Why The Interlace Condo Underperformed—Despite Its Massive Land Size And Large Units

Get The Property Insights Serious Buyers Read First: Join 50,000+ readers who rely on our weekly breakdowns of Singapore’s property market.

A seasoned content strategist with over 17 years in the real estate and financial journalism sectors, Ryan has built a reputation for transforming complex industry jargon into accessible knowledge. With a track record of writing and editing for leading financial platforms and publications, Ryan's expertise has been recognised across various media outlets. His role as a former content editor for 99.co and a co-host for CNA 938's Open House programme underscores his commitment to providing valuable insights into the property market.
In this Stacked Pro breakdown:
Overview
Launched in 2009 with its striking Jenga-like design, The Interlace quickly became one of Singapore’s most iconic condos. It won global awards and made headlines, but how has it actually performed?
From 2009 to 2024, The Interlace achieved an annualised return of 3.05%, outperforming other 99-year condos in District 4, but trailing behind the islandwide average. We analysed its resale-only transactions, floor plans, and price trends to uncover what the headline ROI doesn’t show.
Key Insight
Despite strong resale volumes and early buzz, The Interlace has delivered mixed results. Its large unit sizes and unconventional layout appeal to a niche audience, which has affected price growth consistency over time.
Why This Matters
The Interlace demonstrates that design prestige alone is insufficient. For long-term value, demand fundamentals (like layout efficiency and price accessibility) still matter most. For buyers and investors, it’s a lesson in looking past the surface.
🔓 Unlock the full analysis — including resale trends and layout insights, only on Stacked Pro.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
When The Interlace launched back in 2009, it was the condo everyone couldn’t stop talking about. Ole Scheeren’s audacious, Jenga‑like design landed it on magazine covers, won it the World Building of the Year award in 2015, and cemented its place as one of Singapore’s – if not the world’s – more iconic residential projects.
It didn’t just look interesting, by the way. The blocks were carefully arranged to frame the sunrise and sunset from various angles, and the centre of the project formed an elevated village centre. And The Interlace performed quite decently with an ROI of 3.05 per cent, from 2009 to 2024. Even now, it remains one of the most profitable projects in sheer transaction numbers.
But here’s the thing about just looking at ROI: there are a lot of nuances that get missed, and a lot of key details that get hidden. Here’s what the numbers don’t reveal about what’s going on at The Interlace:
Let’s start by looking at the overall performance of The Interlace

Year | Average $PSF |
2009 | $1,031 |
2010 | $1,051 |
2011 | $1,107 |
2012 | $1,173 |
2013 | $1,132 |
2014 | $1,252 |
2015 | $1,225 |
2016 | $1,060 |
2017 | $1,013 |
2018 | $1,179 |
2019 | $1,239 |
2020 | $1,263 |
2021 | $1,271 |
2022 | $1,382 |
2023 | $1,514 |
2024 | $1,617 |
Annualised | 3.05% |
Like many projects, The Interlace saw prices dip between 2013 and 2017, which was when property prices peaked, and then the government countered with cooling measures. The Interlace recovered, and by 2024, prices finally crossed the $1,600 psf mark.
Now let’s compare this to the performance in the overall market, and then to District 4.

Year | The Interlace | 99y LH condos in D04 | All 99y LH condos |
2009 | $1,031 | $1,278 | $788 |
2010 | $1,051 | $1,484 | $977 |
2011 | $1,107 | $1,596 | $985 |
2012 | $1,173 | $1,640 | $1,039 |
2013 | $1,132 | $1,678 | $1,163 |
2014 | $1,252 | $1,584 | $1,195 |
2015 | $1,225 | $1,462 | $1,104 |
2016 | $1,060 | $1,317 | $1,166 |
2017 | $1,013 | $1,522 | $1,230 |
2018 | $1,179 | $1,538 | $1,359 |
2019 | $1,239 | $1,599 | $1,474 |
2020 | $1,263 | $1,508 | $1,453 |
2021 | $1,271 | $1,922 | $1,517 |
2022 | $1,382 | $1,799 | $1,595 |
2023 | $1,514 | $1,955 | $1,783 |
2024 | $1,617 | $1,842 | $1,854 |
Annualised | 3.05% | 2.47% | 5.87% |
While The Interlace beat other leasehold condos in District 4, it fell far short of the island‑wide average. This makes the overall performance a bit mediocre, if we look only at ROI.
However, we need to check performance based on resale transactions alone.
This will omit any distortions caused by developer pricing, as the first few buyers of a property often buy at a much lower price point.
As The Interlace only saw resale transactions from 2014 onward, we will look at resale transactions between 2014 to 2024:

