Our alternative housing proposals are missing a few steps.
I’m talking about the election, and the proposals from different parties that are going around. Some of these are quite surprising to me. Case in point: the proposal to make every housing estate eligible for the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).
SERS is a very expensive programme, which involves not only buying back the flat, but also providing a replacement unit with a fresh lease; and this doesn’t count other forms of support and compensation. To stretch something intended for just five per cent of estates to 100 per cent would be enormous (not to mention kick resale prices into overdrive, since lease decay would become virtually meaningless).
There are also a lot of policies that involve excluding land costs. I am aware of the argument that, because HDB really just pays SLA for the land, it might be fair to exclude this cost for buyers. (Take from one pocket, put into the other, as the coffee shop uncles complain.)
One of these proposals suggests that the land costs be paid only when the owner chooses to sell it on the secondary market. But that’s still a hit to government coffers, as the money for the land comes much later (if at all), and in the meantime, we’re denied funds that could be going toward education, healthcare, upgrading older estates, etc.
I’m not deriding the alternative ideas, mind you; I even like some of them in concept. What nags me is the incomplete nature of the proposals. Some are built on the assumption that we have a nigh-infinite mountain of wealth, which will fund all of these programmes with no trade-offs.
But our coffers, sizeable though they are, are meant to support essentials like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, not just subsidise nicer flats for everyone. Healthcare in our rapidly ageing society is a valid one (unlike our obsession with covered walkways - enough already.) We also need to consider other issues, such as with a low birth rate, a time will come when many flats will be vacant and passed down; so, rampant overbuilding leads to problems later.
So while these new ideas on housing are great, I do wish they came with instructions attached so to speak - detailed explanations of not just the policy, but on how we’ll pay for them, how we can roll them out, and what we’re giving up in exchange for it (because it’s never free.)
I still think we need to talk about the normalisation of dual-income families, in light of all this
Some of you may have heard this rant before, so I’ll keep it short. I think we really need to look at single-wage-to-home-costs. We’ve transitioned from a time when sole breadwinners could afford a flat with relative ease to a situation where dual-income is almost expected. The majority of homeowners I talk to now tell me that, if they or their spouse were to stop working, they’d need to downgrade.
If we’re going to talk about affordable housing, we can start by looking more deeply into this. If our wages have “kept up” with home prices solely because we normalised dual-income families, the affordability may be a little less than the numbers suggest.
So, as a parting thought on this: do I believe housing is affordable in Singapore? For the most part, yes. Do I believe housing is becoming less affordable? Also yes.
The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
Meanwhile in other property news…
- 2025 is rough, and housing options have narrowed a bit - but if you’re looking at your first home or getting worried about the cost, calm down. Here are some reasons it’s not as bad as it seems.
- Buying six to 12 months earlier can sometimes translate to around a 150 per cent difference in gains. That’s from actual data found in a mega-development (Treasure at Tampines), so check out the case study.
- I love walk-ups too, but don’t ignore the shops downstairs. They can shape future demand - or sometimes just add way too much noise.
- Do one-bedder condos really perform better in prime areas, as the old saying suggests? We took a deep dive into eight years’ worth of transactions, to find the answer.
Weekly Sales Roundup (21 April - 27 April)
The challenge for many buyers today isn't access to information.
It's interpreting that information in a way that makes sense for their finances, goals, and stage of life.
Over time, that's also why we decided to work with agents who shared the same data-driven and advisory-led approach behind our editorial, consultants who could help readers think through decisions more objectively, rather than simply push transactions.
Today, the team has worked with more than 2,000 clients across over $5B in property transactions.
Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| 21 ANDERSON | $21,593,170 | 4489 | $4,811 | FH |
| PINETREE HILL | $3,987,000 | 1464 | $2,724 | 99 yrs (2022) |
| ARDOR RESIDENCE | $3,809,520 | 1518 | $2,510 | FH |
| THE ORIE | $3,758,000 | 1453 | $2,586 | 99 yrs (2024) |
| BLOSSOMS BY THE PARK | $3,730,000 | 1507 | $2,475 | 99 yrs (2022) |
Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| ONE MARINA GARDENS | $1,251,638 | 431 | $2,907 | 99 years |
| LUMINA GRAND | $1,422,000 | 936 | $1,518 | 99 yrs (2022) |
| NOVO PLACE | $1,484,000 | 883 | $1,681 | 99 years |
| BLOOMSBURY RESIDENCES | $1,552,000 | 646 | $2,403 | 99 years |
| LENTOR CENTRAL RESIDENCES | $1,693,000 | 678 | $2,497 | 99 yrs (2023) |
Top 5 Most Expensive Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| FOUR SEASONS PARK | $9,800,000 | 2874 | $3,410 | FH |
| THE WHARF RESIDENCE | $8,500,000 | 4446 | $1,912 | 999 yrs (1841) |
| CUSCADEN RESERVE | $6,890,000 | 2099 | $3,283 | 99 yrs (2018) |
| BEAVERTON COURT | $5,950,000 | 3122 | $1,906 | FH |
| THE GRANGE | $5,000,000 | 1765 | $2,832 | FH |
Top 5 Cheapest Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| ISUITES @ MARSHALL | $712,800 | 355 | $2,007 | FH |
| SMART SUITES | $716,888 | 452 | $1,586 | FH |
| CENTRAL IMPERIAL | $718,000 | 549 | $1,308 | FH |
| SOL ACRES | $735,000 | 495 | $1,484 | 99 yrs (2014) |
| JOOL SUITES | $750,000 | 409 | $1,834 | FH |
Top 5 Biggest Winners
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| 21 ANDERSON | $21,593,170 | 4489 | $4,811 | $19,041,170 | 18 Years |
| BOTANIC GARDENS VIEW | $3,140,000 | 1259 | $2,493 | $2,160,000 | 26 Years |
| ONE AMBER | $3,320,000 | 1453 | $2,285 | $2,115,930 | 16 Years |
| WINDY HEIGHTS | $3,158,000 | 2476 | $1,276 | $1,988,000 | 28 Years |
| THE WATERINA | $2,700,000 | 1335 | $2,023 | $1,960,000 | 20 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| UP@ROBERTSON QUAY | $985,000 | 463 | $2,128 | -$298,000 | 12 Years |
| ONE SHENTON | $2,880,000 | 1593 | $1,808 | -$146,700 | 11 Years |
| 1919 | $1,190,000 | 635 | $1,874 | -$125,000 | 7 Years |
| THE SAIL @ MARINA BAY | $1,708,000 | 883 | $1,935 | -$58,000 | 18 Years |
| PINETREE HILL | $3,987,000 | 1464 | $2,724 | $0 | 0 Years |
Transaction Breakdown
At Stacked, we like to look beyond the headlines and surface-level numbers, and focus on how things play out in the real world.
If you'd like to discuss how this applies to your own circumstances, 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