Westwood Residences: A Decade Later — Did the Market Get It Wrong?
Back in 2015, Westwood Residences was not the type of executive condominium that generated unanimous excitement.
Located deep in the western part of Singapore, it lacked the convenience of a doorstep MRT station, sat beside the much older Floravale EC, and had a portion of its units directly facing the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) — a factor that many buyers viewed as a long-term drawback. Critics questioned whether a project situated so far from major transport nodes could deliver meaningful capital appreciation or maintain strong rental demand over time.
Fast forward ten years, and the transaction data paints a far more interesting picture.
Rather than merely preserving value, Westwood Residences has demonstrated remarkable resilience across multiple market cycles. In several of its key family-sized unit categories, price growth has matched or even exceeded the broader District 22 market, while rental performance has consistently remained competitive. More importantly, the project has generated attractive yields despite its perceived location disadvantages.
Understanding Westwood Residences: Location, Age and Benchmarking Context
Westwood Residences is a 99-year leasehold executive condominium comprising 480 units. According to HDB records, the development obtained its Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) on 24 October 2017. Its immediate neighbour, The Floravale, achieved TOP on 13 October 2000, making it almost two decades older. This age gap is significant because any comparison between the two developments must account for differences in remaining lease tenure, building age, facilities, and buyer perception.
At launch, Westwood Residences was positioned as a lifestyle-oriented suburban development rather than a transport-centric project. The development is located approximately 1.8km from Boon Lay MRT Station, with Gek Poh Shopping Centre situated within walking distance. While residents benefit from a relatively low-density landed housing environment, the project has never enjoyed the same level of connectivity as many newer EC launches located within walking distance of an MRT station.
Furthermore, parts of the development are situated alongside the PIE, raising potential concerns about traffic noise and long-term resale desirability for certain stacks. These factors contributed to a perception that Westwood Residences would always trade at a discount compared to more centrally located executive condominiums.
However, ten years of transaction and rental data now allow us to move beyond perception and examine the project’s actual performance. By analysing both sales and rental trends across different bedroom types and benchmarking the results against neighbouring Floravale and the broader District 22 market, we can determine whether Westwood Residences has truly outperformed expectations — and whether it remains a compelling investment opportunity today.
Framing The Benchmark
The attached PropNex ProTrend charts cover the 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, and 4/5-bedroom segments, as Westwood Residences does not have 1-bedroom units. Throughout this article, all growth rates are calculated from the first available year in each series to 2025, and the yield proxy is calculated as 2025 monthly average rent psf × 12 ÷ 2025 average sale psf. That is a gross implied yield, not a net cash-flow model.
For this analysis, District 22 is used as the main benchmark because The Floravale does not provide sufficient transaction data to enable a reliable comparison across all unit types. In the 2-bedroom segment, The Floravale is not a meaningful benchmark, while in the 4- and 5-bedroom segment, the data is even more limited, with only one sale transaction and no rental transactions recorded over the study period. District 22, on the other hand, offers a much broader and more reliable sample size, with 3,501 recorded 2-bedroom sales, 1,983 recorded 3-bedroom sales, and 393 recorded 4- and 5-bedroom sales, together with sizeable rental transaction volumes. As such, while The Floravale remains useful as a neighbouring reference where data is available, District 22 provides a more statistically reliable benchmark for assessing whether Westwood Residences has genuinely outperformed the wider local market.
There is also a structural reason not to over-rely on Floravale alone. Westwood’s official TOP is from late 2017, while Floravale’s is from 2000, so a premium over the neighbour is not automatically “outperformance”; some of it is simply the market paying up for a much younger product with more lease runway. That is why the broad district comparison matters so much here.
What the price data says
The sales story is, in one sentence, a rerating story. Westwood started from a discount, then gradually climbed into parity with the district in the mainstream segments. That matters because this happened despite the transport handicap and before the full benefit of future rail improvements has even arrived.