Year | The Interlace | 99y LH condos in D04 | All 99y LH condos |
2014 | $1,248 | $1,625 | $1,029 |
2015 | $1,225 | $1,380 | $1,032 |
2016 | $1,060 | $1,266 | $1,145 |
2017 | $1,013 | $1,477 | $1,115 |
2018 | $1,179 | $1,538 | $1,151 |
2019 | $1,239 | $1,599 | $1,177 |
2020 | $1,263 | $1,508 | $1,148 |
2021 | $1,271 | $1,570 | $1,207 |
2022 | $1,382 | $1,764 | $1,337 |
2023 | $1,514 | $1,882 | $1,465 |
2024 | $1,617 | $1,790 | $1,574 |
Annualised | 2.63% | 0.97% | 4.34% |
While Interlace still doesn’t beat the Singapore-wide average, its performance is much improved when you filter it down to resale transactions only. Notice that District 4 saw an average ROI of below one per cent, whereas Interlace managed 2.63 per cent.
Let’s narrow things even further by comparing Interlace to its immediate neighbours
There aren’t many neighbouring projects near The Interlace, so we expanded the radius to more than one kilometre, but stuck with the closest possible alternatives:
Project | Harbour View Towers | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences | Stirling Residences |
Tenure | 99-year | Freehold | 99-year | Freehold | 99-year |
District | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Launch year | 2009 | 2011 | 2018 | ||
Completion year | 1994 | 1997 | 2013 | 2015 | 2022 |
No. of units | 154 | 775 | 1040 | 283 | 1259 |
Next, we examined their performance from launch to the present. For older projects like Harbour View Towers and The Anchorage, we looked at their performances from 1995 to 2024, as there wasn’t transaction data before that.
Year | Harbour View Towers | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences | Stirling Residences |
1995 | $737 | $666 | |||
1996 | $769 | $807 | |||
1997 | $777 | $877 | |||
1998 | $514 | $630 | |||
1999 | $558 | $711 | |||
2000 | $618 | $815 | |||
2001 | $562 | $689 | |||
2002 | $464 | $639 | |||
2003 | $452 | $595 | |||
2004 | $447 | $575 | |||
2005 | $484 | $543 | |||
2006 | $495 | $589 | |||
2007 | $787 | $885 | |||
2008 | $961 | $982 | |||
2009 | $801 | $916 | $1,031 | ||
2010 | $977 | $1,026 | $1,051 | ||
2011 | $1,175 | $1,123 | $1,107 | $1,917 | |
2012 | $1,193 | $1,168 | $1,173 | $2,064 | |
2013 | $1,320 | $1,271 | $1,132 | $2,269 | |
2014 | $1,022 | $1,276 | $1,252 | $2,292 | |
2015 | $1,123 | $1,224 | $1,225 | $2,066 | |
2016 | $935 | $1,186 | $1,060 | $1,886 | |
2017 | $1,021 | $1,223 | $1,013 | $1,728 | |
2018 | $1,146 | $1,407 | $1,179 | $1,920 | $1,760 |
2019 | $1,262 | $1,509 | $1,239 | $1,963 | $1,838 |
2020 | $954 | $1,462 | $1,263 | $1,953 | $1,970 |
2021 | $1,309 | $1,471 | $1,271 | $2,025 | $2,042 |
2022 | $1,685 | $1,382 | $2,167 | $2,156 | |
2023 | $1,742 | $1,767 | $1,514 | $2,189 | $2,284 |
2024 | $1,676 | $1,889 | $1,617 | $2,177 | $2,322 |
Annualised | 2.87% | 3.66% | 3.05% | 0.98% | 4.73% |
So The Interlace sits somewhere in the middle of the pack; better than some (like Skyline), but behind Stirling and The Anchorage. However, we should consider this a less-than-average performance.
This is because both Harbour View Towers and The Anchorage are much older projects, and yet they’ve managed to keep pace or even outgrow The Interlace over time. One of them is even leasehold, same as The Interlace. So, even with a decent-looking ROI (for its given district and immediate neighbours), we can see The Interlace hasn’t actually done too well. This is why it’s important to read ROI figures in context.
Next, let’s see if there’s any difference if we look only at resale transactions.
Stirling Residences only has resale transactions from 2023 onwards, so we’ll exclude it as it’s too recent and provides too little history.
Skyline Residences is the next youngest project and has resale transactions from 2016, so we’ll look at the transactions from then till 2024.

