Urban Compression, Housing Policy & Spatial Inequality
Singapore | 1995–2025 | Urban Studies & Housing Policy
Executive Summary
Over the past three decades, Singapore has experienced a measurable and sustained contraction in residential floor areas across both public and private housing typologies. The average floor area of new private non-landed residential units declined from 118 sq m in 1995 to 83 sq m in 2025 — a reduction of approximately 30%. This case study examines the structural drivers of this trend, presents illustrative examples from the housing market, analyses its impacts across social, economic, and spatial dimensions, and evaluates the policy responses implemented by Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Housing & Development Board (HDB).
Indicator 1995 2010 2025
Avg. floor area, new private non-landed (sq m) 118 ~100 83
Avg. resident household size (persons) ~4.0 ~3.5 3.06
One-person households (% of all households) <5% ~10% 16%
Median psf, CCR units 50–70 sq m (S$) — ~$1,500 $2,791
HDB resale avg. floor area, built 1995 (sq m) 130 — —
Table 1: Key housing metrics, Singapore 1995–2025. Sources: URA, HDB, Knight Frank Singapore.
- Background and Context
1.1 Singapore’s Housing Landscape
Singapore operates one of the world’s most distinctive housing systems, in which more than 70% of the resident population live in public housing flats (HDB flats) managed under a government-subsidised ownership model. The remaining share resides in private condominiums, landed properties, and executive condominiums — a public-private hybrid scheme introduced in 1995.
The city-state’s land scarcity is a fundamental constraint. At approximately 735 sq km total land area with a population exceeding 5.9 million, Singapore faces persistent pressure on residential space. Despite extensive land reclamation efforts, per capita residential land availability remains acutely limited, making housing density a structural feature of urban life.
1.2 The Trend Toward Smaller Homes
Analysis of URA transaction data by Knight Frank Singapore reveals a consistent downward trajectory in unit sizes for new private residential sales. This trend accelerated from the early 2000s onwards, driven by the confluence of demographic, economic, and regulatory factors detailed in Section 2.
HDB flat sizes present a more complex picture. The average floor area of resale HDB flats peaked with units built in the mid-1990s, reaching 130 sq m. However, four-room and five-room flat sizes have remained relatively stable at 90 sq m and 110 sq m respectively since 2000, reflecting the moderating influence of public housing policy. The structural shift has instead been in typological composition: executive apartments and maisonettes ceased construction after 1995, while the proportion of one- and two-room flats has increased markedly since the 2010s. - Drivers of Residential Compression
2.1 Demographic Restructuring
The most fundamental driver of demand-side change is the transformation of Singapore’s household composition. Average household size has declined from 4.87 persons in 1980 to 3.06 in 2025, reflecting several converging trends:
Total fertility rate (TFR) has remained persistently below replacement level (2.1), falling to approximately 0.97 in 2023, the world’s lowest among sovereign nations.
Empty-nester households are growing as the post-war baby boom cohort ages and children leave the family home.
Singles living alone now constitute 16% of all resident households, up from negligible proportions in earlier decades.
Delayed marriage and childbearing among younger cohorts reduces demand for larger family units.
These demographic shifts have normalised and even actively generated demand for smaller dwelling units, which were previously stigmatised as inadequate housing.
2.2 Land Economics and Developer Incentives
On the supply side, the economics of land acquisition and development in Singapore exert powerful pressure toward unit miniaturisation. Government land sales (GLS) sites command premium prices that require developers to maximise return per unit of land. The practical strategy has been to subdivide developments into a larger number of smaller units, keeping the absolute transaction price of each unit within buyer affordability thresholds even as the price per square foot (psf) escalates.
Knight Frank data illustrate this clearly: the average psf for condo units measuring 50–70 sq m in the Core Central Region rose from S$2,045 in 2015 to S$2,791 in 2025 — a 36.5% increase over ten years. The unit price per transaction remains more palatable while the developer extracts greater revenue per square metre of floor area.
2.3 Policy Environment and Cooling Measures
Singapore’s Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD), introduced in 2011 and raised multiple times thereafter, significantly increases the total acquisition cost for second and subsequent property purchases, as well as for foreign buyers. This has constrained the pool of eligible buyers and intensified affordability pressures, reinforcing demand for smaller, lower-priced units among first-time buyers and investors.
