Are New Launch Condos Really Getting Cheaper in 2025? The Truth Isn’t What You Think

On paper, the answer is just a straight yes. But due to confusion involving things like GFA harmonisation and actual increased affordability in prime districts, this has become a very loaded question to answer. It’s not that property agents or other industry players want to bamboozle you – it’s just that the current stewpot of factors makes any honest answer a bit of a headache. Especially if you’re new to the property market, and have several years of policy changes and shifting trends to catch up on. In light of that, we’re going to try and answer this question with the nuance and clarity that will be of use to you:

And with so much going on beneath the surface (from harmonised GFA to shifting quantum expectations) it’s no surprise many buyers feel unsure about what’s genuinely good value. If you want to know what “more affordable” or “smaller” really means in today’s context reach out here and we’ll connect you with a trusted partner agent who can help you make sense of it all.

The answer to the question is yes, but often not in the ways that you think

The main issues that can confuse you are the following:

• Units can be smaller on paper, but not in practical reality 
• Layout efficiency matters more than sheer square footage 
• Condos can be pricier in $PSF, but cheaper in reality
• Projects in prime regions may feel more affordable 

1. Units can be smaller on paper, but not in practical reality

When buyers say homes are “getting smaller,” it’s worth asking: smaller how? Because in some cases, today’s units look smaller on paper but may not be less livable.

Ever since Gross Floor Area (GFA) harmonisation, condos have lost around six to eight per cent of their square footage on average. This isn’t due to actual physical reductions in space – it’s just that developers can no longer add air-con ledges, strata void areas, or other unlivable areas to the unit’s given area. 

Take River Green, one of the most prominent 2025 CCR launches. On paper, the sizes look almost shockingly compact: the most common configuration, the two-bedder, starts from just 527 sq ft, while its four-bedders come in at under 1,000 sq ft. 

But River Green is a post-GFA harmonisation project. That means its floor areas no longer include non-livable elements like air-con ledges, planter boxes, or voids. In practice, you’re paying only for what you can actually live in. And thanks to tighter layouts and non-PPVC construction (which allows walls to be reconfigured), River Green still manages to deliver homes within these smaller footprints. Make no mistake, some compromises could be a deal-breaker for some (such as smaller bedrooms that can only fit in a single bed), but the overall layout can still be functional enough for day-to-day living. 

Compare that to older projects like Tribeca or Mirage Tower, where a larger “size” on paper masks how much square footage is wasted on corridors, oversized balconies, or ledges. 

We can also see the effect unfolding in other projects, over time: The Tapestry managed to squeeze three bedrooms into 990 sq ft, but much of that was eaten up by large air-con ledges. Fast forward to Lentor Modern  – also 990 sq ft – and you not only get three bedrooms, but an additional flexi-room. By 2024, Emerald of Katong could fit three bedrooms plus a study into roughly the same 990 sq ft.

This leads us to our next issue: 

2. Layout efficiency matters more than sheer square footage 

It’s tempting to compare homes by sheer size: a 1,200 sq ft unit built 20 years ago sounds like it must be better than an 850 sq ft new launch. But in practice, it’s not just about the square footage; it’s about how those square feet are used.

Take the 8@BT two-bedder (732 sq ft). Instead of the usual cramped corridor-led layout, it uses a parallel living and dining configuration, creating a wide frontage that lets in more natural light. The kitchen is a proper U-shaped nook that respects cooking workflow, and the household shelter doubles as a handy storeroom right next to it. This is a compact unit that still functions as a real family home.

Even in the OCR, the Canberra Crescent Residences three-bedder (990 sq ft) shows how much flexibility can be packed into a sub-1,000 sq ft home: wet and dry kitchens, a foyer, and a study that can be absorbed into either dining or kitchen space.

But here’s the sticky part: personal tastes can mean rejecting these efficiencies

Some traditionalists dislike dumbbell layouts, where bedrooms flank the living space. It’s space-saving, but it also merges social and private life: a noisy TV in the living room can easily disturb the adjacent bedrooms. Open-concept kitchens look sleek and make units feel bigger, but if you cook heavily, the smells and grease are a long-term annoyance. Even popular features like Jack and Jill bathrooms divide opinion – some love the versatility, while others feel it compromises privacy.

So for buyers who prefer the older layouts, all of this seems like a pointless abstraction. At their current square footage, newer units can’t accommodate older layouts with corridors, larger wet kitchens, etc. Efficiency won’t save these buyers.

