |
| THE INFINITI | 1,238 |
| MONTEREY PARK CONDOMINIUM | 1,249 |
4-bedroom units
| Project | Min. size (sq ft) |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from 1,119 |
| PARC RIVIERA | 1,152 |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | 1,173 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | 1,238 |
| TWIN VEW | 1,238 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | 1,270 |
| CLAVON | 1,281 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | 1,313 |
| CARABELLE | 1,389 |
| BOTANNIA | 1,464 |
| HUNDRED TREES | 1,475 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | 1,496 |
| THE INFINITI | 1,496 |
| THE TRILINQ | 1,518 |
| FABER CREST | 1,593 |
| MONTEREY PARK CONDOMINIUM | 1,625 |
| NEWEST | 2,400 |
5-bedroom units
| Project | Min. size (sq ft) |
| WHISTLER GRAND | 1,442 |
| FABER RESIDENCE | Starting from 1,485 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | 1,636 |
| CLAVON | 1,690 |
| TWIN VIEW | 1,916 |
| CARABELLE | 2,034 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | 2,433 |
Faber Residence sports a lower quantum because its units tend to be smaller. So whilst the units are less spacious, they’re more accessible to many buyers; despite the higher $PSF.
Among nearby developments, Parc Clematis stands out as the closest benchmark.
It offers a wide spread of units with comparable sizes and pricing, and sits within the same one-kilometre radius of Nan Hua Primary.
For most buyers weighing Faber Residence, Parc Clematis is the most direct point of comparison. So let’s examine how Parc Clematis has performed so far:
Parc Clematis’ profitability
The following includes all sub sale and resale transactions
Gains
| Description | 1BR | 2BR | 3BR | 4BR | 5BR | Entire Project (Average) |
| Average gains | $160,607 | $266,173 | $496,094 | $717,660 | $710,000 | $470,107 |
| Average purchase price | $771,667 | $1,157,827 | $1,540,453 | $2,297,049 | $2,677,500 | $1,688,899 |
| ROI | 21.07% | 23.08% | 32.23% | 31.56% | 26.50% | 26.89% |
| No. of tnx | 42 | 113 | 86 | 18 | 4 | 266 (Total) |
| Average holding period (years) | 4.5 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.8 |
Losses
| Description | 2BR | Entire Project (Average) |
| Average gains | -$25,000 | -$25,000 |
| Average purchase price | $1,430,000 | $1,430,000 |
| ROI | -1.75% | -1.75% |
| No. of tnx | 1 | 1 (Total) |
| Average holding period (years) | 3.3 | 3.3 |
So far, Parc Clematis has had only one unprofitable transaction; and that had a loss of less than two per cent. This loss was accompanied by an unusually shorter holding period, so we should consider this an outlier.
Among the various unit types, the three-bedders delivered the highest average ROI, followed closely by the four-bedders
Among the various unit types, the three-bedders delivered the highest average ROI, followed closely by the four-bedders. In general, the larger units achieved stronger returns than the smaller ones – not unsurprising given the family-oriented nature of Clementi.
As Parc Clematis is such a close competitor, let’s examine its floor plans alongside Faber Residence
The Parc Clematis unit is a two-bedroom, one-bath plus study, although the study is more of a nook than a full room. Its location beside the bathroom makes it versatile; it can work as a small home office, but more realistically functions as a walk-in closet or extra storage.
Faber Residence’s layout uses a dumbbell configuration, placing the bedrooms on opposite sides of the living area. Parc Clematis has a more conventional side-by-side layout. One notable difference is the common bathroom in Faber Residence, which is designed Jack and Jill style, giving both bedrooms ensuite access. This makes the apartment feel like a pair of ensuite rooms, rather than one master and one junior bedroom.
At Faber Residence, the dining area feels more spacious, as the kitchen is tucked into a corner, leaving more room for the dining area. In Parc Clematis the kitchen sits directly across from the dining, which reduces the separation.
Bedroom sizes are comparable, with both able to accommodate double beds comfortably, and each unit comes with a balcony off the living area.
Overall, Faber Residence’s layout offers more practical features for day-to-day use, especially the second bathroom and more efficient kitchen positioning. While Parc Clematis has the extra study nook, it’s not quite enough to swing it in Parc Clematis’ favour.
Both layouts are three-bedroom, two-bath units, but they differ significantly.
Faber Residence uses a dumbbell layout, with bedrooms flanking the living area, while Parc Clematis opts for a more conventional arrangement. In both units, the common bathroom is designed Jack and Jill style, effectively giving each apartment two ensuite bedrooms.