Year | Harbour View Towers | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
2016 | $935 | $1,186 | $1,060 | $1,892 |
2017 | $1,021 | $1,223 | $1,013 | $1,728 |
2018 | $1,146 | $1,407 | $1,179 | $1,920 |
2019 | $1,262 | $1,509 | $1,239 | $1,963 |
2020 | $954 | $1,462 | $1,263 | $1,953 |
2021 | $1,309 | $1,471 | $1,271 | $2,025 |
2022 | $1,685 | $1,382 | $2,167 | |
2023 | $1,742 | $1,767 | $1,514 | $2,189 |
2024 | $1,676 | $1,889 | $1,617 | $2,177 |
Annualised | 7.56% | 5.98% | 5.42% | 1.77% |
There isn’t much difference when we filter down to resale. The Interlace still remains in the middle, better than Skyline Residences, but still trailing behind much older neighbours. Even a 99‑year leasehold project from 1994 (Harbour View Towers) has outpaced Interlace in resale price growth. The Anchorage, a freehold project from the 1990s, still maintains its edge.
By now, we can ascertain that, despite an average-looking ROI, the Interlace is struggling. There are still people who want to buy at The Interlace, as transaction records show, but their transaction numbers don’t reflect the high-status, iconic nature of this project.
Now let’s look at the absolute profit of each project, from 2016 to 2024:
Project | Profitable transactions | Unprofitable transactions | ||||||||
Average gains | Average purchase price | Average ROI | Average holding period (years) | No. of tnx | Average losses | Average purchase price | Average ROI | Average holding period (years) | No. of tnx | |
Harbour View Towers | $555,000 | $1,013,520 | 54.76% | 14.1 | 17 | -$87,560 | $1,661,118 | -5.27% | 7.5 | 5 |
The Anchorage | $778,781 | $1,363,982 | 57.10% | 13.4 | 110 | |||||
The Interlace | $400,707 | $1,980,667 | 20.23% | 8.5 | 305 | -$161,947 | $3,050,343 | -5.31% | 5.8 | 23 |
Skyline Residences | $195,648 | $1,963,819 | 9.96% | 9.0 | 46 | -$96,861 | $1,991,080 | -4.86% | 7.9 | 24 |
If you zoom in on the actual profit figures, the story becomes even clearer.
More from Stacked
Should You Buy Lentor Mansion? A Pricing Review Comparing It With Lentoria, Lentor Modern, Lentor Hills Residences And Hillock Green
As we approach the tail end of the series of new launches in the Lentor estate, this price review of…
The Interlace has clocked a healthy number of profitable transactions: over 300, more than any of its neighbours. But the average gain per profitable deal is $400,707, with an average ROI of 20.23 per cent over about 8.5 years. By comparison, Harbour View Towers’ profitable deals averaged $555,000, and The Anchorage outshone everyone with $778,781 in gains per profitable sale, despite being much older.
Even more telling: The Interlace’s unprofitable transactions had the highest average loss, at around -$161,947, and a shorter holding period of about 5.8 years. So while The Interlace saw relatively few unprofitable transactions compared to its profitable ones, it also registered the highest average losses among the projects when sales went south. By contrast, The Anchorage came in second for profitable transactions but delivered the highest ROI overall, and notably, it did not register a single unprofitable sale during this period.
Notice, though, that the high quantum for Interlace creates absolute gains that – on the surface – appear deceptively good.
Let’s also compare how well other projects that launched in the same year fared, compared to The Interlace:

