The Surprising Truth Behind Singapore’s Longest Held Condos – And Why Residents Refuse To Sell After 20 Years

I used to think a condo no one sells must be amazing - some secret paradise where even the biggest en-bloc offers would be met with rejections and Hokkien swear words, because the place is just so irreplaceable. But because I love disappointment, I asked Stacked’s data experts to dig through 30 years of data, thinking it should reveal all of Singapore’s hidden gems. What I found was a lot more nuanced, and a little crushing:

Looking up the “stickiest” condos 

By “stickiest”, I originally meant the condos where we see (1) the longest holding period, and (2) just looking at how many people have actually sold, compared to the total number of units. The lower that number, the “stickier” the place. But anyway:

Projects	Completed	Days Held	Years Held	Transactions	Total Units
VALLEY MANSION	-	8562	24	1	50
GEYLANG MANSION	1983	8072	22	1	27
STARPOINT	-	7752	21	1	8
PETAIN COURT	1994	6984	19	4	72
WING FONG BUILDING	-	6761	19	1	218
DAISY LODGE	1986	6496	18	8	24
CALIN MANSIONS	1992	6200	17	2	5
GILSTEAD COURT	1978	6009	17	11	48
EASTPAC BUILDING	1983	5942	16	1	7
OCTAVILLE	1990	5831	16	2	9
RISING COURT	1974	5599	15	2	6
MADEIRA COURT	1995	5594	15	4	12
THE FERNHILL	2009	5327	15	1	25
GUILLEMARD APARTMENT	1985	5180	14	2	146
D' MARINE	2005	5169	14	1	16
TOH YI COURT	1985	5055	14	4	18
SUNBIRD VIEW	1994	5031	14	3	15
NEWTON LODGE	1990	4973	14	9	16
SEAVIEW POINT	1994	4852	13	10	34
SAPPHIRE COURT	1992	4852	13	2	11
YONG SIAK COURT	1987	4835	13	4	9
NEW COURT	2000	4751	13	1	20
PEPPERMINT GROVE	1997	4730	13	5	15
DUKU APARTMENTS	1998	4719	13	2	8
LE GAMBIR	1989	4680	13	3	8
CANNAVILLE	1993	4672	13	6	16
THE BOULEVARD RESIDENCE	2005	4668	13	1	46
BASSEIN COURT	1993	4646	13	12	28
NASSIM 9	2002	4582	13	5	8
LION TOWERS	-	4465	12	9	52
JAYA TOWER	1979	4436	12	9	28
SERENE VIEW MANSIONS	1984	4392	12	7	18
WILLYN VILLE	1982	4366	12	16	37
GALAXY TOWERS	1989	4322	12	22	60
CENTRINA	2011	4311	12	1	8
ROSE MAISON	2001	4300	12	5	13
DORSET MANSIONS	1992	4300	12	4	7
RIVER VALLEY COURT	1994	4295	12	4	18
GREENLANE APARTMENTS	1994	4285	12	2	9
POH HENG COURT	1986	4276	12	6	10
KATONG APARTMENTS	1995	4233	12	6	20
WU DE BUILDING	1990	4221	12	6	10
TELOK KURAU MANSIONS	-	4212	12	1	9
KISMIS COURT	1985	4188	12	9	26
BOTANIC GARDENS VIEW	-	4175	11	49	143
HOA NAM BUILDING	1983	4174	11	7	36
SALLIM LODGE	1995	4166	11	2	12
MOON MANSION	1981	4161	11	2	6
UNI BUILDING	1983	4159	11	3	12
TORIE MANSIONS	1993	4137	11	3	12
SERAN COURT	1984	4098	11	5	4
LE SHANTIER	1997	4077	11	21	32
HOLLAND SUITES	1999	4066	11	6	15
HOLLAND COURT	-	4041	11	4	22
KILAT COURT	1997	4041	11	13	21
SUNSET LODGE	1978	4039	11	16	30
ROSE COURT	1973	4020	11	2	8
SIGLAP LODGE	1996	3986	11	2	8
SUN COURT	1985	3954	11	8	17
HILLS APARTMENT	1975	3949	11	6	10
GARDEN APARTMENTS	1984	3946	11	8	20
WAN THO LODGE	1966	3946	11	12	12
ASTRIDVILLE	1985	3924	11	10	18
LA MEYER	1994	3912	11	16	30
LE WILKIE	1996	3891	11	11	41
KEMBANGAN COURT	1994	3888	11	8	0
ORCHID APARTMENTS	1977	3888	11	18	52
SERAYA VILLE	1991	3873	11	29	31
SIN CHUAN GARDEN	1983	3851	11	8	64
FABER GARDEN CONDOMINIUM	1984	3849	11	32	233
KINGSGROVE	1992	3843	11	16	32
PENG'S COURT	1985	3834	11	5	8
GIDEON'S LODGE	1992	3816	11	4	6
WEST-N	2008	3797	10	2	14
KIM KEAT GARDENS	2003	3776	10	5	13
MARGATE POINT	1998	3771	10	6	15
THE WINDSOR	1988	3719	10	84	160
PIN MANSIONS	1992	3691	10	13	16
BIRCHWOOD MANSIONS	1990	3670	10	9	24
KOVAN CREST	1999	3668	10	5	20
CAMBRIDGE VILLAGE	1983	3666	10	10	28
GEMINI APARTMENTS	1989	3659	10	12	12
JOO CHIAT MANSIONS	1986	3658	10	20	24
SPANISH VILLAGE	1987	3647	10	54	226
CLYDESWOOD	1993	3644	10	21	36
GOLDHILL TOWERS	1989	3637	10	10	50