The living and dining areas are well segregated in both projects. Faber Residence includes a balcony off the living room, whereas Parc Clematis does not. Both kitchens are enclosed, but Parc Clematis may appeal more to those who cook frequently, as it has windows for better ventilation, as well as a glass separator from the dining area. The kitchen at Faber Residence has no ventilation window.
Bedroom sizes differ too. All three rooms at Faber Residence can comfortably fit a double bed. For Parc Clematis, one of the bedrooms is better suited to a single.
Parc Clematis also has a small foyer at the main entrance, which offers more privacy compared to Faber Residence, where the entrance opens directly into the living and dining area.
Between the two, Faber Residence may have an edge in functionality: all bedrooms fit doubles, and some buyers may like balcony space. The lack of kitchen windows is a drawback though. In any case, Faber Residence’s lower entry prices – coupled with the efficiency – may swing buyers in its favour.
Both units here are four-bedroom, two-bath layouts; but Faber Residence includes an additional powder room.
In both projects, the common bathroom is Jack and Jill style, effectively giving each unit two ensuite bedrooms. Faber Residence opts for an enclosed kitchen, while Parc Clematis splits its kitchen into wet and dry zones. The Parc Clematis kitchen also comes with a yard, store, and WC, which provide added functionality for households with helpers or heavier cooking needs. Faber Residence has a home shelter, but it is located along the walkway toward the bedrooms; some buyers may prefer that these spaces be located next to, or within, kitchen areas.
Faber Residence sees better separation between living and dining spaces, while Parc Clematis simply places them side by side. Both have balconies, but Parc Clematis’ spans the entire length of the living and dining area, while Faber Residence’s balcony is shorter, covering just the living room frontage.
All four bedrooms at Faber Residence can accommodate double beds, while one of Parc Clematis’ secondary bedrooms fits a single more comfortably. Both units also provide a small foyer at the entrance for added privacy.
Both layouts are comparably strong. Faber Residence’s additional powder room and more spacious bedrooms are a draw, while Parc Clematis’ wet and dry kitchen – along with the yard, store, and WC – provide better functionality. Ultimately, it may come down to pricing.
The equivalent unit in Parc Clematis is still slightly larger. It is worth noting that this is the second-smallest five-bedder in Parc Clematis by the way; there have been no subsale or resale transactions for the smallest five-bedder yet.
Faber Residence offers a five-bedroom, three-bath layout with an additional powder room, while Parc Clematis has a five-bedroom, four-bath configuration. Both provide three ensuite bedrooms, and use dumbbell layouts.
The kitchens are where the biggest differences show. Faber Residence has a large kitchen with a yard, while Parc Clematis splits its kitchen into wet and dry zones, supplemented by a yard, store, and WC.
Faber Residence includes a home shelter near the main entrance, which some buyers may not like.
In terms of living areas, Faber Residence separates the living and dining spaces, whereas Parc Clematis positions them side by side. Both units feature long balconies: at Faber Residence, the balcony extends from the living room to an adjacent bedroom, while at Parc Clematis it spans the full length of the living and dining areas.
Bedroom sizing is generous in both layouts. All five rooms can fit double beds, with the master bedroom at Faber Residence standing out for its size: it accommodates a walk-in closet and even space for a study desk.
The main entrance at Faber Residence opens to a foyer for added privacy, while Parc Clematis opens directly into the living and dining area.
Although the unit at Faber Residence lacks some of Parc Clematis’ functional add-ons, it still delivers a strong overall layout, with the advantage of spacious bedrooms and a standout master suite.
If the price gap remains as wide as current numbers suggest, Faber Residence could be more attractive.
Faber Residence in the context of recent new launches
| Project | Tenure | District | Average $PSF for new sale transactions | Average developer’s profit margin (based on average $PSF) | Average quantum |
| Canberra Crescent Residences | 99-year | 27 | $1,985 | 29.25% | $1,615,551 |
| Faber Residence | Starting from $1,995 | ||||
| Springleaf Residence | 99-year | 26 | $2,176 | 28.90% | $1,847,722 |
| Lyndenwoods | 99-year | 5 | $2,462 | – | $2,262,991 |
| Bloomsbury Residences | 99-year | 5 | $2,503 | 20.57% | $1,927,345 |
| ELTA | 99-year | 5 | $2,548 | 18.18% | $2,090,020 |
| Skye At Holland | 99-year | 10 | Starting from $2,598 | ||
| One Marina Gardens | 99-year | 1 | $2,952 | 25.02% | $1,953,295 |
| Aurea | 99-year | 7 | $2,964 | – | $3,318,410 |
| Promenade Peak | 99-year | 9 | $2,969 | 33.19% | $2,582,522 |
| Arina East Residences | Freehold | 15 | $2,983 | 26.29% | $2,541,822 |
| River Green | 99-year | 9 | $3,120 | 38.19% | $2,007,283 |
| Meyer Blue | Freehold | 15 | $3,230 | – | $3,408,917 |
| Upperhouse at Orchard | 99-year | 10 | $3,305 | – | $2,768,831 |
| W Residences Marina View | 99-year | 1 | $3,344 | – | $3,417,500 |
| The Robertson Opus | 999-year | 9 | $3,356 | – | $2,917,685 |
As of late September 2025, Faber Residence’s starting price of around $1,995 psf positions it at the lower end of the spectrum. Only Canberra Crescent Residences, at $1,985 psf on average, come in lower.