3. Condos can be pricier in $PSF, but cheaper in reality

Buyers often focus on $PSF as the headline number, and at first glance, it looks like condos are getting more expensive. Post-GFA harmonisation, that number could look even more absurd across the board, since there are fewer square feet to divvy up the total price (quantum). 

But the part that matters most to your wallet isn’t $PSF. Quantum is what really counts, because it’s the number that determines your loan financing, and the figure on which stamp duties are pegged. It is in every sense the real amount you pay, whereas $PSF is an abstraction. 

Look at Promenade Peak, a 63-storey project that’s the highest in the area, is purely residential, and has what’s likely to be an iconic rooftop infinity pool.

Its $PSF is high, ranging from about $2,680 to $3,300, which puts it alongside the most premium projects. But then look at the total price: its one-bedder starts from just $1.4 million, and its three-bedders start at $2.7 million. 

Consider that it’s a new launch, and those prices are sometimes lower than even older CCR condos. 

This same dynamic plays out elsewhere. At Canberra Crescent Residences, $PSF hovers near $2,000, which sounds steep for the OCR. Yet compact one- and two-bedders there still transact below $1 million, a threshold that many upgraders fixate on as their limit. 

This is why you sometimes hear agents pitch the idea that, for practical purposes, projects are not getting pricier. The argument is that they’re cheaper because the headline price is within reach of more buyers.

The trade-off is obvious: you are getting less space. Some buyers may decry this as deceitful, pointing out that a $1.4 million one-bedder is only “cheaper” if you ignore the fact that it is smaller than its predecessors. We can certainly empathise with this point of view as well, but from the quick sales at launches, it seems the lower quantum is what matters.

In the end, it brings buyers because it keeps prices at something they can manage; and in an area many never thought they could afford. This leads to altered perceptions of the CCR:

4. Projects in prime regions may feel more affordable 

Some of the newest launches in the Core Central Region (CCR) can feel more affordable today than their predecessors. 

Part of this is policy-driven. After ABSD rates for foreigners hit 60 per cent in 2023, overseas buyers largely pulled out of the CCR. This left developers catering more to Singaporeans and PRs, who are far more price sensitive. Instead of massive four- and five-bedders aimed at the ultra-wealthy, we are now seeing compact two-bedders and 2+1 layouts marketed directly to local families.

Projects like River Green and Skye at Holland illustrate the shift: both are plugged into MRT stations and lifestyle amenities; but since the affluent investors are gone, the developers had to lean extra-hard into… let’s say more “mass market” appeal. It shows in the numbers: developers now try to keep units within the $1.8 to $2.5 million comfort zone, even in the CCR. 

This means quantums are sometimes lower than in older luxury launches, even if $PSF is higher. The result is that buyers who once dismissed the CCR as “for foreigners only” are now walking into show flats and finding two-bedders within their budget.

Of course, the downside is obvious: those units are smaller than what families may be used to, and it remains uncertain how these compact CCR homes will fare on the resale market. But it does leave the strange and unexpected twist of CCR transactions being lower than in the past, at least by quantum. 

So to answer the question with the clarity it deserves:

Yes, projects are getting cheaper, but mostly in terms of quantum and not $PSF. Also, due to the entrenched ideas of the CCR, the idea that projects are getting cheaper can feel a lot stronger in prime areas; simply because for the first time, we’re seeing numbers that appear plausible to the average Singaporean. 

This appearance of “cheapness” is far less pronounced in heartland areas, where, in fact, the perception may be the exact opposite. Canberra Crescent Residences, for instance, has struck some as being too expensive for what should be a cheaper area. Some buyers are still shocked by $2,000+ psf pricing in what’s essentially a non-mature town.

Then there’s the issue of size: if sheer square footage matters a lot to you, then you’ll probably consider the idea of condos being “cheap” to be delusional – it’s just a trick caused by size reduction. 

But if you’re the kind who’s focused simply on total price and affordability, you may feel it’s fair to utter the controversial words “not expensive.” 

As to getting smaller, the disagreement is one of degrees

Units are getting smaller, but how much smaller is the key concern. Some might shrug off the lost square footage, feeling that layout efficiency is enough to compensate for this (while also being pleased that only usable floor space is being charged). 

Others will point out that today’s two-bedders, at around 600 sq ft, were practically one-bedders in their day; and that three-bedders today (around 900 sq ft) are smaller than some 4-room flats. 

To this group, conversations about “efficiency” are just empty sophistry, and they’ll say it’s just too small, end of conversation.

So are new launches really cheaper and smaller in 2025? Yes, but mostly in quantum, not $PSF. And smaller, but not always in livability. 

Whether that feels affordable or cramped depends on what you value more: the size of your home, or the size of your mortgage