2 Bedroom
In the attached 2-bedroom sales chart, Westwood’s average psf rose from $860 in 2015 to $1,497 in 2025, a gain of about 74.1%, or roughly 5.7% annualised. Over the same period, D22 rose from $894 to $1,466, or about 64.0% in total and 5.1% annualised. More importantly, Westwood ended 2025 at a slight 2.1% premium to the district on psf. That is a strong statement from the market: buyers are no longer treating Westwood’s 2-bedders as a compromised far-west product; they are treating them as district-grade or better. The caution here is volume. The attached table shows only 44 Westwood 2-bedroom sale transactions over the full study period, so the direction is clear, but the yearly line is less statistically robust than the 3-bedroom series.
3 Bedroom
The 3-bedroom segment is the clearest of all bedroom types. Westwood’s average psf rose from $777 in 2015 to $1,349 in 2025, a gain of about 73.6% or 5.7% annualised. D22 rose from $847 to $1,347, or 59.0% in total and 4.7% annualised. Floravale rose from $657 to $1,089, or 65.8% in total and 5.2% annualised. So Westwood did two things at once: it outgrew D22 on a decade-by-decade basis and also ended 2025 at near-perfect price parity with D22, while commanding about a 23.9% premium over The Floravale in the neighbouring comparison. Because the attached tables show 321 Westwood and 262 Floravale 3-bedroom sales, this is the most convincing segment in the study. It is hard to dismiss as noise.
4/5+ Bedroom
The 4/5-bedroom segment is still positive, but the conclusion is more selective. Westwood’s average psf rose from $799 in 2015 to $1,329 in 2025, or about 66.3% total growth and 5.2% annualised. That is very respectable, but D22 rose faster, from $899 to $1,542, or 71.5% total and 5.5% annualised. Westwood therefore still traded at about a 13.8% discount to D22 in 2025 for the larger-unit segment. That persistent discount tells you the market is still pricing in some combination of size-related affordability limits, transport trade-offs, and location/facing concerns more heavily for the big-ticket family units. The key takeaway is not that 4/5-bedders are weak; it is that they have not fully shaken off the Westwood discount to the same extent as 2- and 3-bedders.
The big picture is simple: Westwood’s mainstream formats have already overcome most of the location discount, while the largest units still carry a location discount. That is actually healthy. It suggests the market is discriminating rationally rather than blindly bidding up every part of the project.
What the rental data says about yield
If the sales data shows the market eventually accepted Westwood, the rental data shows why investors should care. Westwood’s rents have been more resilient than many would have expected for a project that is not an immediate MRT walk-up. And because its sale psf is still not stretched across every segment, the yield math is attractive.
Before diving into the rental performance, it is important to recognise a unique characteristic of Executive Condominiums. Unlike private condominiums, EC owners are generally required to fulfil a five-year Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) before they can rent out the entire unit, although exceptions may be granted under specific circumstances with approval from the relevant authorities. As a result, rental transactions in the early years of an EC’s life are typically lower than those of comparable private developments. This means that Westwood’s rental performance should be viewed not only through the lens of rental growth and yield, but also against the backdrop of a more restricted rental market during part of its lifecycle.
| Segment | Westwood sales CAGR | D22 sales CAGR | Westwood rental CAGR | D22 rental CAGR | 2025 Westwood implied gross yield | 2025 D22 implied gross yield |
| 2-bedroom | 5.7% | 5.1% | 3.1% | 6.5% | 4.46% | 4.32% |
| 3-bedroom | 5.7% | 4.7% | 11.5%* | 8.2%* | 4.23% | 3.92% |
| 4/5-bedroom | 5.2% | 5.5% | 9.6%* | 7.3%* | 4.36% | 3.58% |
*3, 4, 5-bedroom rental CAGR is based on the available 2019–2025 chart window due to earlier MOP rentals
Despite these limitations, the attached rental charts show that Westwood Residences outperformed the broader District 22 market in rental psf across every segment. Based on 2025 data, Westwood’s implied gross yields ranged between 4.23% and 4.46%, comfortably ahead of District 22’s 3.58% to 4.32% range. This is particularly noteworthy given that a significant portion of Westwood’s rental history occurred during periods when the development was still transitioning through its EC restrictions.
The 2-bedroom segment presents an encouraging, albeit less conclusive, picture. Average rental rates increased from $5.08 psf in 2022 to $5.57 psf in 2025, compared to District 22’s increase from $4.37 psf to $5.28 psf over the same period. Westwood was therefore able to maintain a rental premium while achieving a slightly higher implied gross yield of 4.46%, compared with District 22’s 4.32%. However, investors should interpret these results with some caution as only 23 rental transactions were recorded for Westwood during the period under review, making the sample size relatively small.
