The Site Is Expensive, Central, and Very Clearly Meant To Become A Premium Residential Project
Located in Singapore’s prime District 9, immediately off Scotts Road and adjacent to the Newton MRT interchange, the Peck Hay Road GLS parcel comprises 5,513.5 sq m of land with a maximum permissible GFA of 27,017 sq m under a 99-year leasehold tenure. The site was awarded to CDL Constellation Pte. Ltd. and Garden Estates (Pte.) Limited following a winning bid of S$542.4 million, comfortably ahead of the three other submissions received.
The land economics are substantial from the outset. With a maximum GFA of 27,017 sq m over a 5,513.5 sq m site, the implied plot ratio is approximately 4.90. In square-foot terms, this gives about 290,808 sq ft of allowable GFA. Based on the winning bid, the land cost works out to roughly S$1,865 psf ppr, which is the square-foot equivalent of the tendered S$20,076.25 per sq m of GFA. Even before adding construction costs, financing expenses, marketing fees and developer margin, the land price already sets a high cost base for the future project.
The size of the bid also points to a deliberate, conviction-led land acquisition. At S$542.4 million, the winning offer was around 8.4% higher than the second-place bid of S$500.19 million. For a core central GLS site, that is a notable margin, particularly given the large quantum involved. It suggests that the winning consortium was pricing in a premium future selling price, rather than simply edging out competitors with a narrow top bid.
Key Metric Figures and Why They Matter
| Key metric | Details | Why It Matters |
| Site area | 5,513.5 sq m | Compact but still large enough for a substantial urban condo scheme. |
| Maximum GFA | 27,017 sq m | Sets the project’s economic ceiling and implied density. |
| Lease | 99 years | Standard private GLS tenure rather than freehold luxury stock. |
| Top bid | S$542.4 million | High absolute land outlay for a single residential plot. |
| Land rate | S$20,076.25 psm GFA | Equivalent to about S$1,865 psf ppr. |
| Bid premium over second place | 8.4% | Implies real conviction on future sell-through pricing. |
What does the PSF PPR Mean Here, and Why Does it Set A Very High Pricing Floor
For Peck Hay Road, PSF PPR represents the land cost for every buildable square foot permitted under the planning parameters. Since the maximum GFA is clearly defined, the land cost calculation is straightforward: the winning consortium paid approximately S$1,865 psf ppr before accounting for construction, financing, professional fees, marketing costs, or profit margin.
The more important question is how this translates into a saleable area. Developers do not sell GFA directly to buyers; they sell strata floor area. Assuming a typical saleable efficiency of 78% to 82%, the land cost alone would rise to approximately S$2,275 to S$2,391 psf on a saleable-area basis. Viewed through this lens, Peck Hay Road is unlikely to be priced like a standard prime condo project.
In a simplified development model, land could already account for around 70% of total pre-margin cost if non-land development costs are assumed at about S$950 to S$1,000 psf saleable. This creates a firm pricing floor for the future project, where any increase in construction costs, financing expenses, or design inefficiencies would quickly push up the required average selling price.
| Assumed sale efficiency | Implied land cost on saleable area |
| 82% | S$2,275 psf saleable |
| 80% | S$2,331 psf saleable |
| 78% | S$2,391 psf saleable |
The key takeaway is clear: the land cost is already high enough to require a premium positioning for the future Newton/Scotts Road development. Given the price paid for the site, a mid-market or ordinary product would be difficult to justify on commercial grounds.
The planning documents point toward a highly landscaped, split-massing scheme rather than a generic city condo
The technical conditions are unusually revealing about what the final development is likely to feel like. The site is strictly for residential use; the allowable housing types are condominiums and flats, while serviced apartments are expressly prohibited. The documents also prescribe two height zones: a mid-rise zone of up to 90m SHD fronting Scotts Road and a high-rise zone of up to 145m SHD fronting Anthony Road. That strongly suggests a split-massing solution rather than one blunt wall of apartments along the entire parcel.
The greenery requirements are also heavy for such a high-value urban site. The successful tenderer must provide Landscape Replacement Areas (LRS) equal to 40% of the site area, with at least 35% of the site area as on-ground greenery. On the site’s dimensions, that works out to about 2,205.4 sq m of landscape replacement area and about 1,929.7 sq m of minimum on-ground greenery. In addition, the Scotts Road boundary fence must be set back from the green buffer so that the greenery is visible to the street. This typically pushes a project toward a more manicured, high-end frontage rather than a hard-edged urban podium.