The condos with the longest holding periods tend to be… well, the ones that have simply been around the longest. No surprises there. So most of what you see here are older projects, which is why the list reads like a roll call of 70s and 80s project names.

Also worth noting: we’re only looking at transactions where caveats were lodged. That usually happens when there’s a mortgage involved. If someone paid in full cash and never lodged anything? They won’t show up here. And yes, it’s also possible that somewhere out there is a condo so “sticky” nobody has ever sold a single unit - ironically, that would mean it doesn’t even make this list.

Another limitation is that we only have data from 1995 onwards. There are people who bought in the 70s, 80s and have held until today without selling, hoping for an en-bloc (Orchard Towers, I’m looking at you). These would have fallen through the cracks too.

Disclaimers aside, the above are the top condos where owners have held on for at least 10 years on average. 

Many of these projects, unfortunately, are not the most impressive or liveable spaces. Take Valley Mansion: sure, it’s got space and a prime spot by Orchard, but reviews say it’s looking “old,” needs “a good paint job,” has no lift, and suffers from heavy traffic.  Not exactly luxury-living material.

Then there’s Geylang Mansion: a tiny 14‑unit freehold block in a gritty pocket of Geylang. It’s often described as a “rental bargain,” but more honestly described as “within the Red Light area.” 

Going through the projects on the list, two things stand out:

First, many of these are ageing walk-up apartments or plain apartments with no amenities. They’re more spacious than your typical condo units, but that’s it - there are no amenities (though some may still have security). 

Second, many, though not all, have “rickety property in a great location” traits. Botanic Gardens View, for instance, really is across from the Botanic Gardens and Napier MRT station, and the land there is likely worth a fortune, even if the existing project is clearly dated. 

This suggests three things: the first is that many of the owners are likely holding on for an en-bloc sale. The second is that, if they stay on, it will probably be due to issues of space: these older units tend to be built quite large, and the sale proceeds will fall short of a similarly big, newer condo unit today.

The third possibility is that many owners are now living elsewhere and are okay with simply collecting rental income to supplement their needs until the very end. So they’re just not interested in selling anyway. 

But okay, what if we only looked from when the SSD was implemented?

So maybe I wasn’t being fair. After all, some of these old projects have been around since we still used pagers. Of course, they’d clock decades of holding periods.

So to level the playing field, I looked only at condos sold after the Seller’s Stamp Duty (SSD) kicked in on 4 January 2011. This does two things:

1. It weeds out the older projects that naturally have longer holding periods, just because of age.

2. It also cuts out the flippers who bought with zero intention of actually living there.

What I got was a slightly fresher crop, though still far from a list of dream homes. Here are the ones that clocked the highest average holding periods, even in the post‑SSD era:

Projects	Completed	Days Held	Years Held	Sum of number of units	Total Units
SIGLAP LODGE	1996	4978	14	1	8
NEW COURT	2000	4751	13	1	20
CRANE COURT	2004	4736	13	1	12
CENTRO MANSIONS	2005	4715	13	1	14
THE HUNTINGTON	2000	4522	12	1	42
JERVOIS GROVE	1986	4493		1	18
BALESTIER REGENCY	1990	4488	12	1	72
KINGSTON TERRACE	1994	4422	12	1	24
CENTRINA	2011	4311	12	1	8
CARLYX GREEN	2007	4292	12	1	12
LA MEYER	1994	4189	12	1	30
SUNSET LODGE	1978	4172	11	1	30
MEYA LODGE	2005	4102	11	1	12
MONARCHY APARTMENTS	1997	4073	11	1	39
THE MORNINGTON	2004	3989	11	1	28
NEWTON LODGE	1990	3976	11	1	16
R66 APARTMENTS	2007	3852	11	3	34
THE MORNINGSIDE	1992	3841	11	3	79
D - HERITAGE APARTMENTS	2003	3829	11	1	19
ETON COURT	2004	3826	11	1	13
HILLCREST PARK	-	3734	10	1	7
LE WILKIE	1996	3718	10	2	41
GLAMOUR VILLE	2003	3715	10	1	13
EQUATORIAL APARTMENTS	1981	3685	10	1	61
THE EQUATORIAL	2001	3649	10	3	95

Honestly, it’s not a big difference. Many of these were still built before 2000, and almost all of them are small, boutique projects with hardly any transactions to begin with.