Cooling measures also affect developer behaviour. Qualifying Certificate (QC) and ABSD remission rules impose penalties if developers fail to sell all units within prescribed timelines, incentivising pricing strategies that favour smaller, faster-moving units. - Illustrative Case Examples
Case 1: The Shoebox Condominium Resident
Mr Jon Phua, a 37-year-old communications professional, purchased a 43 sq m (463 sq ft) one-bedroom unit in a Hougang condominium in 2023 on a 99-year leasehold tenure. The unit resold in the same complex for between S$750,000 and S$869,000 in 2025 — implying a psf range of approximately S$1,620–S$1,880 for a unit smaller than many Hong Kong micro-apartments.
His domestic arrangements are emblematic of the spatial adaptations required at this scale: a retrofitted aircraft galley cart serves as a portable coffee table; a desk functions as both workspace and dining surface; a bedside ledge doubles as storage. His choice was driven by a desire for homeownership and financial prudence — avoiding an ‘overly burdensome loan’ — after prolonged pandemic-era experience of cramped shared living in his parents’ home. His case illustrates how individual economic rationality, constrained by structural affordability pressures, produces aggregate demand for sub-50 sq m units.
Case 2: The Co-Living Condominium
A two-bedroom, two-bathroom condominium unit of approximately 121 sq m in Clementi illustrates the informal densification occurring within Singapore’s private residential stock. The unit was subdivided to accommodate five occupants: the living room and dining room were repurposed as bedrooms, with the most desirable room (exclusive bathroom access) commanding S$2,000 per month and the remaining rooms priced at approximately S$1,500 per month.
This arrangement reflects the growing gap between market rents and individual income capacity, particularly among younger working adults and migrant professionals. The effective per-capita floor area in such arrangements approximates 24 sq m — approaching the conditions documented in Hong Kong’s public rental housing estates.
Case 3: The HDB Flat Typology Shift
The discontinuation of executive apartments (EA) and executive maisonettes (EM) — which typically ranged from 130 to 160 sq m — after 1995 represents a structural supply-side contraction in the public housing typology ladder. These unit types, built primarily during the 1980s–1994 period, remain among the largest HDB units available and command significant resale premiums. Their cessation effectively removed the largest-format affordable housing typology from new supply.
In parallel, the HDB’s increasing provision of two-room Flexi flats for elderly and single residents reflects the policy recognition of demographic reality — but also entrenches the spatial compression of housing for the most economically vulnerable segments of the population. Two-room Flexi flats typically measure 36–45 sq m, providing minimal margin above the URA’s mandated 35 sq m floor.
Case 4: The Space-Maximising New Condominium
Mr Foo Zhiwei, 36, purchased a 41 sq m one-bedroom unit in a newly developed condominium in Guillemard in 2023. His unit exemplifies the design language that has emerged to render sub-50 sq m living viable: fold-down desks and wall-mounted shelves to eliminate floor-level furniture footprints; under-bed storage; a convertible coffee table-workspace; and an absence of conventional dining furniture.
His case also illustrates the household formation logic underpinning demand for such units: as a single professional seeking to exit the family home, the calculus prioritises ownership access over spatial adequacy, with explicit acknowledgement that the economic risk of a larger loan without a dual income is prohibitive. The preference for smaller, affordable units is therefore not simply a lifestyle choice but a rational response to labour market insecurity. - Impacts
4.1 Social and Wellbeing Impacts
Research in environmental psychology and housing studies consistently demonstrates associations between residential crowding and adverse outcomes across mental health, family relationships, child development, and subjective wellbeing. While Singapore’s absolute floor areas have not yet reached the extremes documented in Hong Kong or Tokyo, the directional trend toward compression, combined with rising household costs, creates conditions conducive to such outcomes.
The inability of singles to access larger subsidised HDB flats — which are largely gatekept by marriage eligibility criteria — constitutes a documented form of institutional inequality. This produces a bifurcated experience of residential quality: married couples access subsidised three- to five-room flats, while single adults navigate an expensive and contracting private market. NUS Professor Lee Kwan Ok identifies this as a reinforcement of the ‘intergenerational and wealth divide’ within Singapore’s ownership-based housing system.
4.2 Economic and Market Impacts
Knight Frank’s analysis of private non-landed residential price growth from 2015 to 2025 documents that larger units appreciated at a faster rate than smaller units across all sub-markets in Singapore. This reflects both constrained supply of larger units and the persistent revealed preference for spacious homes among higher-income households.
An 18% share of respondents in the Knight Frank-Ipsos Quality of Life survey expressed preference for older, larger developments over newer, compact ones — a significant minority preference that the market is increasingly unable to satisfy at middle-income price points. This dynamic risks entrenching spatial inequality as a correlate of income inequality, where residential size becomes a reliable proxy for wealth.
