Why This Freehold Mixed-Use Condo in the East Is Underperforming the Market

Parc Komo was one of the more under-the-radar launches of its day; at the time, it was marketed as one of the most competitively priced freehold projects in Singapore. More than that, Parc Komo was seen as the solution to a longstanding issue: it’s a mixed-use project that introduced key amenities, such as a supermarket and eateries, in an area that lacked such elements. Fast forward to today, however, and the performance of Parc Komo seems to be trailing. Here’s a deep dive into why that may be happening, and whether that may change:

And mixed-use developments don’t always follow the straightforward growth path buyers imagine, sometimes the surrounding area takes longer to mature than expected. If you’d like help understanding how these neighbourhood dynamics might affect your own plans, reach out here and we’ll link you with a trusted partner agent.

Let’s start with an overview of Parc Komo’s performance 

For context, let’s compare this performance to other 999-year/freehold condos across Singapore (as Parc Komo is freehold), as well as to other 999-year/freehold condos in District 17 (D17).

We will look at the time period from Parc Komo’s launch (2019) to Q3 2025, and we’ll look at $PSF for now; we’ll compare overall cost (quantum) further below. 

In terms of $PSF, Parc Komo’s performance is unimpressive overall. It’s trailing both the Singapore-wide average as well as the D17 average. 

However, we also need to look at performance in terms of resale and subsale only. This is necessary because developers often have discounts in early launch phases; so the earliest buyers of Parc Komo may have seen better performance than those who bought later, or bought at resale. 

We are looking from 2022 to Q3 2025, as 2022 was when Parc Komo first entered the resale market. 

These numbers suggest that, for those who bought Parc Komo at resale, performance has been much weaker; Parc Komo hasn’t yet managed to reach two per cent gains in $PSF, whilst the wider market has managed 4.27 per cent, and D17 managed 6.2 per cent. 

This is, however, with the caveat that Parc Komo has had a very short runway. As resale just began in 2022, it only had a very short holding period; and this could still change in the future. 

Now, for a more localised view, let’s look at neighbouring projects around Parc Komo.

These are the nearby projects:

As our available data only extends to 1995, we’re unable to confirm the launch dates of some of the oldest projects here; but it shouldn’t be too relevant to our findings if it’s that far in the past.

Here’s the performance of these projects since their launch, or as far back as we can find for the pre-1995 launches:

With the exception of Parc Komo, most of the younger projects in this cluster are 99-year developments. Now usually, being a freehold project amidst leasehold is an advantage, but we can see this hasn’t happened for Parc Komo – it still sits on the lower end of our dataset; Estella Gardens and Ballota Park have lower gains. However, Estella Gardens and Ballota Park are also much older than Parc Komo. 

Parc Komo’s annualised growth is more broadly in line with The Jovell, another 99-year leasehold condo launched just a year earlier.

We also need to compare using only resale and sub sale transactions though; because as mentioned earlier, developer discounts can distort the apparent performance.

As above, we are looking from 2022, when Parc Komo entered the resale market, to Q3 2025:

The result is not much different. Parc Komo is the second lowest, next only to The Jovell, which saw a negative gain. So our observation holds: even though Parc Komo is newer and freehold, these don’t seem to have worked to its advantage.

Next, let’s look at the specific unit layouts in Parc Komo to see how they have performed. 

Note that one-bedders and three-bedders only had resale transactions starting from 2023, so comparisons only begin from that year. We have excluded four-bedders as there was only a single four-bedder transaction in 2024 and 2025 respectively, so the volume is too low to be meaningful. 

1-bedroom units

2-bedroom units

3-bedroom units

Parc Komo consistently sits at the lower end of our dataset. Its one-bedroom and three-bedroom units both recorded negative annualised growth, while its two-bedroom units posted only a slight uptick; and they are the second-lowest among the projects compared.

We should acknowledge, however, that Parc Komo has had a very short window; its neighbours have the benefit of much longer holding periods to accrue gains. But we can see that in an immediate sense, Parc Komo isn’t experiencing strong appreciation. 

Next, we need to look at the size and quantum of the units involved. This is less abstract than $PSF, and will give us a better sense of absolute gains and profits.

Average 1-bedroom prices

Average 1-bedroom sizes (based on transactions done)

No. of transactions

From the above, we see that Parc Komo’s one-bedders appear to have a higher absolute price (quantum) despite being smaller than many of the surrounding projects. 

