In this Stacked Pro breakdown:
- We compared resale gains across sea-facing and landed-facing units at Seaside Residences
- Some sea-view stacks sold at a launch premium, but did they actually deliver better returns in the resale market?
- See how unit type, floor level, and view premiums played out across real 1- to 4-bedder transactions
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
Does it matter to your resale gains, if your condo has a waterfront view, inward-facing view, greenery view, etc.? This is one of the most common questions we’re faced with, and it’s not viable to give a universal answer. It really boils down to the condo in question. So in this series on different views and the impact on pricing, we’re going to examine different projects on a standalone basis; and this week we’re focusing on Seaside Residences.
A profile of Seaside Residences
Seaside Residences is a leasehold condo that was completed quite recently, in 2021. It’s located at 10 Siglap Link, placing it in District 15. This 841-unit condo makes a good case study, as it’s both sizeable and has notably different facings:
There are 27 blocks in this project, and all the units have an outward facing. But notice that some units have a view of East Coast Beach, whilst some units have a view of the landed enclave along Marine Parade Road, in the direction of Victoria School.
2 Comments
Great article. Agree that looks like sea view performed better, with a premium for higher floors. However, there’s a critical mistake in your article, Stack 31 does NOT have a private lift whereas Stack 29 does. This might mean we need to flip your conclusion. The CORRECT conclusion is therefore that private lifts seem to lead to a higher return.
p.s. The source of the stack info can be found here on page 33: https://www.orangetee.com/workahome/ProjectLaunch/ProjectImages/141/sea.pdf
Hi Germaine, thanks for catching that (and for being patient while we got it sorted). You’re right, we mixed up Stack 29 and Stack 31 regarding the private lift in the data, and that threw us off. That’s on us. We’ve fixed it in the article, and there’s now a correction note to make it clear.
I know it’s frustrating when something like that slips through, especially when you’ve taken the trouble to point it out. We should’ve acknowledged it sooner instead of leaving you hanging, so that part’s on us too.
Appreciate you holding us to a higher standard; it keeps us transparent and focused.