Most other OCR and RCR launches have crossed well above the $2,100 psf, with projects like Springleaf Residence ($2,176 psf) and Lyndenwoods ($2,462 psf) setting higher benchmarks even in non-central locations.
This positions Faber Residence as one of the more affordable projects on the market today. Faber Residence does not have the branding of a landmark development, like Promenade Peak or River Green; but what it lacks in CBD proximity, it makes up for in family layouts and school access.
A quick disclaimer:
We are comparing Faber Residence’s indicative starting $PSF against the average transacted $PSF of other launches.
While not a one-to-one comparison, it still highlights that Faber Residence is being pitched below the prevailing market averages.
Another point to note is the developer margins. Across the current slate of launches, average profit margins based on $PSF range from about 18 to 38 per cent, with an average of 27 per cent.
Faber Residence’s land bid was not particularly aggressive compared to some peers, which could allow the developer more room for discounts while maintaining a healthy margin. But just because they can, doesn’t mean they will.
The next step is to break this down by bedroom type, to see how Faber Residence compares against the minimum pricing of other launches in each region.
Across all unit types, Faber Residence is consistently the most affordable (or second most affordable) project.
Across all unit types, Faber Residence is consistently the most affordable (or second most affordable) project.
Now let’s take a closer look at the existing new launches available in D5
| Project | Tenure | District | Average $PSF for new sale transactions | Average developer’s profit margin (based on average $PSF) | Average quantum |
| Faber Residence | Starting from $1,995 | ||||
| Blossoms By The Park | 99-year | 5 | $2,450 | 23.36% | $2,193,266 |
| Lyndenwoods | 99-year | 5 | $2,462 | – | $2,262,991 |
| Bloomsbury Residences | 99-year | 5 | $2,503 | 20.57% | $1,927,345 |
| The Hillshore | Freehold | 5 | $2,534 | 35.67% | $2,471,070 |
| ELTA | 99-year | 5 | $2,548 | 18.18% | $2,090,020 |
| Terra Hill | Freehold | 5 | $2,669 | 28.38% | $2,686,632 |
Within D5 itself, Faber Residence is priced lower than its peers. At around $1,995 psf, it undercuts all others. The next step up is Blossoms by the Park at $2,450 psf, followed by Lyndenwoods and Bloomsbury Residences in the mid-$2,400 to $2,500 psf range. At the upper end, freehold projects like The Hillshore and Terra Hill are averaging between $2,534 and $2,669 psf.
Developer margins across these projects range from about 18 to 36 per cent, with an average around 25 per cent. This suggests that pricing for most of these launches has already been set at healthy levels, leaving less room for discounting. By contrast, Faber Residence’s lower entry cost could offer buyers a chance to secure a unit, without stretching into the same price band as competitors.
These projects also still have unsold units on the market.
So to understand how Faber Residence lines up, the next step is to look at the most affordable units available in each development.
2-bedroom units
| Project | Tenure | District | 2-bedroom prices |
| Faber Residence | Starting from $1,290,000 | ||
| Bloomsbury Residences | 99-year | District 5 | $1,638,000 |
| The Hillshore | Freehold | District 5 | $1,768,000 |
| Terra Hill | Freehold | District 5 | $1,913,000 |
| ELTA | 99-year | District 5 | $2,241,000 |
3-bedroom units
| Project | Tenure | District | 3-bedroom prices |
| Faber Residence | Starting from $1,590,000 | ||
| Bloomsbury Residences | 99-year | District 5 | $2,227,000 |
| Terra Hill | Freehold | District 5 | $2,406,000 |
| The Hillshore | Freehold | District 5 | $2,588,000 |
| ELTA | 99-year | District 5 | $2,604,000 |
| LyndenWoods | 99-year | District 5 | $3,043,000 |
4-bedroom units
| Project | Tenure | District | 4-bedroom prices |
| Faber Residence | Starting from $2,390,000 | ||
| ELTA | 99-year | District 5 | $3,103,000 |
| Bloomsbury Residences | 99-year | District 5 | $2,880,000 |
| Blossoms By The Park | 99-year | District 5 | $3,436,000 |
| Terra Hill | Freehold | District 5 | $3,504,000 |
| The Hillshore | Freehold | District 5 | $3,880,000 |
| LyndenWoods | 99-year | District 5 | $4,230,000 |
5-bedroom units
| Project | Tenure | District | 5-bedroom prices |
| Faber Residence | Starting from $3,190,000 | ||
| ELTA | 99-year | District 5 | $3,894,000 |
| Bloomsbury Residences | 99-year | District 5 | $4,470,000 |
| Terra Hill | Freehold | District 5 | $5,567,000 |
When comparing new launches within Clementi, Faber Residence and ELTA are the two most natural competitors. Both projects target family buyers and are positioned in similar catchments, though Faber Residence has the advantage of being within one kilometre of Nan Hua Primary School.