The strongest rental performance came from the 3-bedroom segment, which is also the core family-sized product within the development. Average rents surged from $2.48 psf in 2019 to $4.76 psf in 2025, significantly outperforming District 22’s increase from $2.74 psf to $4.40 psf and The Floravale’s increase from $2.05 psf to $3.48 psf. This translates into approximately 92% rental growth over the period, compared with 61% in District 22. Even after accounting for the strong capital appreciation recorded by the project, Westwood still achieved an implied gross yield of 4.23%, exceeding both District 22’s 3.92% and The Floravale’s 3.83%. The data suggest that demand for family-sized rental units in Westwood has remained exceptionally strong, allowing owners to benefit from both capital appreciation and rental income growth.
The 4-bedroom and larger unit segment tells a slightly different but equally interesting story. Although Westwood’s sale prices continue to trade at a discount to the broader District 22 market, rental demand has remained resilient. Average rents increased from $2.78 psf in 2019 to $4.83 psf in 2025, compared to District 22’s increase from $3.02 psf to $4.60 psf. As a result, Westwood generated an implied gross yield of approximately 4.36%, substantially higher than District 22’s 3.58%. This reflects a classic value-investment profile where capital values remain relatively affordable while rental demand remains robust. Naturally, larger units tend to attract a smaller tenant pool and are more sensitive to factors such as stack location, road-facing exposure and overall unit quantum, but the rental numbers suggest that tenants have been willing to pay a premium for larger family accommodation within the estate.
The comparison with The Floravale reinforces the same conclusion. Where sufficient transaction data exists, Westwood consistently commands higher rental rates and stronger capital values. However, the limited number of transactions in The Floravale—particularly in the larger-unit categories—makes it difficult to draw statistically reliable conclusions. For this reason, District 22 remains the more appropriate benchmark when assessing the long-term rental competitiveness of Westwood Residences. Taken as a whole, the rental data demonstrates that despite its distance from the MRT network and the presence of some PIE-facing stacks, Westwood has been able to attract and retain tenant demand at levels that compare favourably with both its immediate neighbour and the wider district market.
Why The Project Held Up Better Than Expected
The first reason is that Westwood’s weakness was always specific rather than terminal. Yes, it was not an immediate East-West Line project. But it was also not a generic HDB-cluster EC. Koh Brothers described it as a rare EC nestled within the Westwood landed estate rather than surrounded by HDB flats, and launch materials highlighted its private-residential setting near Gek Poh instead of trying to sell it as a city-fringe commute play. In plain English, the buyer pool was not choosing Westwood for sheer rail convenience. It was choosing Westwood for space, family utility, a quieter enclave feel, and relative affordability.
The second reason is that the Western growth story became more credible over time. LTA says the Jurong Region Line will improve connectivity in the west and specifically connect residential areas, including Gek Poh, to activity nodes that currently lack direct MRT links, such as Jurong Industrial Estate, Jurong Innovation District, and NTU; Boon Lay station is also being expanded to connect seamlessly to the JRL, and Stage 1 is now scheduled for mid-2028. That matters because it means Westwood’s transport story is not static. It was weak at launch, but it is getting better.
The third reason is that District 22 itself has stronger structural support than it did a decade ago. URA’s west-region planning describe the West as a future-ready economic hub anchored by Jurong Lake District, Jurong Innovation District, and Tuas Port. JTC describes JID as a live advanced manufacturing ecosystem, and HDB presents Tengah as situated alongside both JID and JLD. None of that guarantees price growth for a specific condo, but it does explain why “far west” is no longer the same weak narrative it once was. Westwood has been riding a broader regional upgrade, not performing in isolation.
The fourth reason is timing. Under the current EC regime, existing ECs are treated as private housing after ten years, and MND’s 2026 rule changes apply only to future EC GLS sites whose tenders close on or after 8 May 2026. Since HDB’s official list puts Westwood’s TOP at 24 October 2017, the project should still be on the legacy path toward full privatisation around October 2027. That is a meaningful medium-term support point for today’s buyer because it widens the future buyer pool without asking the project to become something it is not.