For example, older developments like Estella Gardens, Carissa Park, and Avila Gardens often reach 700 sq ft or larger, but Parc Komo’s one-bedders are typically in the 470 to 500 sq ft range; yet Parc Komo’s one-bedder prices are still in the higher $700,000 to $800,000+ range. This can come off as a weaker value proposition for buyers.

Average 2-bedroom prices

Average 2-bedroom sizes (based on transactions done)

No. of transactions

For the two-bedroom category, Parc Komo’s average quantum is again on the higher end of the cluster, ranging from around $1.17 million to $1.26 million. This is, once again, despite having some of the smaller two-bedder layouts compared to its neighbours (around 680 to 740 sq ft, whereas we see 900 to 1,100 sq ft in most others).

Again, this could be a weaker value proposition if home buyers are actively comparing.

Average 3-bedroom prices

Average 3-bedroom sizes (based on transactions done)

No. of transactions

The same problem repeats for three-bedders. Parc Komo’s $1.72 million to $1.95 million range is higher than many older freehold/999-year projects like Avila Gardens. Estella Gardens, Ballota Park, and Carissa Park. And once again, we see that Parc Komo’s average three-bedder size of 940 to 1,030 sq ft is smaller than the 1,200 to 1,400+ sq ft of many older resale projects nearby. 

So here, we may have uncovered one of the reasons for a weaker performance to date: buyers may have noticed that on average, across the board, Parc Komo may be both pricier and smaller. 

Now, let’s compare the profitability of each of these projects 

Parc Komo shows the lowest average ROI at 14.66 per cent, coupled with relatively modest absolute gains. Again though, Parc Komo units have an average holding period of just five years, far shorter than the 10–26 years typical of older neighbours; so we need to take that into account. 

The most important detail here is that Ferraria Park is one of the younger freehold projects; and it seems to have larger unit sizes than Parc Komo, whilst having a relatively close average quantum. Given this, buyers may reasonably view Ferraria Park as an alternative to Parc Komo.

On that note, let’s compare unit layouts between Parc Komo and Ferraria Park

Both developments offer a range of one-bedroom layouts, but the two units compared here are their larger formats. 

The Ferraria Park unit is notably larger than Parc Komo’s, despite Parc Komo’s layout being marketed as a 1+Study. Also, as a potential drawback, the study area is more of a nook than a proper room per se. 

Both units include a balcony off the living area and feature open kitchens, although Ferraria Park has the advantage of an additional yard; this is quite hard to find in one-bedders today. The bathrooms in both units adopt a Jack and Jill configuration, offering dual access.

Despite its smaller size, the Parc Komo unit transacted at a higher price than the Ferraria Park unit. In terms of overall resale averages though, Ferraria Park’s one-bedders cost only about $15,000 more on average; this difference is negligible given how much more floor space they have.

Both developments offer a variety of two-bedroom layouts, and the units compared here are in the middle of the range.

Once again, the Ferraria Park unit is significantly larger than its Parc Komo counterpart. In Parc Komo, the living area comes with a balcony, while Ferraria Park opts for a bay window; both are generally considered inefficiencies in smaller units. 

Parc Komo features an open kitchen, whereas Ferraria Park provides a fully enclosed kitchen with a yard, which gives it a clear edge today. 

Parc Komo master bedroom includes a balcony and a walk-in closet, features that Ferraria Park excludes. Note that not having the balcony could be considered favourable for Ferraria Park though, as it maximises the bedroom size. 

But to balance it out, Ferraria Park includes bay windows in both bedrooms, and its master bathroom comes with a sunken bath. The bay windows are inefficient also, and some buyers dislike sunken baths for safety and space reasons. 

Still, Parc Komo’s unit transacted price was over $100,000 higher, which is a substantial gap given its smaller size. When averaged out across all two-bedroom resale transactions, both developments show a roughly similar quantum, though Ferraria Park is often bigger for roughly the same price.

Both projects offer a range of three-bedroom layouts, and the units compared here are the larger ones. As is often the case, the Parc Komo unit is smaller. Both are three-bedroom, two-bathroom units.

Parc Komo provides a balcony off the living room, whereas Ferraria Park features a planter box, giving Parc Komo the win between the two. The kitchens also diverge in style. Parc Komo offers a fully enclosed kitchen, while Ferraria Park comes with a more spacious wet-and-dry kitchen configuration. Both units include a yard, utility room and WC. 

One of Parc Komo’s common bedrooms includes a loft feature, while Ferraria Park’s bedrooms all come with bay windows. Both are inefficiencies (at the time of Parc Komo’s development, the loft feature would have added unusable void space square footage); but the bedrooms are large enough to comfortably fit a double bed.

