Introduction and 2026 market backdrop
Singapore’s 2026 private home market remains defined by tight new supply in prime central areas, steady owner-occupier demand, and a clear bifurcation between “must-live” locations and purely yield-driven plays. With fewer large GLS parcels in the Core Central Region (CCR) and more cautious financing conditions, buyers are increasingly focused on fundamentals: walkable MRT access, reputable schools, and exit liquidity in a smaller resale pool. In District 11, demand is supported by multi-generational Dunearn House families upgrading for schooling and lifestyle, alongside investors prioritising wealth preservation over aggressive leverage. This comparison looks at two boutique Bukit Timah offerings with similar buyer profiles, highlighting how micro-location, unit mix, and pricing assumptions can change risk-return. Dunearn House is discussed as a newer, design-led option where final details may still be subject to the developer’s confirmed launch information.
Location and day to day connectivity
Both projects sit in the Bukit Timah / Newton fringe, a micro-market that trades at a premium due to schooling, greenery, and fast access to Orchard and the CBD. For Project A, an anticipated positioning along Dunearn Road places it about 8 minutes’ walk to Sixth Avenue MRT (Downtown Line), with a realistic 10–12 minute ride to Botanic Gardens interchange and roughly 15–20 minutes by car to Orchard outside peak traffic. Project B is likely nearer Tan Kah Kee MRT (Downtown Line), around 6 minutes on foot, with similar travel time to town and strong bus connectivity along Bukit Timah Road. Lifestyle anchors typically include Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Botanic Gardens, and the Rail Corridor access points, while daily convenience comes from Coronation Plaza, Bukit Timah Plaza, and the Holland Village / One-North orbit. School proximity is a key differentiator: buyers often shortlist within 1–2 km of Nanyang Girls’ School, Hwa Chong Institution, National Junior College, and Raffles Girls’ Primary, subject to official MOE distance checks.
Developer strength and project scale
In 2026, developer track record matters more because boutique CCR projects have less room for execution errors: small unit counts mean fewer “second chances” to correct design or pricing, and resale liquidity can be thinner if the product misses the target audience. Project A is positioned as a boutique development (anticipated ~50–120 units), which can appeal to buyers who value privacy and a quieter estate feel, but it also means fewer shared facilities and potentially higher maintenance fees per unit over time. Project B is similarly boutique (anticipated ~60–150 units), and the investment profile tends to be comparable: higher land and construction costs per unit, with stronger reliance on owner-occupier demand rather than mass-market investor volume. Where details are not publicly finalised, it is reasonable to assume both are either en-bloc redevelopments or small private sites rather than large GLS mega-plots, given the prevailing land parcel sizes in this part of District 11. Investors should pay attention to the developer’s completed CCR projects, defect resolution reputation, and whether the architectural and landscape teams have delivered liveable layouts in compact footprints.
Unit layouts and facilities for real living
Boutique Bukit Timah condos typically succeed when they prioritise efficient internal layouts and genuine usability over headline facility lists. For Project A, an expected mix would skew towards 2- and 3-bedroom homes for families seeking proximity to schools, with a smaller allocation of 1-bedroom units to reduce investor-only character and improve long-term community stability. Project B may offer a broader spread including larger 3- and 4-bedroom units if the site supports a lower-density feel, which can be attractive for upgraders coming from nearby landed enclaves or older freehold apartments. In both cases, the facilities are likely to be “essentials done well”: a compact lap pool, gym, function space, children’s area, and landscaped pockets rather than expansive decks. Practical considerations matter: sheltered drop-off, lift-to-unit efficiency, storage, kitchen ventilation, and whether balconies are oversised at the expense of internal living space. For tenants, walkability to the Downtown Line and nearby cafes is a plus, but family tenants will also weigh school logistics, quietness at night, and ease of getting to town without changing lines.
Pricing and investment analysis with key contrasts
Without finalised public filings for every component, pricing should be treated as indicative and stress-tested. For Project A, if the land cost is unknown, a market-aligned assumption for a District 11 boutique site in 2025–2026 would be roughly 2,300–2,600 psf ppr (anticipated), depending on tenure and plot constraints. After adding construction, financing, professional fees, marketing, and ABSD-related carrying considerations, an estimated breakeven could fall around 2,900–3,200 psf. That implies a likely launch range of about 3,300–3,800 psf for sustainable developer margins, with larger units sometimes priced more keenly on psf to hit absolute quantum targets. Project B, depending on whether it is freehold and how recently the site was acquired, could price in a similar band (expected 3,200–3,700 psf), but its value proposition may lean on tenure, layout generosity, or a more established micro-location near a specific school belt. Rental demand logic is straightforward: Downtown Line access supports expat and professional tenants commuting to the CBD, One-North, or Marina Bay, while family leasing demand is anchored by school proximity; however, yields in the CCR are typically tighter, so investors should focus on capital preservation and medium-term appreciation rather than high cash yield. Key risks include boutique resale liquidity, competition from newer RCR projects offering more facilities at lower psf, and policy sensitivity for buyers with existing property holdings. Key comparisons: • Project A tends to suit buyers prioritising a quieter Dunearn / Sixth Avenue pocket and newer design language; • Project B may better fit buyers who value Tan Kah Kee walkability and potentially stronger school-centric demand; • Project A likely relies on tight, efficient 2–3 bedder mix to keep quantums accessible; • Project B may offer larger family formats but higher total price points; • Both face similar CCR yield compression, so entry price discipline matters; • Exit strategy is strongest when unit sizes match the dominant local upgrader profile (2–3 bedders) rather than niche configurations.
Conclusion
For 2026 buyers weighing two boutique District 11 options, the decision usually comes down to the type of tranquillity and the type of convenience you want to live with. Choose Project A if you prefer a more intimate, design-forward development in a calmer Bukit Timah pocket, and you are comfortable underwriting value through layout efficiency and a tighter, owner-occupier-led community. Choose Project B if you prioritise being closer to a specific MRT entrance and school corridor, or if larger-format homes and tenure nuances are central to your long-term holding thesis. From an investor perspective, treat both as capital-stability plays: focus on unit selection, entry psf versus realistic breakeven, and future resale depth rather than chasing headline rental yield. If you are deciding between stacks and layouts, it is sensible to register interest early to receive the confirmed unit mix, price list guidance, and any indicative psf bands before committing to a shortlist.
