This Singapore Condo Has Bigger Units Near The MRT — But Timing Decided Who Made Money

In our previous article, we asked whether ARTRA delivered on its launch promise to owner-occupiers. But our next question is more relevant to investors – who actually made money after owning a unit at ARTRA, and why. 

As we’ll see in this write up, the real price gains realised at ARTRA didn’t occur at the condos TOP. Instead, gains accumulated gradually over the years. Another interesting aspect to this analysis is that certain assumed advantages, such as stack facings, may not have been very beneficial after all. At least not in the face of solid fundamentals like entry price.

In this article, we’ll also see whether ARTRA’s larger units delivered higher gains, and the project’s prospect now that its resale units are priced at the upper range in its district. 

Let’s start by looking at which owners made money, and who didn’t 

To make sense of these results, we need to separate when owners bought and sold, versus what they bought. This is because, as we’ll soon see, the outcome was often more affected by timing than by the type of unit chosen. 

The tables below show how ARTRA’s prices changed from launch, to the period just after TOP*, and finally into today’s resale market. 

*Temporary Occupancy Permit, the point at which you can collect your keys and move in. 

Average $PSF

Average price

Average size (sqft) – based on units transacted

No. of units sold

Across both two- and three-bedroom units, price increases from launch to TOP were relatively modest. This is surprising because in most cases, developer discounts for early buyers should create stronger gains. But it seems that the corresponding units at ARTRA did not experience this strong price bump around the time of its TOP. 

Instead, the stronger price gains came much later in the resale market (see 2020/21 to 2025). At that point, two-bedders saw average prices rise from $1,883 to $2,359 psf, or about 25%. Three-bedders recorded an even larger increase, with average prices climbing from around $1,950 to $2,407 psf, or about 23.5%.  

So while ARTRA didn’t bring fast rewards, it did provide solid gains for those who held on just a few years longer. 

Resale outcomes also differed by unit sizes. 

Over the full period from launch to resale in 2025, three-bedders saw stronger gains than two-bedders, in both $PSF and quantum. We can set aside market timing as a factor here (as we’re tracking both across the same time frame), and conclude that this may reflect a real preference for larger units. This is also substantiated by observations that we’ve heard from agents on the ground, who say that HDB upgraders still make up the largest group of buyers. 

(HDB upgraders are almost always families, and families often consider three-bedders to be the minimum acceptable size. Four-room flats are typically around 990 sq ft, so few want to upgrade to a unit substantially smaller than that.) 

That said, we should note that resale prices in both the 2020/2021 and 2025 periods saw rather low transaction volumes. As such, we do need to consider the results with caution. 

Overall though, entry price and holding period seems to have mattered the most for those who made profits on their units at ARTRA. 

How profitable were the units at ARTRA?

For this section, we’ll separate percentage returns from absolute (real dollar) gains, to derive a clearer sense of profitability. 

We’ll also distinguish between buyers who bought at launch (and hence benefitted from some developer discounts), versus those who entered later via the resale market.

For the table below, we examined all units that have changed hands from launch to date, capturing both early exits and longer-term holds:

Across all transactions, two-bedders and three-bedders delivered broadly similar outcomes in percentage terms. Average ROI for three-bedders came in slightly higher at 27.12%, compared to 24.03% for two-bedders. The holding period was not too significant here, as we can see they’re all clustered around the same 5.4 to 5.5 years for both unit types.

In absolute gains though, we see how big the difference truly is. The three-bedders generated an average profit of more than half a million dollars per unit ($552,000), versus $339,000 for two-bedders. 

New sale to sub sale and resale

Sub sale/ resale to resale

When we look only at new sale to resale / sub sale, the average ROI for both unit sizes remains close, with three-bedders maintaining a slight edge. Holding periods are also broadly comparable.

There were also few transactions involving resale purchase followed by a resale exit – these only happened among two-bedders. Within this limited sample, average ROI was broadly in line with new sale to sub sale / resale transactions; the only difference is that it was achieved over a shorter holding period.

But given the small number of transactions, it is not a conclusive result and we shouldn’t read too much into this. 

How did different stacks affect gains at ARTRA?

2-bedroom units

There are two unit sizes for the two-bedders at ARTRA, 786 sq ft and 829 sq ft. Both are 2 + study units, and share the same MRT-facing orientation. This controls for two major pricing variables: layout type and facing. This allows us to observe differences across stacks with fewer variables. 