In fact, every single one of them has fewer than 100 units. Which makes sense: when you only have 12 neighbours, it doesn’t take much for the numbers to look “sticky.”

So that brings us to the next way of looking at things: instead of just how long people hold on, let’s look at the number of transactions relative to the total number of units.

And here, digging through the full, unfiltered list of transactions since 1995, some more names start to show up.

Projects	Average Days Held	Years Held	Transactions	Total Units	Tnx vs Supply
WING FONG BUILDING	6761	19	1	218	0.46%
GUILLEMARD APARTMENT	5180	14	2	146	1.37%
VALLEY MANSION	8562	23	1	50	2.00%
THE BOULEVARD RESIDENCE	4668	13	1	46	2.17%
GEYLANG MANSION	8072	22	1	27	3.70%
THE FERNHILL	5327	15	1	25	4.00%
NEW COURT	4751	13	1	20	5.00%
PETAIN COURT	6984	19	4	72	5.56%
D' MARINE	5169	14	1	16	6.25%

Here, Wing Fong Building and Guillemard Apartment stand out as having arguably the most “loyal” owners, especially given they’re both sizeable developments with over 100 units. That makes their near‑nonexistent sales all the more impressive. 

However, asking around on the ground revealed this wasn’t so much due to quality. Wing Fong Building has some rather rough mentions on the internet, too, and agents told me it’s mainly a matter of rental: even if it’s not the prettiest location, and a bit run down, it still gets a stream of steady tenants. In the end, it’s still conveniently close to town (about six minutes’ drive to Suntec City, by my estimates and speeding ticket). 

Guillemard Apartment had the same qualities: low vacancy rates because it’s very convenient, and within walking distance to Mountbatten MRT station; but it’s visibly ageing and lacks facilities. 

So again, it seems the owners are either landlords happy to collect rent indefinitely, or are just holding on for an en-bloc windfall. Note that they’re not wrong about the possibility of that windfall either, as Guillemard Apartment, for one, is in a sweet spot. 

Why not just filter out the oldest condos and then find the longest holding periods in the most recent projects?

Because it takes a long time for me to reach reasonable ideas like that, but thanks, let’s do that.

The bulk of our data keeps skewing toward creaky walk‑ups and 80s relics. So let’s filter it again: ONLY condos completed between 2010 and 2015.

Why this window? Anything older than 2010 would already qualify as “old” by now, and anything newer than 2015 hasn’t really had enough time to tell. This way, we’re looking at developments with at least a decade on the clock, but still modern enough that no one’s buying it purely for land and en-bloc dreams.

2010	Days Held	Years Held	Transactions	Units	Sale / Supply
BELLE VUE RESIDENCES	3267	9	12	176	6.82%
ZEDGE	3211	9	9	102	8.82%
GRAND DUCHESS AT ST PATRICK'S	2775	8	12	121	9.92%

2011	Days Held	Years Held	Transactions	Units	Sale / Supply
PARC SOPHIA	2905	8	15	152	9.87%
THE PEAK@BALMEG	2827	8	8	181	4.42%
NEWTON EDGE	2574	7	8	103	7.77%
CLOVER BY THE PARK	2569	7	32	616	5.19%

2012	Days Held	Years Held	Transactions	Units	Sale / Supply
ROCHELLE AT NEWTON	2762	8	11	129	8.53%
JARDIN	2469	7	13	140	9.29%
DOUBLE BAY RESIDENCES	2212	6	26	646	4.02%

2013	Days Held	Years Held	Transactions	Units	Sale / Supply
MARINA BAY SUITES	3455	10	2	221	0.90%
GOODWOOD RESIDENCE	2280	6	12	210	5.71%
QUESTA @ DUNMAN	2183	6	8	122	6.56%

2014	Days Held	Years Held	Transactions	Units	Sale / Supply
GILSTEAD TWO	2433	7	3	110	2.73%
CASA CAMBIO	2247	6	9	198	4.55%
LINCOLN SUITES	2079	6	5	176	2.84%
CITYSCAPE @FARRER PARK	2076	6	10	250	4.00%
CYAN	2023	6	10	280	3.57%
ALTEZ	2000	6	7	339	2.06%

2015	Days Held	Years Held	Transactions	Units	Sale / Supply
ROBIN RESIDENCES	2468	7	1	134	0.75%
OUE TWIN PEAKS	2351	6	45	463	9.72%
SKYLINE RESIDENCES	2145	6	16	283	5.65%
REGENT RESIDENCES	2086	6	15	180	8.33%
CRADELS	1956	5	9	125	7.20%
LEEDON RESIDENCE	1952	5	22	381	5.77%
SKY HABITAT	1884	5	30	509	5.89%
WOODHAVEN	1879	5	14	337	4.15%

Looking at the newer batch of condos (2010–2015), there’s no obvious pattern to explain why some seem stickier than others. You get a mix of boutique projects, big names, and even some luxury developments, all showing relatively low sales activity and reasonably long holding periods.

