There are all sorts of polite names for old folks’ homes these days.
Senior living, assisted living, retirement communities, residential care facilities. These concepts have their differences: for example, a nursing home generally provides a higher level of medical care, while assisted living is for seniors who remain fairly independent.
But I reckon that if you ask some Singaporeans, these types of residential options for seniors all carry the same psychological label: the old folks’ home.
And let’s just say some local communities here haven’t had the best history of accepting these types of senior residences. In fact, I would say that we have a history of resisting eldercare facilities near our homes. Now, this is not true of all of us, but still a significant proportion I would say.
I recall that on Bishan Street 13, residents once petitioned against a proposed nursing home that would have been built nearby. Their concerns were supposedly the loss of recreational space, how the new building would hinder airflow through the estate, higher utility bills, and elderly residents ‘groaning’ within earshot of their flats.
Granted, it was a vocal minority who raised the ridiculous objections, but it doesn’t change the fact that they bothered to organise and petition against something so essential.
This happened around the same time that several households along Woodlands Street 83 reportedly signed a petition against a planned eldercare centre at their void deck. The petition garnered the support of 53 out of 60 households in that block. Besides worries about congestion, some residents felt the centre would be inauspicious because elderly users might die there.
Over at Toh Yi, more than 200 residents objected to proposed studio apartments for seniors. Granted, there were some reasonable concerns in that case, such as whether the sloping site was suitable for elderly residents. But some people also reportedly described the apartments as “death houses.”
(Death houses, by the way, refer to colonial-era houses – often but not always shophouses – where the destitute and terminally ill were sent to spend their final days. It does make me wonder if this holdover from the past is related to present-day objections.)
Then there was Yew Tee, where residents raised concerns about traffic, construction noise, and blocked views from a proposed nursing home. At least one resident also worried that it would affect nearby property values, although to my knowledge no study has ever proved or even come close to quantifying this.
News pieces like this explain what's happening in the market. Our consultations are designed to help you understand what it means for your own property decisions.
If you're considering buying, selling or upgrading, we'd be happy to help you work through your options.
There’s a certain irony in worrying that an eldercare facility might lower property values.
Singapore is now officially a super-aged society, which means at least 21% of the population is aged 65 and above. By 2030, around one in four citizens will be in that age group.
That doesn’t just mean more seniors doing tai chi in the park. It means more people in our society are living with dementia, mobility problems and chronic conditions that make independent living impossible. Not all seniors will need fully supported residential care, but the absolute number who do will increase in the coming years.
When a parent or grandparent can no longer walk, bathe or use the toilet without assistance, many people start looking for some form of care facilities. Usually this happens when the support needed is beyond the scope of a typical domestic helper. But it may be at that late stage before some of them begin to decide that “my blocked view” is a small price for long waiting lists, and available accommodation being too far away.
Of course, the ideal solution would be for each Singaporean to be struck by a sudden enlightenment and accept that nursing homes have to be built within their housing estates.
But since spiritual awakening is not something we can reliably bet on, what other options can we look towards? I saw something this week that may offer a more practical solution.
Singapore-based private property group Perennial Holdings recently completed Perennial Living, Singapore’s first private assisted living development. Located on Parry Avenue, the complex features 200 assisted living apartments, 100 nursing suites, medical and rehabilitation services, TCM, dining facilities, and a community park.
It’s absolutely not a mass-market solution, and based on what we saw during a recent media trip this is very much a luxury approach. Not every heartland nursing home can come with five-star hospitality, extensive robotics and hydrotherapy pools.
However, we can take something away from the philosophy behind this concept and apply that to our heartland estates.
Behind the complaints about ‘old folks homes’ is something primal. A discomfort with ageing, illness, and death being too close to everyday life.
An old folks’ home doesn’t need to be an isolated institution, cut off from the rest of the world. It doesn’t have to be a squat building with PVC floors that perpetually smell of Lysol.
Instead of treating the nursing home as a standalone institution, we can make it part of our neighbourhoods. We can include different levels of care, from assisted living to nursing care, alongside TCM services, rehabilitation, and communal spaces. And this being Singapore, we can probably even make space for a food court and some retail.
Green spaces like parks can help to break down that separation as well. Perennial Living is connected to a 1.5-hectare community park designed to support exercise, rehabilitation, and family bonding time. A heartland counterpart could connect the care facility directly to an existing neighbourhood park. Residents of the home could use the same walking paths, exercise areas and gardens as everyone else.
Under those conditions, family visits can feel like a regular human interaction instead of a hospital visit, and contact is maintained with friends from the neigbourhood. The whole “death and sadness” stigma thrives because the people in the home are out of sight. When they continue to be familiar faces in a neighbourhood, I’m confident that stigma will fade.
Perhaps, if we do this properly, people will begin to see these senior living developments as a type of neighbourhood amenity hub.
As opposed to, say, an ‘old folks home’ that’s a black hole on the neighbourhood map. Ideally, I think we should plan it such that senior living residences feel as part of the community as where you get your foot reflexology, ta-pau your rojak, or do your Zumba in the park.
Because if moral enlightenment is taking too long, then Daiso and a decent food court will have to compensate.
Meanwhile in other property news…
- Want a double-storey HDB maisonette? Those are hard to find these days, but here’s a quick update; with areas below $1 million to boot.