Project | Ascentia Sky | Double Bay Residences | The Interlace | Mi Casa |
Tenure | 99-year | 99-year | 99-year | 99-year |
District | 3 | 18 | 4 | 23 |
No. of units | 373 | 646 | 1040 | 457 |
Completion year | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | 2012 |
Year | Ascentia Sky | Double Bay Residences | The Interlace | Mi Casa | All 99y LH condos |
2009 | $1,248 | $665 | $649 | $1,031 | $788 |
2010 | $1,323 | $756 | $758 | $1,051 | $977 |
2011 | $1,386 | $910 | $806 | $1,107 | $985 |
2012 | $1,488 | $1,042 | $899 | $1,173 | $1,039 |
2013 | $1,608 | $1,121 | $1,037 | $1,132 | $1,163 |
2014 | $1,576 | $1,139 | $930 | $1,252 | $1,195 |
2015 | $1,469 | $1,070 | $869 | $1,225 | $1,104 |
2016 | $1,444 | $1,021 | $880 | $1,060 | $1,166 |
2017 | $1,431 | $1,033 | $844 | $1,013 | $1,230 |
2018 | $1,458 | $1,022 | $887 | $1,179 | $1,359 |
2019 | $1,513 | $1,071 | $903 | $1,239 | $1,474 |
2020 | $1,471 | $1,046 | $891 | $1,263 | $1,453 |
2021 | $1,509 | $1,102 | $943 | $1,271 | $1,517 |
2022 | $1,692 | $1,192 | $1,002 | $1,382 | $1,595 |
2023 | $1,767 | $1,287 | $1,166 | $1,514 | $1,783 |
2024 | $1,885 | $1,367 | $1,223 | $1,617 | $1,854 |
Annualised | 2.79% | 4.92% | 4.31% | 3.05% | 5.87% |