Across all unit types, Faber Residence is also priced more affordably. ELTA’s two-bedroom units start from $2.24 million, compared to $1.29 million at Faber Residence.
Faber Residence starts from $3.19 million, while the equivalent at ELTA is closer to $3.89 million
For larger homes, the difference is more pronounced: a five-bedder at Faber Residence starts from $3.19 million, while the equivalent at ELTA is closer to $3.89 million.
A key point here is land cost. Faber Residence sits on a site with a lower breakeven $PSF than ELTA, which gives GuocoLand greater pricing flexibility. The developer could keep pricing deliberately below ELTA to attract stronger upgrader interest, or narrow the gap while leaning on the additional appeal of being within range of Nan Hua.
Speculatively we’d bank on the former, as so far the developer seems to lean heavily on price advantage.
With pricing context established, the next step is to compare layouts.
We will compare those in Faber Residence to the most affordable unit available in ELTA (based on prices as of September 2025)
ELTA’s two-bedder is slightly larger and includes an additional study. Both are dumbbell designs, placing the bedrooms on opposite sides of the living area.
In both cases, the common bathroom is Jack and Jill style, effectively giving each unit two ensuite bedrooms. Kitchens are tucked into a corner, although ELTA’s has the flexibility to be enclosed more easily. The living and dining areas are nicely segregated in both projects, and each comes with a balcony extending off the living room.
While ELTA offers more space on paper, its asking price is commensurately higher. Faber Residence, by contrast, is arguably as efficient but also more affordable – for many buyers, this balance between efficiency and price will lean in Faber Residence’s favour.
The three-bedroom units in ELTA are larger than their counterparts in Faber Residence, though both share many similarities in terms of layout features.
Faber Residence adopts a dumbbell configuration, separating the bedrooms on either side of the living space, while ELTA uses a more conventional arrangement. In both projects, the common bathroom is Jack and Jill style, giving each unit two ensuite bedrooms.
The living and dining areas are clearly segregated in both layouts, and each includes a balcony extending from the living area. Both kitchens are enclosed, but ELTA’s has the advantage of windows for natural light and ventilation. Faber Residence’s enclosed kitchen, by contrast, does not have windows.
Another distinction is at the entrance: ELTA provides a small foyer for added privacy, whereas Faber Residence opens directly into the living and dining space.
Despite these differences, Faber Residence stands out for its efficiency. While ELTA’s units are larger, their asking prices are significantly higher. Faber Residence delivers a functional, family-friendly layout at a lower entry quantum, making it a very attractive alternative in today’s market.
The four-bedroom units at ELTA are larger than those at Faber Residence. Both are configured as four-bedroom, two-bath units, though Faber Residence includes an additional powder room.
In both cases, the common bathroom is Jack and Jill style, giving each apartment two ensuite bedrooms.
The living and dining areas are separated in both layouts, with a balcony extending from the living room. Kitchens differ more noticeably: Faber Residence offers a sizeable enclosed kitchen, while ELTA provides a split wet-and-dry kitchen arrangement, complete with a yard, store, and WC for added functionality.
As pointed out above, Faber Residence also includes a home shelter, though it is placed along the walkway to the bedrooms – that’s generally considered less desirable.
All four bedrooms in both projects are large enough to fit double beds, and both layouts feature a small foyer at the entrance to enhance privacy.
Although ELTA’s version provides more space and additional utility areas, its asking price is also significantly higher. Couple that with a more efficient configuration and practical features like the powder room, and Faber Residence has an edge here.
The five-bedroom units at ELTA are larger than those at Faber Residence.
Faber Residence is configured as a five-bedroom, three-bath unit with a powder room, while ELTA offers a five-bedroom, four-bath layout with a powder room as well. Both adopt dumbbell layouts. In terms of bathrooms, Faber Residence provides three ensuite bedrooms, while ELTA goes further with all five bedrooms ensuite.