The transport and access requirements further reinforce this premium-development narrative. Vehicular ingress and egress are to come from the proposed Peck Hay Road extension, not directly from Scotts Road, and the developer must also undertake road works, relocate a bus stop, widen Anthony Road, and construct multiple covered linkways and footpaths that improve pedestrian connectivity to the Environment Building and Newton MRT Exit B. When the tender packet indicates that the public realm work is this extensive, it is usually because the authority wants the development to function as part of a larger premium urban upgrade, rather than as a standalone condo plot.
There is one more subtle but important design constraint: façades or rooftops with external vistas toward the south and east from 44m SHD onwards are subject to security screening assessment. That does not make the project unworkable, but it can affect façade design, balcony treatment, rooftop programming, and stack planning. On a site where land costs are already very high, every such design constraint matters because it can erode efficiency.
| Technical Documentation Requirement | What It Means Commercially |
| Residential only; serviced apartments not allowed. | The product will be a pure private residential play rather than a serviced-apartment hybrid. |
| 90m SHD along Scotts Road, 145m SHD along Anthony Road. | Likely split-massing with the taller premium blocks deeper into the site or toward Anthony Road. |
| 40% LRA and 35% on-ground greenery. | Strongly landscaped character, which supports premium positioning but adds design discipline. |
| Fence behind externalised Scotts Road green buffer. | Better street presence and arrival experience, less “hard urban edge.” |
| Basements allowed to the site boundary; service areas encouraged below grade. | Cleaner above-ground site plan, which is typical of more upscale projects. |
| Access via the proposed Peck Hay Road extension; covered linkways and bus stop works are required. | Better public access and MRT connectivity, but also higher external works cost. |
| Screening assessment from 44m SHD for some outward views. | Potential design complexity for certain upper-level stacks and rooftop treatments. |
The Most Plausible Product Is Not Ultra-Boutique, But It Is Probably Not A Tiny-Unit Mass Launch Either
The site is unlikely to be developed as a low-density boutique project. Its land cost is simply too high, while the allowable development quantum is too substantial to underutilise. Under the technical conditions, the developer must build at least 24,315 sq m of GFA and may go up to 27,017 sq m. This means the minimum GFA is only about 10% below the maximum. With a land price of S$542.4 million, leaving a meaningful amount of GFA unused would be commercially difficult to justify. Unless site constraints materially affect design efficiency, the developer is likely to build close to the permitted GFA ceiling.
Assuming the full GFA is utilised and saleable efficiency is around 80%, the project could yield approximately 232,647 sq ft of saleable area. This provides a useful framework for estimating unit count. A 300-unit scheme would imply an average unit size of around 775 sq ft. At 340 units, the average falls to about 684 sq ft. At 360 units, it would be around 646 sq ft, while a 380-unit scheme would bring the average down to about 612 sq ft. The last scenario may feel too compact for a premium Newton/Scotts Road development, especially given the site’s landscaping and positioning requirements. Conversely, a 300-unit scheme may be too low to optimise such an expensive land acquisition.
Our base-case estimate is that the eventual project will comprise around 320 to 360 units, with the most commercially balanced range closer to 340 to 360 units. This would support an average saleable unit size in the mid-600 to high-600 sq ft range, allowing the developer to offer a practical mix of compact city-fringe units while retaining enough larger apartments to support a premium price point. This view is consistent with the site’s land economics, its location beside Newton MRT and Scotts Road, and the planning intent for a lush, well-connected residential development.
In short, the developer is unlikely to maximise unit count at the expense of product quality. A more likely outcome is a premium urban condominium with a strong 2-bedroom core, a meaningful proportion of 3-bedroom units, and a limited number of larger prestige units on higher floors or in better-facing stacks. A small 1-bedroom component is also possible, given the site’s proximity to the MRT and convenience-led demand. However, a heavily micro-unit-driven product would be unlikely, as the land was acquired at a price point that requires stronger premium positioning.