Even when compared to other leasehold condos launched the same year, like Ascentia Sky or Double Bay Residences, The Interlace has underperformed, delivering weaker price growth despite its prestige. And against much older neighbours like The Anchorage and Harbour View Towers, The Interlace lags in ROI, $PSF, and average gains.
To determine if it’s just certain unit types at Interlace causing the problem, we’ll now examine a breakdown by unit type.
We’ll examine all the transactions from 2016 to 2024, and focus only on unit types that are available at The Interlace:
2-bedroom units
Year | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
2016 | $1,222 | $1,251 | |
2017 | $1,267 | $1,193 | |
2018 | $1,366 | $1,376 | $1,971 |
2019 | $1,518 | $1,341 | $2,165 |
2020 | $1,508 | $1,295 | $1,882 |
2021 | $1,474 | $1,388 | $2,076 |
2022 | $1,546 | $1,472 | $2,243 |
2023 | $1,719 | $1,643 | $2,247 |
2024 | $1,923 | $1,701 | $2,326 |
Annualised | 5.83% | 3.92% | – |
3-bedroom units
Year | Harbour View Towers | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
2016 | $935 | $1,167 | $1,080 | $1,777 |
2017 | $986 | $1,208 | $1,020 | $1,697 |
2018 | $935 | $1,400 | $1,211 | $1,790 |
2019 | $1,227 | $1,503 | $1,276 | $1,843 |
2020 | $954 | $1,390 | $1,249 | |
2021 | $1,208 | $1,470 | $1,259 | $1,991 |
2022 | $1,720 | $1,380 | $2,008 | |
2023 | $1,742 | $1,781 | $1,510 | $2,093 |
2024 | $1,676 | $1,883 | $1,596 | $2,245 |
Annualised | 7.56% | 6.17% | 5.00% | 2.97% |
4-bedroom units
Year | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
2016 | $1,217 | $1,008 | |
2017 | $928 | $1,538 | |
2018 | $1,556 | $984 | $1,873 |
2019 | $995 | $1,821 | |
2020 | $1,526 | $1,210 | |
2021 | $1,130 | $1,979 | |
2022 | $1,234 | $2,131 | |
2023 | $1,143 | ||
2024 | $1,320 | $2,118 | |
Annualised | – | 3.43% | – |
With the 2‑ and 3‑bedroom units, we see the same trend play out: The Interlace’s annualised growth rate lags behind both Harbour View Towers and The Anchorage.
As for the 4‑bedroom units, the data for The Anchorage and Skyline Residences is too sparse to draw a meaningful comparison, so we can’t definitively say how The Interlace stacks up in that segment.
This alone isn’t telling us much, so let’s also evaluate based on size and absolute quantum:
Average 2-bedroom prices
Year | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
2016 | $1,486,667 | $1,468,750 | |
2017 | $1,496,000 | $1,461,300 | |
2018 | $1,621,667 | $1,349,806 | $1,633,200 |
2019 | $1,821,778 | $1,421,556 | $1,794,000 |
2020 | $1,752,500 | $1,529,250 | $1,560,000 |
2021 | $1,736,667 | $1,488,087 | $1,720,714 |
2022 | $1,898,333 | $1,813,859 | $1,859,333 |
2023 | $2,045,000 | $1,581,574 | $1,862,378 |
2024 | $2,380,000 | $1,668,555 | $1,928,000 |
Average 2-bedroom sizes (for units sold between 2016 and 2024)
Project | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
Average size (sqft) | 1198 | 1154 | 829 |
As both The Anchorage and Skyline Residences are freehold projects, it’s expected that they carry a price premium, but the gap is still rather striking. The Anchorage’s 2‑bedroom units, which are about the same size as The Interlace’s, sold for over $700,000 more in 2024. Meanwhile, compared to Skyline Residences, The Interlace’s 2‑bedroom units are much larger, yet still transacted for about $260,000 less.
Average 3-bedroom prices
Year | Harbour View Towers | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
2016 | $1,510,000 | $1,939,800 | $2,284,281 | $2,411,818 |
2017 | $1,530,500 | $1,974,939 | $2,270,992 | $2,780,250 |
2018 | $1,510,000 | $2,227,801 | $2,487,167 | $2,341,667 |
2019 | $1,774,200 | $2,357,222 | $2,414,453 | $2,480,000 |
2020 | $1,540,000 | $2,035,000 | $2,114,231 | |
2021 | $1,833,600 | $2,291,492 | $2,382,854 | $2,678,333 |
2022 | $2,695,861 | $2,560,614 | $2,819,000 | |
2023 | $2,100,000 | $2,875,154 | $2,726,799 | $2,864,667 |
2024 | $2,375,000 | $2,984,167 | $3,033,138 | $2,900,000 |
Average 3-bedroom sizes (for units sold between 2016 and 2024)
Project | Harbour View Towers | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
Average size (sqft) | 1499 | 1586 | 2008 | 1387 |
From 2016 to 2024, The Interlace’s 3‑bedders averaged $3.03 million in 2024, a higher quantum than its immediate peers. But look closer: its average unit size is massive at 2,008 sq ft, compared to 1,586 sq ft at The Anchorage and just 1,387 sq ft at Skyline Residences.
If The Interlace’s 3‑bedders were sized more comparably to its neighbours, its price performance would look much worse, which circles back to the problem with relying on ROI figures alone. A higher quantum doesn’t necessarily mean better value; in the case of Interlace’s 3-bedders, it’s largely because buyers are paying for sheer square footage, and it’s rather inefficient price-wise.
Average 4-bedroom prices
Year | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
2016 | $2,528,000 | $2,721,650 | |
2017 | $3,524,364 | $3,715,000 | |
2018 | $3,250,000 | $3,739,182 | $3,225,000 |
2019 | $3,426,667 | $2,940,000 | |
2020 | $3,170,000 | $3,906,250 | |
2021 | $3,743,188 | $3,304,000 | |
2022 | $3,756,000 | $3,670,000 | |
2023 | $3,922,000 | ||
2024 | $4,393,000 | $3,420,000 |
Average 4-bedroom sizes (for units sold between 2016 and 2024)
Project | The Anchorage | The Interlace | Skyline Residences |
Average size (sq ft) | 2,081 | 3,484 | 1,798 |
For the 4‑bedders, the same story emerges, but even more extreme. In 2024, The Interlace’s 4‑bedroom units averaged around $4.39 million, which at first glance looks impressive… until you realise they’re absolutely massive: 3,484 sq ft on average (with more outdoor space than average). By contrast, The Anchorage’s freehold 4‑bedroom units clock in at 2,081 sq ft and Skyline’s at just 1,798 sq ft.
In other words, The Interlace’s 4‑bedrooms are practically small landed homes disguised as condos; and yet the per‑square‑foot value they command is markedly lower. So buyers are really paying for size rather than premium, and the ROI again hides how inefficient that price actually is.
At this point, we also start to see the likely source of the problem: designers of The Interlace built units far too big, and the high quantum prevents Interlace’s prices from rising faster.
Much of Interlace’s perceived profitability is propped up by its huge unit sizes, which inflate quantum even when the price per square foot stagnates. In reality, buyers are paying for sheer space, and that inefficiency has kept price growth muted. The fact that its unprofitable transactions carry the highest average losses (see above) among its peers further underscores its struggles.
To get a clearer picture of this, let’s compare the unit layouts of Interlace with its closest equivalents:
2-bedroom units
The Interlace – 1,184 sq ft