The living and dining areas are nicely segregated in both projects. Each has a balcony, but their design differs: Faber Residence’s balcony extends from the living room to an adjacent bedroom, whereas ELTA’s balcony spans only the width of the living room.
Faber Residence provides a sizable enclosed kitchen with a yard, while ELTA splits its space into wet and dry kitchens, and supplements this with a yard, utility area, and WC. Both projects include a home shelter, though placement varies: Faber Residence’s is near the main entrance, while ELTA’s is located along the bedroom walkway.
All five bedrooms in both developments can comfortably fit double beds, with both units also featuring a small foyer at the entrance for added privacy.
While ELTA offers greater overall space and more ensuite bathrooms, its asking price is considerably higher. This could be a deciding point, which makes Faber Residence more attractive by comparison.
Exit strategies for Faber Residence
A key part of any exit strategy is understanding who the future buyers are likely to be.
Historically, Clementi has long been one of the stronger upgrader markets, with HDB resale flats in the area commanding above-average prices. This should create a good pool of upgrader households, able to make the jump to private properties nearby.
Let’s check:
| Year | HDB | Unknown | Private | % HDB Upgraders | % of existing private property owners |
| 2020 | 700 | 275 | 794 | 40% | 45% |
| 2021 | 1123 | 478 | 1532 | 36% | 49% |
| 2022 | 452 | 58 | 643 | 39% | 56% |
| 2023 | 318 | 55 | 589 | 33% | 61% |
| 2024 | 339 | 16 | 675 | 33% | 66% |
The proportion of HDB upgraders has tapered from around 40 per cent in 2020 to roughly one-third in 2024. Still, they continue to form a significant share of the private property market here.
Let’s look at the quantum range that these HDB upgraders are actually buying into. This will help us understand which unit types at Faber Residence are realistically within their reach.
| Price range | No. of transactions (done between 2024 to June 2025) |
| Under $1M | 71 |
| Between $1M – $1.5M | 191 |
| Between $1.6M – $2M | 179 |
| Between $2.1M – $2.5M | 94 |
| Between $2.6M – $3M | 39 |
| Above $3M | 9 |
The largest proportion of transactions fell between $1 million and $1.5 million, closely followed by $1.6 million to $2 million. Based on current resale benchmarks and indicative new launch pricing, these ranges correspond mainly to two- and three-bedroom units.
This aligns well with Faber Residence. Its two-bedders (from $1.29 million) and three-bedders (from $1.59 million) fall within the most active upgrader price bands. As such, these unit types are likely to see better demand and smoother exits in future.
However, we should also look at the supply and demand situation
For some context, here’s what unit supply looks like across Singapore (based on estimated units as of 2025)
| Bedrooms | CCR | RCR | OCR |
| 1BR | 18% | 17% | 9% |
| 2BR | 28% | 30% | 24% |
| 3BR | 36% | 43% | 52% |
| 4BR | 17% | 9% | 13% |
| 5BR | 1% | 1% | 2% |
Across all regions, three-bedders dominate supply. Still, the OCR in particular stands out: more than half of all units here are three-bedders, compared to 36 to 43 per cent in the CCR and RCR.
Unsurprisingly, the number of compact one and two-bedders is smaller in the OCR, as these are often bought as rental assets in more central areas.
But what about the supply of units closer to Faber Residence, specifically?
| No. of bedrooms | 1BR | 2BR | 3BR | 4BR | 5BR |
| Percentage in D5 | 38% | 47% | 45% | 67% | 71% |
In the area around Faber Residence, there’s a bigger supply of large family units: we can see four- and five-bedders making up a much bigger share than the D5 average.
This actually works in its favour. Faber Residence’s mix of mostly three-bedders thus fills a gap: it provides a more affordable option for nearby upgrader families, compared to the high quantum, outsized older units.
Meanwhile, its two-bedders can cater to younger couples and smaller households, as supply of these is also thinner here.
It fits so well that it’s probably deliberate on the part of the developers, who are well aware of the supply situation. We can see it in the unit mix for Faber Residence:
| Unit type | Estimated size (sq ft) | Number of units | Unit breakdown |
| 2 Bedroom Standard | 646 | 80 | 20.05% |
| 3 Bedroom Basic | 797 – 818 | 93 | |
| 3 Bedroom Standard | 861 | 56 | |
| 3 Bedroom Plus | 1,033 – 1,044 | 50 | 49.87% |
| 4 Bedroom Basic | 1,119 | 40 | |
| 4 Bedroom Standard | 1,206 – 1,270 | 60 | 25.06% |
| 5 Bedroom Standard | 1,485 | 20 | 5.01% |
Faber Residence is thus dominated by three-bedders, with four-bedders following behind, and smaller allocations for twos and fives.