However, one clear difference is holding period. Stack 5, which recorded the lowest average ROI, also has the shortest average holding period at about 4.6 years. By contrast, the stronger-performing stacks generally show longer holding periods, clustered around 5.7 to just over six years. 

Since all these stacks face the same direction, the differences in ROI are unlikely to be driven by orientation.

The more useful question is whether these differences were already present at launch? This means to say, did the developer price some of these stacks higher than others, to begin with?

To check this, we compared the average new sale $PSF for each stack, versus the prices they later fetched in the subsale and resale market. And if so, we’ll see if subsequent resale prices justified any premiums. 

Back at launch, average $PSF across the two-bedder stacks fell within a narrow range of $1,811 to $1,843 psf. This suggests the developer didn’t implement any real price difference. Prices stayed within a relatively tight band, from about $2,131 to $2,259 $PSF, at sub sale and resale. 

Taken together, this indicates that the variation in ROI is more likely driven by differences in holding period and timing, rather than by launch pricing or any inherently “better or worse” stack. 

3-bedroom units

ARTRA’s three-bedders see greater price differentiation than its two-bedders, when it comes to stack selection. 

Stack 1, which comprises the largest three-bedder layouts, recorded the lowest average ROI. It also had the shortest average holding period. This could be because units face the upcoming BTO cluster which impedes views. They are also more likely to be affected by construction-related noise and dust during the holding period, which may have influenced resale outcomes.

Stacks 2 and 8 recorded the highest average ROI and also had the longest average holding periods. Stack 2 faces the MRT station, while stack 8 faces Ascentia Sky. Whilst not inherently great as a view, they still have a more open view compared to the other stacks. 

Regardless, with the three-bedders as well as the two-bedders, we notice that ROI improves with longer holding periods. So once again, this confirms our theory that timing and holding period played a larger role in shaping returns, when it comes to ARTRA. 

As with the two-bedders, we need to see whether differences in ROI were already embedded at launch. So we again compare the average new sale $PSF against the sub sale / resale $PSF across the different stacks. 

For the three-bedders, the developer had a wider spread than for two-bedder stacks. 

Average launch $PSF ranged from about $1,660 to $1,806 psf. Stack 1, which ultimately recorded the lowest average ROI, also entered at the lowest launch $PSF. The low $PSF is because the units are large (1,410 sq ft), and bigger units tend to have a lower $PSF to keep the quantum manageable. 

By the resale stage, $PSF across most stacks fell within a narrow price band, of about $2,257 to $2,341 psf. Stack 1 remained the outlier, transacting at an average of about $2,042 $PSF, around $200 to $300 psf below the stronger-performing stacks. Its facing towards the upcoming BTO cluster may have weighed on resale pricing relative to the others.

Stacks 2 and 8 present a useful contrast. At launch, they were priced at moderate $PSF levels, lower than the smaller three-bedders in Stacks 9, 10, and 11. By resale, though, they achieved the highest average $PSF, aligning with their stronger ROI outcomes over time.

This suggests that, while unit size played a role in launch pricing, resale performance was more about entry price, facing, and holding period rather than size alone.

How does ARTRA’s performance compare to its neighbours?

Comparing ARTRA against its neighbours helps us understand whether its price growth is simply from wider market gains, or whether it’s genuinely outperforming the nearby competition. 

For the purposes of this comparison, we’ll focus solely on sub sale and resale transactions. This will prevent distortions from developer discounts. 

These are the neighbouring projects around ARTRA:

ARTRA is the newest development among its immediate neighbours and records the highest average $PSF in 2025. In absolute terms, it also sits near the top of the price range, with the second-highest average quantum; this is due to its larger units. 

Principal Garden stands out as a strong competing alternative. It’s the second-youngest project in the area, offers lower average $PSF, lower entry prices, and a less dense living environment.

We’ll compare the performance of ARTRA to its neighbours by looking at specific unit sizes

2-bedroom units

Average $PSF and price based on sub sale/ resale transactions done in 2025

In 2025, ARTRA’s two-bedders were the second most expensive in the area. Their average two-bedder size is notably larger than those in newer developments such as Principal Garden, Alex Residences, and Echelon.