The Anchorage – 1,163 sq ft

Both The Anchorage and The Interlace offer two-bedroom, two-bathroom units with fairly similar layouts, but there are a few subtle differences that set them apart. And yes, their sizes would be considered three-bedders today!
Both units come with two balconies, though at The Interlace one of them runs the full length of both bedrooms. This definitely gives it the edge in terms of layout, although the planter box is a bit of a space waster.
In the kitchen, both provide a separate service yard, but The Anchorage adds an extra utility room for storage or a helper’s space, which The Interlace lacks. Nonetheless, this is balanced out by Interlace having a generally larger kitchen anyway.
Finally, the master bathroom at Interlace will probably be preferred by buyers today. The Anchorage unit includes a bathtub, which is generally considered inconvenient and a bit of a space-waster by most buyers today (although it was trendy at one point).
This is a tie between the two, we can’t say either is clearly better.
3-bedroom units
The Interlace – 1,905 sq ft

The Anchorage – 1,830 sq ft

Both The Anchorage and The Interlace offer three-bedroom plus study units, but their layouts reflect different priorities.
The unit at The Interlace has an impressive balcony that stretches across all three bedrooms, for a landscape view. This is, however, marred by the wasteful planter box. The Anchorage has a smaller balcony attached only to the living room, but if a unit is going to lose square footage to a balcony, it may as well be a more impressive one like The Interlace’s.
Despite the larger overall size of the Interlace unit, the interior spaces in The Anchorage are more efficient; largely due to wasted hallway space in the Interlace. The Anchorage does manage to have a larger living, dining, and kitchen area despite the smaller square footage, as well as a decently sized additional store room.
This does give The Anchorage more livable space, even if its footprint is smaller on paper.
4-bedroom units
The Interlace – 2,088 sq ft

The Anchorage – 2,088 sq ft

Both projects offer four-bedroom units in various sizes, though The Interlace tends to have more options in larger formats. Here, however, we compare two layouts of the exact same size.
Both units feature four bedrooms and three bathrooms, with two of the bedrooms being en-suite. The Interlace places all the bedrooms on one side and the kitchen on the other, which is a fairly traditional layout (i.e., social spaces on one end, private spaces on the other.)
The same goes for The Anchorage, where the living area leads to the kitchen and then to the bedrooms. Traditionalists may like the greater separation between living and dining spaces here, and if you want, you could use the dining room as another bedroom or study.
The Interlace has a single balcony attached to the living room, whereas The Anchorage provides two balconies, one in the living area and another in the dining area. The single balcony with wider frontage, from The Interlace, is generally preferable.
Both kitchens are well-equipped, with separate yards and WCs, but The Anchorage has an added storage room. Neither layout is decisively better though.
Conclusion:
While The Interlace has older layouts, the same is also true of some of its neighbours, so this is unlikely to be the case with its weaker returns. Rather, the issue may be the comparatively large units and high quantum, which limits upside potential.
Besides this, we also approached realtors on the ground to ask about potential issues. Some agents pointed out the high unit count (1,040 units) as being lacking in privacy, although we’re not too certain about that, as facilities seem adequate – there are, for instance, three tennis courts. But admittedly, mega-developments do have a trade-off in privacy.
Some other realtors said that common complaints involved unit facings. While the architecture is innovative, the unusual block placement results in some units losing privacy, as they face other units or are easily looked into from common areas.
That said, The Interlace does still draw buyers, and remains one of Singapore’s most iconic and recognisable condominiums. While its layout will be considered older, it is still on par with many of the surrounding condos, which are older or not too far off in age.
It still outperformed some younger projects like Skyline Residences, and maintained a decent showing among resale transactions. Nonetheless, its ROI numbers do obscure some underlying issues, which more investment-minded buyers need to consider. Owner-occupiers, however, may be willing to overlook the issue in exchange for larger units; a trait that, incidentally, is quite rare among mega-developments.
To some degree, it’s also a matter of time for the market to catch up. The larger units had higher prices, which made appreciation tough at the start – but at the rate prices are moving in 2025, it may not be long before buyers find Interlace’s resale prices quite palatable, for the square footage they get.
The challenge with evaluating The Interlace isn’t just its headline ROI, it’s understanding why a project with strong resale volumes and iconic design can still deliver mixed returns.
Too many buyers focus solely on appreciation percentages, but the real factors, like unit size, facing, and price quantum, often get overlooked. At Stacked, we’ve used this deeper evaluation approach to help buyers identify where long-term value truly lies, even in mega-developments like this one.
Curious how this applies to your own property search or investment goals? Let’s chat.
For more deep dives into what ROI may be concealing, join us on Stacked Pro as we investigate other large projects like Reflections at Keppel Bay and Costa Del Sol.