Now let’s take a look at the resale performance of various unit sizes in the district
| Year | 1-bedroom average $PSF | 2-bedroom average $PSF | 3-bedroom average $PSF | 4-bedroom average $PSF | 5-bedroom average $PSF |
| 2014 | $1,526 | $1,142 | $1,089 | $1,050 | $1,208 |
| 2015 | $1,520 | $1,101 | $1,069 | $1,056 | $1,097 |
| 2016 | $1,496 | $1,077 | $1,044 | $1,009 | $1,156 |
| 2017 | $1,412 | $1,108 | $1,068 | $1,062 | $1,137 |
| 2018 | $1,528 | $1,219 | $1,173 | $1,178 | $1,187 |
| 2019 | $1,488 | $1,199 | $1,165 | $1,252 | $1,191 |
| 2020 | $1,422 | $1,222 | $1,169 | $1,208 | $1,334 |
| 2021 | $1,529 | $1,336 | $1,311 | $1,322 | $1,349 |
| 2022 | $1,601 | $1,483 | $1,433 | $1,349 | $1,253 |
| 2023 | $1,743 | $1,644 | $1,608 | $1,547 | $1,659 |
| 2024 | $1,770 | $1,809 | $1,751 | $1,778 | $1,735 |
| Annualised | 1.50% | 4.70% | 4.87% | 5.40% | 3.69% |
It appears that family-oriented units (three- and four-bedders) have been the most resilient and rewarding segments in D5. Smaller one-bedroom units appear less compelling in the OCR market.
To sharpen the picture, we’ll now look at actual profitability by unit type.
This focuses only on units bought from 2014 onwards, and sold between 2024 and June 2025.
2-bedroom units
Gains
| Project | Average purchase price | Average sale price | Average gains | Average ROI | Average holding period (years) | No. of transactions |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | $914,917 | $1,104,432 | $189,515 | 21.18% | 9.5 | 9 |
| TWIN VEW | $1,069,188 | $1,310,688 | $241,500 | 22.73% | 6.1 | 16 |
| CLAVON | $1,219,213 | $1,498,800 | $279,586 | 22.99% | 3.9 | 61 |
| REGENT PARK | $942,500 | $1,167,500 | $225,000 | 23.75% | 5.2 | 2 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | $1,154,186 | $1,432,851 | $278,665 | 24.18% | 4.3 | 78 |
| PARC RIVIERA | $837,125 | $1,049,920 | $212,795 | 25.67% | 6.8 | 44 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | $1,010,813 | $1,274,626 | $263,813 | 26.30% | 4.9 | 41 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | $1,007,333 | $1,297,810 | $290,476 | 29.38% | 6.9 | 21 |
| HUNDRED TREES | $1,154,629 | $1,501,667 | $347,037 | 29.71% | 4.9 | 3 |
| THE TRILINQ | $1,191,000 | $1,557,815 | $366,815 | 29.98% | 7.8 | 12 |
| BOTANNIA | $1,140,000 | $1,520,000 | $380,000 | 33.33% | 3.8 | 1 |
| CARABELLE | $1,278,250 | $1,709,039 | $430,789 | 33.77% | 5.0 | 4 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | $1,335,000 | $1,830,000 | $495,000 | 37.59% | 7.0 | 2 |
| THE INFINITI | $1,130,000 | $1,600,000 | $470,000 | 41.59% | 4.2 | 1 |
| Average/total | $1,098,868 | $1,418,225 | $319,357 | 28.73% | 5.7 | 295 |
Losses
| Project | Average purchase price | Average sale price | Average gains | Average ROI | Average holding period (years) | No. of transactions |
| PARC CLEMATIS | $1,430,000 | $1,405,000 | -$25,000 | -1.75% | 3.3 | 1 |
Across 295 transactions, the average purchase price was about $1.1 million, with resale prices averaging $1.42 million. This translates to an average gain of roughly $319,000, or an ROI of 28.7 per cent over an average holding period of 5.7 years.
The ROI spread across projects ranged from around 21 per cent to over 40 per cent, with developments like The Infiniti, The Parc Condominium, and Carabelle seeing some of the strongest returns.
Losses have been rare. Over the past 18 months, there was just one unprofitable two-bedder transaction (the aforementioned outlier at Parc Clematis.)
Against this backdrop, Faber Residence’s starting price of $1.29 million places it on the lower end of the observed resale range.