- Branded Residences are undergoing a big change in the Asia Pacific region – but it’s Singapore where luxury chooses to weigh anchor. Check out the details
- Should you quickly right-size to avoid lease decay later, if you own an older condo? Check out our advice to some readers here.
- One of the top performing condos in Jurong, in terms of two-bedders, is actually from the 1990s; and its two-bedders may be bigger than some three-bedders today. Find out which project this is on Stacked Pro.
Weekly Sales Roundup (10 – 16 August)
Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| THE CONTINUUM | $5,445,000 | 1905 | $2,858 | FH |
| ARINA EAST RESIDENCES | $4,295,000 | 1679 | $2,558 | FH |
| DUNEARN HOUSE | $3,849,000 | 1184 | $3,251 | 99 yrs |
| ELTA | $3,686,000 | 1507 | $2,446 | 99 yrs (2024) |
| SPRINGLEAF RESIDENCE | $3,415,000 | 1453 | $2,350 | 99 yrs (2024) |
Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| NARRA RESIDENCES | $1,310,000.00 | 560 | $2,340.00 | 99 yrs (2025) |
| DUNEARN HOUSE | $1,475,000.00 | 527 | $2,797.00 | 99 yrs |
| HILLOCK GREEN | $1,648,000.00 | 818 | $2,015.00 | 99 yrs (2022) |
| HUDSON PLACE RESIDENCES | $1,736,000.00 | 646 | $2,688.00 | 99 yrs (2025) |
| ARINA EAST RESIDENCES | $1,800,000.00 | 678 | $2,654.00 | FH |
Top 5 Most Expensive Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| ARDMORE II | $7,250,000 | 2024 | $3,583 | FH |
| ST THOMAS SUITES | $6,100,888 | 2605 | $2,342 | FH |
| HILLTOPS | $5,250,000 | 1550 | $3,387 | FH |
| KING’S MANSION | $5,238,000 | 2734 | $1,916 | FH |
| SKYLINE @ ORCHARD BOULEVARD | $4,800,000 | 1744 | $2,753 | FH |
Top 5 Cheapest Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| LE REGAL | $570,000 | 366 | $1,557 | FH |
| HEDGES PARK CONDOMINIUM | $682,000 | 484 | $1,408 | 99 yrs (2010) |
| D’NEST | $685,000 | 484 | $1,414 | 99 yrs (2010) |
| SKIES MILTONIA | $710,000 | 484 | $1,466 | 99 yrs (2012) |
| THE TAPESTRY | $735,000 | 441 | $1,665 | 99 yrs (2017) |
Top 5 Biggest Winners
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| PALM SPRING | $4,250,000 | 1884 | $2,256 | $3,100,000 | 23 Years |
| GOLDENHILL PARK CONDOMINIUM | $3,650,000 | 1539 | $2,371 | $2,591,220 | 25 Years |
| ONE AMBER | $4,088,000 | 1701 | $2,404 | $2,063,810 | 17 Years |
| ARDMORE II | $7,250,000 | 2024 | $3,583 | $2,025,000 | 10 Years |
| THE SEAFRONT ON MEYER | $4,088,000 | 1593 | $2,566 | $1,838,720 | 19 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| SKYLINE @ ORCHARD BOULEVARD | $4,800,000 | 1744 | $2,753 | -$1,784,141 | 16 Years |
| MARINA BAY SUITES | $3,000,000 | 1572 | $1,909 | -$1,608,600 | 14 Years |
| THE SCOTTS TOWER | $1,300,000 | 667 | $1,948 | -$760,000 | 12 Years |
| MARINA ONE RESIDENCES | $1,250,000 | 721 | $1,733 | -$400,000 | 4 Years |
| 76 SHENTON | $1,300,000 | 624 | $2,082 | -$256,400 | 16 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Winners (ROI%)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD |
| PALM SPRING | $4,250,000 | 1884 | $2,256 | 270% | 23 Years |
| GOLDENHILL PARK CONDOMINIUM | $3,650,000 | 1539 | $2,371 | 245% | 25 Years |
| HAZEL PARK CONDOMINIUM | $2,348,000 | 1324 | $1,773 | 237% | 27 Years |
| SUMMERDALE | $1,314,000 | 1378 | $954 | 152% | 27 Years |
| CASA JERVOIS | $3,100,000 | 1722 | $1,800 | 130% | 30 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers (ROI%)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD |
| THE SCOTTS TOWER | $1,300,000 | 667 | $1,948 | -37% | 12 Years |
| MARINA BAY SUITES | $3,000,000 | 1572 | $1,909 | -35% | 14 Years |
| SKYLINE @ ORCHARD BOULEVARD | $4,800,000 | 1744 | $2,753 | -27% | 16 Years |
| MARINA ONE RESIDENCES | $1,250,000 | 721 | $1,733 | -24% | 4 Years |
| STELLAR RV | $950,000 | 614 | $1,548 | -17% | 14 Years |
Transaction Breakdown
Follow us on Stacked for news and updates on the property market.
A single headline is rarely enough to change your plans. The value comes from understanding how today’s news fits into the broader direction of the market.
If you’d like to talk through what a shift like this means for your own timing, purchase, or exit, you can reach out for a one-to-one consultation here.
And if you simply have a question or want to share a thought, feel free to write to us at stories@stackedhomes.com. We read every message.
0 Comments