But here’s a possibility: maybe some of these owners aren’t staying because they love it. Maybe they’re staying because they can’t afford to leave.

To shed some more light on this, we should look at the proportion of resale transactions that actually made a loss. Because nothing says “sticky” like being trapped by negative equity.

Project	Total Resale To Resale	Total Profitable	Total Unprofitable	Total Breakeven	Proportion Unprofitable
CASA CAMBIO	9	9	0	0	0%
CRADELS	9	9	0	0	0%
CYAN	10	10	0	0	0%
GOODWOOD RESIDENCE	12	12	0	0	0%
GRAND DUCHESS AT ST PATRICK'S	12	12	0	0	0%
LINCOLN SUITES	5	5	0	0	0%
REGENT RESIDENCES	15	15	0	0	0%
ROBIN RESIDENCES	1	1	0	0	0%
THE PEAK@BALMEG	8	8	0	0	0%
LEEDON RESIDENCE	22	21	1	0	5%
CLOVER BY THE PARK	32	30	2	0	6%
DOUBLE BAY RESIDENCES	26	24	2	0	8%
ROCHELLE AT NEWTON	11	10	1	0	9%
CITYSCAPE @FARRER PARK	10	9	1	0	10%
SKY HABITAT	30	27	3	0	10%
SKYLINE RESIDENCES	16	14	2	0	13%
WOODHAVEN	14	12	2	0	14%
QUESTA @ DUNMAN	8	6	2	0	25%
GILSTEAD TWO	3	2	1	0	33%
ZEDGE	9	6	3	0	33%
NEWTON EDGE	8	4	3	1	38%
PARC SOPHIA	15	7	7	1	47%
JARDIN	13	6	7	0	54%
ALTEZ	7	3	4	0	57%
BELLE VUE RESIDENCES	12	3	9	0	75%
OUE TWIN PEAKS	45	3	42	0	93%
MARINA BAY SUITES	2	0	2	0	100%

You can see that there are two clear extremes here.

On one end, you have condos like Goodwood Residence, Cyan, and Grand Duchess at St Patrick’s, where not a single resale transaction has incurred a loss. That’s impressive, and probably explains why so few owners are in a rush to let go.

There are also impressive condos here with pretty clear reasons to stay put. Quality developments like Leedon Residence, Goodwood Residence, and Cyan, close to good schools and located in the coveted District 9, give homeowners little incentive to sell. These are most likely the ones where owners aren’t stuck; they’re just happy to stay.

On the other end, though, you have names like Belle Vue Residences, OUE Twin Peaks, and Marina Bay Suites, where the loss rates are staggering. Marina Bay Suites, in particular, manages a perfect score: 100 per cent of resale transactions recorded a loss. OUE Twin Peaks isn’t far behind at 93 per cent.

So what we’re seeing is two very different kinds of “stickiness.” Half of the condos here had a loss rate below 10 per cent, which suggests genuine owner satisfaction and confidence. 

But THEN, about 37 per cent had a loss rate above Singapore’s average of around 20 per cent. For this batch, I suspect that some owners are simply trapped: unwilling to actualise their loss, and hanging on because it feels better than admitting defeat.

Either way, they’re not selling, but the reason why makes all the difference.

PS: In some sense, we could also say that some of these condos just don’t see many transactions simply because… they’re not that popular. There might be plenty of listings, but not enough buyers to clear them. You see this with units in the CCR like Altez or Marina Bay Suites: the rental yields are decent enough to hold, but unless an owner can find someone willing to pay enough to avoid a loss, they’ll often just keep collecting rent and wait it out. Others, like Jardin, have issues I’ve covered in other articles.

Conclusion:

What this whole exercise really taught me is: just because nobody sells doesn’t mean the condo is a hidden paradise.

Sometimes, people hold on because it really is a good place to live, as I suspect with places like Leedon Residence or Goodwood Residence. These are the projects where schools, space, and prestige make them hard to replace.

But much more often, some owners hold on because they’re waiting for that en‑bloc cheque. 

Or they hold on because it would mean selling at a huge loss, and they are content with just getting rental income instead of crystallising the loss by selling.  So yes, stickiness can mean loyalty, but it can also just mean being stuck.

And now I know better.