Relative to Principal Garden, which ranks as the third most expensive project in the area, ARTRA’s two-bedders are much pricier by over $130,000. This is a substantial price gap. The factors likely include ARTRA’s mixed-use configuration and closer proximity to the MRT. 

How have prices in neighbouring condos moved since ARTRA’s launch?

To compare, we’ll look at all transaction types including new sales, sub sales, and resales. As before, we’ll look at both $PSF and actual quantum. We’ll start with the two-bedder units:

Average $PSF (sorted by lowest to highest annualised growth rate)

Average price (sorted by % change from low to high)

From launch to 2025, ARTRA’s two-bedders recorded the third-highest annualised $PSF growth. 

Note that at launch in 2017, ARTRA’s average new-sale $PSF sat below that of Alex Residences, The Crest, and Echelon. This was partly because 2017 was the tail-end of a down market, and developers priced lower. This lower initial price point provided room for stronger growth: By 2025, ARTRA had closed the price gaps and emerged at the top of the group.

Over the same period, the average quantum of ARTRA’s two-bedders increased by more than 37%, placing it fourth in percentage growth. What matters is that several newer developments, that also entered the market around similar or lower price points in 2017, saw weaker quantum growth. This suggests that ARTRA’s price gains are not solely because of market conditions at launch. 

The strongest annualised growth rates and quantum increases were generally observed among older projects in the area. This is expected, as the older projects tend to be larger and have a lower $PSF. This isn’t specific to this location though – older and larger condos have a perennial appeal to buyers who prioritise space over age. 

Now let’s look at the three-bedders:

For three-bedders, ARTRA had the second-highest average $PSF in 2025, and the third-highest quantum. Interestingly, its average size is smaller than most neighbouring developments, and it’s somewhere in the middle of the pack. 

ARTRA’s unique selling point when it launched was having larger and more spacious units compared to typical new projects back then. This was relevant to other condos launched in its same time period; not to its older neigbours. 

When compared with Ascentia Sky and Principal Garden, which sit above ARTRA on average price, the quantum gap is  narrow – about $25,000 to $43,000. Ascentia Sky’s higher pricing is accompanied by a substantially larger average unit size though, while Principal Garden’s average size is broadly comparable to ARTRA’s.

While we’d usually handwave such a small price difference, it could be more significant to ARTRA given its “larger units” value proposition. 

Nonetheless, ARTRA’s pricing for three-bedders is competitive within the local context. It just needs to be noted that its offering of larger units is contextual, and it doesn’t in fact offer the largest units in this cluster. 

Next, let’s look at how prices of neighbouring projects have moved:

Average $PSF (sorted by lowest to highest annualised growth rate)

Average price (sorted by % change from low to high)

From launch in 2017 to 2025, ARTRA’s three-bedders recorded the third-highest annualised $PSF growth. Several nearby developments were already transacting at higher average $PSF and higher absolute prices at launch, which likely made ARTRA an attractive option at the time.

By 2025 though, that gap had closed. ARTRA’s three-bedders now ranked second in average $PSF, behind only Principal Garden. In absolute terms, ARTRA’s average three-bedder price increased by about 51% over this period, placing it fourth. This puts it among the stronger performers.

What stands out is that larger unit size did not automatically translate into stronger growth. Some neighbours with bigger three-bedders recorded lower annualised $PSF growth and weaker price appreciation. Entry pricing and layout efficiency may have played a larger role. 

There’s also a broader pattern where older developments tended to achieve stronger growth in both $PSF and absolute prices; but this is similar to what we pointed out earlier. It’s due to their lower entry prices (due to age), coupled with some buyers who value spaciousness over a newer condo. 

Principal Garden is the exception here: despite being a relatively young project, it recorded price growth comparable to ARTRA, while offering similar average unit sizes. This makes it ARTRA’s closest comparison project in the area.

As the newest project in its area, ARTRA, now commands among the highest average $PSF in the area, with absolute prices near the top of the price range in its locale. Both its two- and three-bedders have closed early launch-era price gaps and overtaken several neighbouring projects. 

Note: With no five-bedders transacted on the secondary market here, there’s no data to assess price movements for that unit size at ARTRA.

Now we can compare floor plans between ARTRA and its nearest alternative, Principal Garden 

Both projects offer two-bedders in multiple sizes. The 786 sq ft unit shown here is the smallest two-bedder at ARTRA, and is among the smaller two-bedders at Principal Garden.