Our Estimate Of The Eventual Selling Price Is An Average of roughly S$3,800 to S$4,050 psf
Here is the easiest way to think about launch pricing. Start with the land cost on the saleable area, then add assumed non-land costs, then add the profit margin CDL would usually require to justify a high-risk central land buy. Using that framework, the required average selling price quickly falls into the high-S$3,000s to low-S$4,000s psf range.
| Underwriting case | Land cost basis | Assumed non-land cost | Target margin | Implied average ASP |
| Efficient execution | S$2,275 psf saleable | S$900 psf | 15% | S$3,735 psf |
| Base case | S$2,331 psf saleable | S$950 psf | 15% | S$3,861 psf |
| Premium finish / stronger ambition | S$2,331 psf saleable | S$1,000 psf | 16% | S$3,966 psf |
| Less efficient premium scheme | S$2,391 psf saleable | S$1,000 psf | 17% | S$4,086 psf |
On that basis, our best estimate today is that the project’s eventual average achieved selling price is likely to be in the range of S$3,800 to S$4,050 psf, assuming the market environment at launch is not materially weaker than it is now. We would expect the first headline units, if the developers want early traction, to begin somewhere in the high-S$3,700s psf, while better stacks, larger units, and higher floors can push above S$4,100 psf. That is the range that fits both the land price and the kind of project the planning rules are nudging them to build.
If the development reaches about 80% sale efficiency, the revenue implication is also straightforward. At an average of S$3,800 psf, gross development value would be about S$884.1 million; at S$4,000 psf, it would be about S$930.6 million. So this is likely to be a project with a sellout value approaching, but not necessarily comfortably exceeding, S$1 billion unless pricing moves meaningfully above the base-case range.
Timing, Execution Risk, and the Bottom-line Call
The technical conditions suggest a more complex development timeline than a typical GLS site. The successful tenderer is required to demolish existing buildings and structures both within the land parcel and on adjoining State land, construct the Peck Hay Road extension, relocate the existing bus stop, widen Anthony Road, and deliver covered linkways and footpaths. In addition to these physical works, the developer must complete a staged public communications process before proceeding with written permission and subsequent resubmission. Taken together, these requirements point to a longer, more involved pre-launch phase than a straightforward vacant-site development would require.
For that reason, we would view the project as a likely late-2027 to 2028 launch candidate, with completion probably closer to the end of the decade rather than the next few years. This is an inferred timeline, but it is consistent with the required demolition works, infrastructure obligations and approval sequencing set out in the tender conditions.
Our conclusion is that Peck Hay Road should be viewed as a premium Newton land play rather than a standard central-area condominium site. At around S$1,865 psf ppr, the winning land rate already requires a high-quality product and a premium selling price. The most likely outcome is a landscaped, split-massing residential development of roughly 340 to 360 units, anchored by compact premium 2-bedroom apartments, supported by a meaningful number of 3-bedroom units and a smaller selection of larger homes to maintain the project’s address value.
From a pricing perspective, we would underwrite a likely average selling price of S$3,800-S$4,050 psf, with the best stacks and higher-floor units potentially exceeding S$4,100 psf if market conditions remain supportive at launch.
This forecast is most reliable on land economics and planning logic, as those are the clearest signals from the tender documents. The final launch pricing, however, will still depend on the eventual unit mix, design efficiency, product specification and broader new-launch market conditions when the project is ready for preview.
Disclaimer: The information, estimates and opinions expressed in this article are provided for general informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial, investment, legal, tax, planning or real estate advice. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented, all figures, calculations, assumptions, and projections are based on publicly available tender documents, planning information, and market data at the time of writing.
Any estimates relating to future development plans, unit counts, unit mix, launch pricing, construction timelines, project positioning, sales performance, profitability, breakeven costs or future market values are purely analytical opinions and should be regarded as forward-looking assumptions rather than statements of fact. The eventual development may differ materially from the scenarios discussed, as final outcomes will depend on regulatory approvals, detailed design decisions, market conditions, construction costs, financing conditions, developer strategy and other factors beyond the author’s control.
References to estimated selling prices, land economics, project timelines and investment potential are based on assumptions that may change over time. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made regarding the completeness, accuracy or future reliability of any information contained in this article.
Readers should conduct their own independent due diligence and seek advice from qualified property professionals, financial advisers, legal advisers and other relevant experts before making any property purchase, investment or financial decision. The author and publisher shall not be liable for any loss, damage or consequences arising directly or indirectly from the use of, or reliance upon, any information, estimates or opinions contained in this article.
Article contributed by Jerry Wong.
Jerry Wong is a realtor at Propnex Realty, bringing a rich background in interior and lighting design to his work. He loves exploring diverse spaces and observing the transformative power of real estate. Beyond his professional role, Jerry finds his greatest fulfillment in connecting people with the right properties, gaining immense satisfaction from helping clients achieve their dreams.