3-bedroom units
Gains
| Project | Average purchase price | Average sale price | Average gains | Average ROI | Average holding period (years) | No. of transactions |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | $1,347,246 | $1,647,286 | $300,040 | 23.12% | 7.9 | 7 |
| CLAVON | $1,609,370 | $2,125,582 | $516,211 | 32.07% | 3.7 | 27 |
| TWIN VEW | $1,465,059 | $1,960,318 | $495,260 | 34.29% | 5.7 | 17 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | $1,548,018 | $2,079,790 | $531,772 | 34.32% | 4.0 | 56 |
| THE INFINITI | $1,420,000 | $1,930,000 | $510,000 | 35.92% | 6.3 | 1 |
| PARC RIVIERA | $1,168,641 | $1,586,651 | $418,010 | 36.13% | 6.4 | 13 |
| THE TRILINQ | $1,449,500 | $1,982,324 | $532,824 | 36.85% | 7.5 | 24 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | $1,465,400 | $2,020,744 | $555,344 | 38.35% | 6.9 | 20 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | $1,394,117 | $2,007,333 | $613,216 | 44.13% | 5.4 | 15 |
| FABER CREST | $1,082,944 | $1,579,444 | $496,500 | 46.01% | 5.4 | 2 |
| BOTANNIA | $1,513,750 | $2,230,000 | $716,250 | 47.42% | 9.2 | 4 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | $1,640,580 | $2,411,689 | $771,109 | 48.43% | 6.7 | 10 |
| CARABELLE | $1,482,667 | $2,196,667 | $714,000 | 48.60% | 9.1 | 3 |
| REGENT PARK | $1,079,333 | $1,640,000 | $560,667 | 53.64% | 7.8 | 3 |
| MONTEREY PARK CONDOMINIUM | $1,485,000 | $2,499,000 | $1,014,000 | 68.31% | 6.5 | 2 |
| Average/total | $1,410,108 | $1,993,122 | $583,014 | 41.84% | 6.6 | 204 |
Across 204 transactions, the average purchase price was about $1.41 million, while resale prices averaged nearly $1.99 million. This translates to an average gain of $583,000, or an ROI of 41.8 per cent, over an average holding period of 6.6 years.
There were no unprofitable three-bedder transactions recorded during this period. ROIs ranged from around 22 per cent for projects like Waterfront @ Faber, to as high as 68 per cent for Monterey Park Condominium. Even in more recent launches such as Clavon and Parc Clematis, returns have already been strong, averaging over 30 per cent.
Faber Residence’s starting price of $1.59 million places it on the lower end of the resale transaction range. Because this segment delivered the most rewarding outcome, the three-bedders may be the ones to watch for at Faber Residence.
4-bedroom units
Gains
| Project | Average purchase price | Average sale price | Average gains | Average ROI | Average holding period (years) | No. of transactions |
| NEWEST | $2,300,000 | $2,680,000 | $380,000 | 16.52% | 3.5 | 1 |
| WATERFRONT @ FABER | $1,548,333 | $1,846,667 | $298,333 | 19.70% | 9.6 | 3 |
| CLAVON | $2,219,143 | $2,926,643 | $707,500 | 32.07% | 3.4 | 14 |
| PARC CLEMATIS | $2,337,126 | $3,078,985 | $741,859 | 32.15% | 3.4 | 15 |
| TWIN VEW | $1,956,714 | $2,611,143 | $654,429 | 33.60% | 5.1 | 7 |
| WHISTLER GRAND | $1,726,748 | $2,363,800 | $637,052 | 37.15% | 4.9 | 10 |
| CARABELLE | $1,880,000 | $2,580,000 | $700,000 | 37.23% | 4.2 | 1 |
| PARC RIVIERA | $1,435,333 | $2,014,278 | $578,944 | 41.30% | 6.1 | 14 |
| BOTANNIA | $1,877,500 | $2,722,000 | $844,500 | 45.20% | 4.6 | 4 |
| THE TRILINQ | $1,719,667 | $2,512,963 | $793,296 | 46.48% | 7.9 | 3 |
| THE PARC CONDOMINIUM | $1,974,444 | $2,898,444 | $924,000 | 46.74% | 8.9 | 2 |
| THE INFINITI | $1,645,000 | $2,415,000 | $770,000 | 46.92% | 6.6 | 2 |
| THE CLEMENT CANOPY | $1,668,500 | $2,543,750 | $875,250 | 52.57% | 7.4 | 4 |
| Average/total | $1,868,347 | $2,553,359 | $685,013 | 37.51% | 5.8 | 80 |
Losses
| Project | Average purchase price | Average sale price | Average gains | Average ROI | Average holding period (years) | No. of transactions |
| THE TRILINQ | $4,975,560 | $4,300,000 | -$675,560 | -13.58% | 4.9 | 1 |
Across 80 profitable transactions, the average purchase price was about $1.87 million, with resale prices averaging $2.55 million. This works out to gains of roughly $685,000, or a 37.5 per cent ROI, over an average holding period of 5.8 years.