That said, Westwood Residences’ location disadvantages are real and should not be overlooked. A review of the development’s site plan shows that stacks 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 20 are positioned along the perimeter of the development and directly face the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE). These stacks are naturally more exposed to traffic noise and visual intrusion compared to units that face the internal facilities, landscaped areas or landed housing enclave. Given that these nine stacks account for a meaningful portion of the development, buyers and tenants have historically differentiated between the quieter inward-facing units and those with direct expressway exposure.
However, what is particularly interesting is that despite this structural disadvantage, the overall transaction data suggests that the market has largely looked past these concerns, especially for the 2- and 3-bedroom segments. Over the past decade, Westwood’s mainstream unit types have managed to match or outperform the broader District 22 market in both price appreciation and rental performance. This indicates that buyers have generally been willing to accept the expressway-facing trade-off in exchange for the project’s newer age, EC attributes, competitive pricing, unblocked views and family-oriented environment. The larger 4-bedroom and 5-bedroom units tell a slightly different story. Here, the persistent pricing discount relative to District 22 suggests that purchasers remain more selective, with factors such as stack orientation, noise exposure and overall liveability carrying greater weight when absolute purchase quantum becomes significantly higher.
In short, the data indicates that the PIE-facing stacks have created a measurable but manageable discount rather than a fundamental impediment to value growth. For most buyers, the location drawback has proven to be a consideration rather than a deal-breaker, although unit selection remains particularly important for larger-format homes where end-user expectations tend to be higher.
Verdict Of Whether It Is A Good Buy Or Not
The evidence points to a yes, but selectively. Westwood Residences looks like a good buy despite the MRT distance and PIE-facing concerns, not because those issues are imaginary, but because the market has shown over a decade that they are manageable discounts rather than fatal flaws. The project’s 2- and 3-bedroom segments have already proved they can re-rate to D22 levels while still offering equal or better rental returns. That is a strong endorsement from actual transactions.
The attached data suggests three different verdicts by unit type:
| Segment | Stance | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 2-bedroom | Positive, but selective | Strong decade rerating and a small yield edge over D22, but transaction/rental samples are thin, and pricing is already at a slight district premium |
| 3-bedroom | Best Buy in the project | Strongest mix of liquidity, capital growth, rent growth, and yield premium; this is the cleanest segment versus both D22 and Floravale |
| 4/5-bedroom | Value buy for patient buyers | Best yield spread and still at a D22 pricing discount, but larger quantum, smaller exit pool, and stack/facing quality matter much more |
The Final Verdict: Has Westwood Residences Proven Its Critics Wrong?
From the data shown, the 3-bedroom units are the sweet spot. They have the most convincing data, the strongest all-round performance, and the clearest evidence that Westwood has transcended its early-location stigma. The 4-bedroom and larger units are attractive if bought as value plays, especially if the unit avoids the noisier edge and is acquired at a visible discount to D22. The 2-bedroom units are still good, but no longer obviously cheap, so we would want sharper entry discipline there if we were to consider a unit today.
So the bottom line is this: Westwood Residences has earned a positive verdict over its first decade. The transport drawback was real, and the PIE-facing stacks still deserve a discount. But the numbers show that this project has already done the hard part: it has proven that buyers and tenants are willing to pay up for the product, especially in the family-sized formats. With likely full privatisation around October 2027 and the JRL expected from mid-2028, the project still has credible medium-term support left in the story as well.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is intended for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial, investment, legal, tax, or property advice. All analyses, opinions and conclusions are based on historical transaction and rental data available at the time of writing, together with publicly available information and the author’s own interpretations.
While reasonable care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information presented, no representation or warranty is made regarding its completeness, accuracy or reliability. Property performance in the past does not guarantee future results, and market conditions, government policies, interest rates, supply dynamics and economic factors may change over time.
The transaction and rental data used in this analysis are derived from PropNex ProTrend and other publicly available sources. Certain unit types may have limited transaction volumes, which can affect the statistical reliability of the conclusions drawn. Comparisons with neighbouring developments and District 22 benchmarks are intended to provide market context and should not be interpreted as definitive indicators of future performance.
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.