In terms of pricing, the Parc Komo unit transacted for a massive $400,000 more than the Ferraria Park unit, despite being smaller. The broader averages reflect the same trend: Parc Komo’s three-bedders cost more on average, even though Ferraria Park offers a bigger layout. 

Both developments offer four-bedroom layouts of varying sizes, but the contrast between the two units compared here is quite stark. The 1,410 sq ft unit in Parc Komo is one of its larger four-bedder offerings, whereas the 1,572 sq ft layout in Ferraria Park is actually the smallest four-bedder in that development. So overall, Ferraria Park’s four-bedders are much bigger.

Both units are four-bedroom, three-bathroom configurations. Parc Komo positions its living and dining areas side by side, with a balcony that spans the entire length of the space. Ferraria Park, by contrast, separates the living and dining areas, with the living room opening onto a smaller balcony.

The kitchens in both units adopt a wet-and-dry configuration and include a utility room and WC. However, Ferraria Park also offers a yard, a feature Parc Komo lacks. The internal bedroom layouts differ too: two common bedrooms in Parc Komo share a Jack and Jill bathroom, resulting in three ensuite bedrooms; Ferraria Park provides two en-suites. 

All bedrooms in Ferraria Park include bay windows, yet remain large enough to comfortably fit a double bed. Parc Komo’s master bedroom has the additional benefit of a balcony, while Ferraria Park’s master bathroom includes a sunken bath; a premium feature in its time that’s less appreciated today. 

Despite the size disparity, the Parc Komo unit transacted for almost $500,000 (!) more than the Ferraria Park unit. 

Now let’s look at rental yields to see if they made a difference

1-bedroom units

2-bedroom units

3-bedroom units

There isn’t much to say here, with gross yields being in a fairly typical range for most condos in Singapore. The only notable detail is that Parc Komo tends to be at the lower end of the range – this runs contrary to the assumption that, being mixed-use, Parc Komo should provide more amenities to tenants. While its rental rates can be a bit higher, they’re still not significant yield-wise. 

However, agents on the ground noted that this neighbourhood is picked by those who want quiet and exclusivity; and that also goes for tenants. Other agents noted that, whilst Parc Komo doubles as an amenity hub, it’s still not sizeable enough to rival a “full” integrated development; and this results in less benefit to its rentability and yields.Now let’s compare Parc Komo to all the new launches that appeared at the same time as its launch. This is to check for any wider market quirks that may have affected performance, which would also show up in some of the same cohorts.

The project types are quite varied in this launch cohort, making it hard to draw clear conclusions; from compact freehold boutique developments like RV Altitude to mega-developments such as Parc Clematis. This would be why, as a group, annualised growth rates can range from declines to gains of nearly five per cent per year.

Within this cohort, Parc Komo’s annualised performance sits on the lower end, but it is not the weakest performer. Boutique freehold projects tended to show slower appreciation.

Notably, when we compare Parc Komo only against other freehold projects launched in the same year, its results look a bit stronger. Parc Komo outperforms the majority of its cohort in terms of annualised growth; and this is despite being located in a lower-priced, fringe district.

Conclusion:

Parc Komo’s annualised growth rate trails the 999-year/freehold project average, both islandwide and within D17. The gap is not wide if we include developer sales, but the disparity becomes more significant if we compare only resale and sub sale transactions; in this case, it has the second-weakest resale performance among neighbours, from 2023 to Q3 2025. Once again though, this is based on a fairly short time to appreciate.

In terms of pricing, Parc Komo’s one- and two-bedroom units sit at the upper end of the cluster, despite being smaller than many of the older freehold counterparts. Its three-bedroom units are also priced higher, exceeding neighbouring projects by a notable margin. This is one of the most glaring issues in price comparison, and it may be one of the key factors that’s limiting Parc Komo’s price growth. 

Finally, an opinion from some agents: even if Parc Komo has leasehold condos in its surroundings, D17 in general has no shortage of freehold projects. And for freehold, “newness” is less of an advantage, as lease decay is not a factor. As such, Parc Komo may find it tougher to see a premium for being one of the newest condos in the area. 

Another issue is its mixed-use positioning. While that’s a selling point in some areas,  it may not align well with this area’s appeal of privacy and low-density exclusivity. This is an intangible factor; but for some buyers, having the neighbourhood supermarket downstairs isn’t an edge. To them, it makes the project less prestigious than the “pure” residential condos nearby. 

Join us on Stacked Pro as we do further deep dives into underperforming projects, and see if we can identify the problems.