News

and Whistler Grand are just across the road from each other; so even back when they were launched in 2018, comparisons between the two were common. Now that it’s 2024, it’s time we took a look at how the two have performed, and see if previous assumptions have held. Here’s how it’s looking for both West Vale condos right now: Both Twin VEW and Whistler Grand were launched in 2018, and are roughly the same age (Twin Vew was finished in 2021, while Whistler Grand was completed in 2022). Twin VEW’s first sale was on 4th May 2018, whilst Whistler Grand’s first sale was on 2nd November 2018; a mostly negligible age difference.  Both are 99-year leasehold condos. Twin VEW is the smaller of the two, at 520 units, while Whistler Grand is larger at 716 units. As they’re so close, there’s little differentiation in terms of location; Twin VEW is a bit closer to the Pandan River (and was marketed more heavily on the waterfront view), while Whistler Grand does benefit from a more established developer in Singapore, at least. That said, for their first maiden project Twin VEW certainly received a very favourable response. Twin VEW’s land price was $292 million, or about $591.50 psf. The estimated breakeven price for the developer was around $1,065 psf (based on Squarefoot Research). The initial developer prices ranged between $1,332.50 psf to $1,513.80 psf, with an average of $1,400 psf. 2018 was a down period for the wider market, but prices did pick up quite well through to the first sub sale units. Between 2018 to 2023: If we were to look only at profit margins, we’d see an average gain of around 18.91 per cent: Four-bedders were the main winners here, perhaps partly due to HDB upgraders being such a strong buyer demographic since 2018, and the preference for bigger units since the pandemic. In any case, a return of close to 19 per cent is solid for a holding period of just four years, especially in light of cooling measures maintaining downward pressure on the market.  Overall, there’s no particular facing that stands out for having the best gains: The “best facing” stacks have a profit margin that is comparable to the wider average for Twin VEW (which may also mean the closer proximity to the Pandan River hasn’t made a huge difference). To put it in a more visual form, here’s what happens when we compare floor to profit: The slight downtrend suggests the lower floors might have better profits (possibly due to lower initial costs). But note that there are some outliers, such as the abnormally low 7.9 per cent profit margin for a single unit on the 33rd floor – this may slightly skew the results. However, even removing it doesn’t make a huge change, and the trend seems similar: Whistler Grand had a land price of $472.4 million, which comes to a price of about $800 psf. This is more than a third (35 per cent) higher than what was paid for Twin VEW, and the estimated breakeven price was accordingly higher at $1,314 psf. But here’s an interesting twist: Despite the higher breakeven price, the average developer price for Whistler Grand was just $1,357 psf, lower than Twin VEW’s $1,400 psf. But this could be due to Whistler Grand launching about half a year later than Twin VEW, and catching up by slightly undercutting its neighbour. It was quite a bold move, as CDL was selling for cheaper, despite paying more for the land price. Let’s contrast this with Twin VEW. For ease of comparison, we’ve tabled the price differences between Twin VEW and Whistler Grand: Notice that between the two, Twin VEW – at the time of launch – had a price premium of $171,924 over Whistler Grand. Profits are quite strong, averaging around 26.9 per cent after a holding period of just under three years.  For convenience, we took the profits from Twin VEW (see above), and just tabled the differences in profits: This clearly puts Whistler Grand in the lead, with its buyers making around 42 per cent more than Twin VEW. Whistler Grand saw better returns across units of all sizes – and given that most had a slightly shorter holding period, this would further raise the respective ROI for some buyers. The stacks facing Botannia, as well as the ones with a pool facing, were generally more profitable: We noticed that, for the stacks facing Botannia, the four-bedders were the most profitable unit types; and for the pool-facing units, the transactions were larger four-bedders. So as we mentioned above, it may be due to HDB upgraders looking for larger condo units; this suggests unit sizes and layouts, rather than stack facings, are responsible for better gains. Whistler Grand showed a similar trend to Twin VEW, in this particular comparison: There is the same downward trendline we saw in Twin VEW: Again, we see that lower floor units seem to have better chances for higher profit. As with Twin Vew, this may be due to lower prices – and more room for appreciation – compared to high-floor units. While both projects launched at the same time, Whistler Grand just seems to have been better priced from the start. In terms of developer comparisons, CDL may also have an edge in this neighbourhood: consider that nearby Botannia (built in 2006) was also a CDL project, as is Hundred Trees just around a kilometre down the road (built in 2013). For more condo comparisons in the Singapore property market, follow us on . We also provide in-depth reviews of new and resale properties.