Returns varied across projects, from around 17 per cent at NEWest to over 52 per cent at The Clement Canopy. Strong performances were also seen at The Parc Condominium and Botannia, both averaging gains above $800,000.
There was just one unprofitable outlier during this period: a unit at The Trilinq, which recorded a loss of 13.6 per cent.
Against this backdrop, Faber Residence’s starting price of $2.39 million places it on the lower end of current resale benchmarks. With average ROI for four-bedders ranging between 17 and 53 per cent, its pricing gives it a competitive edge.
However, we’d keep in mind that most HDB upgraders (see above) struggle with a quantum above $2 million; so that still limits the pool of prospective future buyers.
5-bedroom units
Gains
| Project | Average purchase price | Average sale price | Average gains | Average ROI | Average holding period (years) | No. of transactions |
| PARC CLEMATIS | $2,647,500 | $3,385,000 | $737,500 | 27.81% | 3.1 | 2 |
Over the last 18 months, there were only two five-bedroom transactions at Parc Clematis. Each was profitable, with an average purchase price of about $2.65 million and an average resale of $3.39 million. That translates to gains of roughly $737,500, or a 27.8 per cent ROI, over an average holding period of just 3.1 years.
Faber Residence’s starting price of $3.19 million is lower. But when it comes to units of this size and quantum, the buyer demographic is much more niche; performance of these high-quantum units are inherently less predictable.
We can draw a few key takeaways from the resale data:
- Three-bedder units have delivered the strongest average ROI in recent years, making them a particularly appealing segment for both buyers and resellers.
- Most profitable transactions saw relatively long holding periods, indicating that value tends to accrue over time rather than in quick flips.
- Faber Residence’s starting prices are lower than many comparable resale projects nearby, which gives it a compelling entry point.
- Even though unit sizes at Faber Residence are leaner, the layouts make good use of space, helping it punch above its size class.
Now let’s see if potential future developments nearby could have an effect
There are three land plots in the Clementi/West Coast area earmarked for future residential development. These include the current site of the Clementi Police Divisional Headquarters, a cricket field, and an empty land plot.
Once redeveloped, these sites will inject fresh supply into the market, potentially introducing competition for Faber Residence. It’s too early, however, and information too limited, to make a good guess at the impact.
This will boil down to issues like whether the new plots are HDB flats or condos (we don’t know yet.) If they’re condos, issues like price, unit mix, whether they’re targeted at the same family demographic as Faber Residence, etc. will all play a role.
For now, they’re a known-unknown. Buyers can’t tell what residential projects will crop up here, but at least they know those residential plots are there and waiting.
Conclusion
If there’s one word that could describe Faber Residence’s advantage, its price.
If there’s one word that could describe Faber Residence’s advantage, its price. Thanks to its compact layouts, Faber Residence’s units’ starting prices are in the low- to mid-range, compared to nearby projects. While units are smaller, efficient features such as jack-and-jill bathrooms and dumbbell layouts mitigate some of the effects.
On the resale market, Parc Clematis is the closest benchmark, given its pricing and similar proximity to Nan Hua. But whilst it is a resale competitor, Parc Clematis has also established that the area “works” for gains: it has seen 266 profitable transactions to just one small loss. And Faber Residence is priced competitively here: its two-bedroom starting price is in line with Parc Clematis, while its larger units come in lower.
Against the wider new-launch market, Faber Residence stands out as one of the most affordable, with the second-lowest indicative psf and consistently low entry prices across unit types. Within District 5, it is the cheapest new option available. Buyers are also likely to compare it to ELTA; but with ELTA’s higher psf and quantum, Faber Residence would be more interesting for buyers with budget concerns at this point. Its lower breakeven psf also gives the developer greater pricing flexibility, whether to hold the line as the most affordable option or narrow the gap with ELTA while emphasising its Nan Hua Primary advantage.
Then there’s the buyer trends in D5: they show existing private owners making up the majority, though HDB upgraders remain a sizeable one-third of demand. Most buy in the $1 million to $1.5 million range, which aligns with Faber Residence’s two- and smaller three-bedroom units.
Overall, Faber Residence is competitively priced for a family project in D5 (although we have to caveat that we don’t know how prices would be staged up), and it’s coming at the right time, when upgraders are increasingly worried about the viability of upgrading.
For more price comparisons and deep dives into the Singapore property market, follow us on Stacked Pro.
