How Different Condo Views Affect Returns In Singapore: A 25-Year Study Of Pebble Bay

With a long transaction history and clear segmentation between sea-facing and non-sea-facing stacks, Pebble Bay offers one of the clearest case studies for understanding how view premiums play out in resale value. 

Its waterfront positioning has been a core part of its appeal since launch — but how much does that really translate into long-term price performance? In this analysis, we compare sales trends across different facings to quantify the premium (or discount) tied to unit orientation. Whether you’re a current owner or prospective buyer, this breakdown offers insight into the long-term impact of view-based differentiation.

A rundown on Pebble Bay

Pebble Bay is an older leasehold condo, built in 1994. This 510-unit condo overlooks the Kallang Basin, and is located in District 15 (RCR). Here’s a look at the location and site plan:

Pebble Bay has four towers of differing heights. Towers 1 and 2 have four to six floors, whilst towers 3 and 4 have 8 to 17 floors. As Pebble Bay was specifically built to take advantage of the scenery, most stacks are outward facing. On one side, the stacks face the waterfront view of Kallang Basin, while on the other side, they face other condos. There are also some inward-facing stacks. 

Comparing 1-bedroom units

These are for blocks 3 and 4 (stacks 3 vs. 24). Stack 3 gets the inward-facing view, while Stack 24 faces the other neighbouring condos. 

The inward-facing units were sold at a premium. Across all recorded transactions, the inward-facing Stack 3 units consistently have a higher price psf than the outward-facing Stack 24 units, on the same floors. Speculatively, Stack 3 may have nicer courtyard or water-feature type views, while Stack 24 may face a less attractive sightline to a neighbouring block.

Now let’s compare the resale gains between the two:

The facing doesn’t appear to have made a difference. Both inward-facing and outward-facing units had negative returns in the short term and positive returns in the long term; and the difference in average annualised returns between the two stacks is minimal.

Gains and losses here mainly reflect market cycles, rather than the effect of facing. Some of these units were purchased in early to mid-1996, just before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis hit. Property prices fell significantly from 1997 to 1999, and then again during the SARS crisis in 2003. 

Those who held on for longer (10+ years) saw recovery and even profits, while those who sold during the weak markets (1998-2005) suffered the biggest losses. But none of this is related to views.

2-bedroom units

We’ve picked the two-bedder units in block 4 to study (Stack 19 vs. 27). Stack 19 has an inward facing, while Stack 27 gets the waterfront view.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the waterfront views commanded a premium. Even though Stack 27 sold out earlier in the launch, its units were still pricier than similar-floor units in Stack 19, which were purchased around a year later. The waterfront-facing units were priced between $818 – $830 psf, while inward-facing units were between $748 – $802 psf.

Now let’s compare the gains:

There is a bit of an imbalance here, as Stack 19 saw a much larger number of transactions; but that doesn’t mean we can’t still see some patterns. 

Despite the waterfront view, Stack 27 couldn’t always guarantee higher premiums. In fact, #05-27 (waterfront facing) sold at a loss of $113,000 (-1.1 per cent annualised). On the flip side, #04-19 (inward-facing) was held for 11 years and managed a $55,000 profit (0.5 per cent annualised).

That said, stack 19 did not produce fantastic results either. Most Stack 19 units had rather slim profits (e.g., the aforementioned 0.5 per cent growth) or flat returns (e.g., #05-19 with 0.1 per cent annualised growth).

While more units in Stack 19 avoided losses, it’s hardly what we’d call a good performance. The strongest resale gain came from an inward-facing unit held for nearly two decades (#06-19). 

3-bedroom units

We are comparing block 4 for these units (stacks 10 vs. 12). Stack 10 faces the condominiums across the road, and stack 12 has a partial view of the Kallang Basin on the lower floors. But those above the 6th floor (note that block 1 only goes up to six floors) get an unblocked waterfront view. 

On most floors, Stack 12 (partial/full waterfront view) commanded a higher price than Stack 10 (condo-facing). The price difference was highest on lower floors, where the waterfront view was only partial:

• 3rd floor: Stack 12 had a 22.16 per cent premium.
• 4th floor: The difference jumped to 41.88 per cent, the highest in this comparison.

This suggests that even a partial waterfront view was priced significantly higher than a condo-facing unit. Another interesting pattern is that by the 8th floor, the premium narrowed to 14.64 per cent. By the 11th floor, it further dropped to 18.25 per cent.

Some realtors opined this was because once both stacks had unblocked views (i.e., from the 6th floor and up), the waterfront premium stabilised or shrank. 

There’s also an interesting anomaly on the 13th floor: Stack 12 (waterfront-facing) was actually 26.29 per cent cheaper than Stack 10 on the 13th floor. We don’t have any explanation for this!

Now let’s compare the resale gains:

Waterfront units (Stack 12) had higher absolute gains, but annualised returns were a mixed bag. The best performer (#13-12) had a 6 per cent annualised gain, but #10-10 (condo-facing) wasn’t too far behind at 5.2 per cent. 

Timing was, again, a more important factor. Both waterfront and condo-facing units suffered in the 1997 crash, with huge losses for short-term sellers. The units that saw better gains, like #13-12, were held for long periods of over a decade. 

From this set of units, though, we can conclude that the premiums for waterfront views didn’t always translate into higher percentage returns. 

We could also say that Stack 10 (condo-facing) was riskier as a short-term holding, compared to Stack 12: 

#07-10 (Stack 10, condo-facing) lost $572,340 (-14.3 per cent annualised) in 971 days, the worst-performing unit in this batch. In contrast, #04-12 (Stack 12, waterfront-facing) lost $552,000 (-15.4 per cent annualised) in 941 days. This is a similar scale of loss, but with a slightly higher percentage decline. During the Asian Financial Crisis, Stack 10 had more severe losses across multiple units.

View premiums vs profit margins: The final take

While the transaction analysis we’ve conducted might seem counter-intuitive given the persistent marketing emphasis on views, the historical patterns at Pebble Bay are clear for those who know where to look. 

Based on these indicators, we’re advising our clients to prioritise entry pricing and timing factors over view premium when selecting waterfront properties in today’s market. 

Wondering if your current property plans should be adjusted based on these findings? Schedule a session with our real estate consultants to identify value opportunities in your target developments. We’re happy to share what we’re seeing on the ground, and guide you toward a more informed decision.

If you’d like to get in touch for a more in-depth consultation, you can do so here.