4.3 Spatial and Urban Planning Impacts
The trend toward smaller units has interacted with Singapore’s communal amenities infrastructure in complex ways. While the HDB estate model provides access to shared green spaces, markets, and community facilities that partially compensate for private space deficits, private condominium developments vary considerably in the quality and scale of common areas.
URA’s tightening of guidelines — mandating minimum unit sizes and requiring proportional provision of larger units in new developments — reflects regulatory acknowledgement that unconstrained market forces produce a residential monoculture that inadequately serves the spectrum of household needs and life stages. - Policy Responses and Regulatory Framework
5.1 URA Minimum Size Guidelines
The URA has implemented successive tightenings of its guidelines on minimum dwelling unit sizes for private residential developments:
2012: Introduction of minimum average unit size requirements and dwelling unit caps for new developments.
2019: Further tightening to raise the minimum floor area per unit.
2023: Current requirements mandate a minimum 35 sq m per unit (measured to wall midpoints, excluding voids, balconies, and AC ledges). Developments in central Singapore must provide at least 20% of units at a minimum of 70 sq m. Non-central developments require a greater proportion at a minimum of 100 sq m.
These measures function as a regulatory floor, preventing the further proliferation of micro-units below viable habitability thresholds, while also ensuring a minimum supply of medium-format units that serve family and multi-person households.
5.2 HDB Policy Adaptations
HDB’s policy responses have focused on typological innovation and eligibility adjustments rather than simple size increases. Key measures include:
Introduction of white flats with flexible open-concept layouts that maximise the functional use of constrained floor plates.
Multi-generation flat configurations designed to accommodate extended families within optimised spatial footprints.
Two-room Flexi flats with customisable internal layouts for elderly and single buyers aged 35 and above.
Incremental expansion of single-buyer eligibility criteria, though significant restrictions remain by comparison with couple/family households.
5.3 Gaps and Outstanding Concerns
Expert commentary highlights several areas where policy responses remain insufficient relative to the scale of challenge:
Marriage-conditioned access to larger subsidised flats continues to disadvantage single adults across income levels, constituting a structural inequity in the public housing system.
The cessation of large-format executive apartment construction has removed an affordable large-unit typology from the housing ladder without an equivalent replacement.
The freehold large-format private housing stock — older condominiums and landed properties — is effectively inaccessible to median-income households, and its scarcity premium continues to widen.
Affordability constraints mean that the mandated provision of 70–100 sq m units in new developments does not translate to accessibility for middle-income buyers if psf prices continue to rise. - Comparative Perspective
Singapore’s housing compression, while significant, operates within a regulatory and institutional framework that distinguishes it from the more acute cases documented elsewhere in Asia. Hong Kong’s median per capita floor area of approximately 15.9 sq m (2023) represents a substantially more constrained baseline, driven by the absence of equivalent minimum size regulations and a more fragmented public housing system.
Tokyo’s housing market, often cited as a model for high-density urban living, achieves relatively affordable prices partly through permissive zoning and high residential construction volumes — a policy approach structurally unavailable to Singapore given its land area constraints. The relevant comparison is therefore not absolute size but institutional responsiveness and the adequacy of the regulatory floor.
On this measure, Singapore’s public housing baseline — which sets 90–110 sq m as the norm for family flats — remains substantially above the regional mean and provides a reference point that shapes social expectations of adequate residential space. The challenge is ensuring that this baseline remains accessible and does not become a ceiling for the majority while the upper distribution of residential space concentrates further. - Conclusions
Singapore’s residential compression over the period 1995–2025 is a product of structural forces — demographic, economic, and institutional — operating in a land-scarce urban environment. The trend is not primarily a failure of planning but a predictable outcome of market dynamics interacting with demographic change, partially moderated by regulatory intervention.
The key risks are distributional rather than absolute. Spatial inequality — the correlation of floor area with household income and life stage — is deepening in ways that risk entrenching broader social inequalities. Policy responses to date have established important guardrails but have not yet addressed the structural asymmetry between the housing access rights of single adults and family households within the public system.
The expert consensus, as reflected in commentary from NUS, Knight Frank, and market analysts, is that further absolute shrinkage of Singapore’s housing stock is unlikely given the URA’s minimum size regulations. The more significant challenge for the coming decade is ensuring that the units being built — even if meeting minimum size thresholds — are designed for usability, embedded in well-served communal environments, and accessible across the income distribution.
Sources & References
Teo Kai Xiang (2026). ‘You’re not imagining it: Singapore homes are getting smaller.’ The Straits Times, 20 February 2026.
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). Guidelines on Residential Dwelling Units (2012, 2019, 2023). Singapore Government.
Housing & Development Board (HDB). Annual Reports and Resale Transaction Statistics, 1995–2025.
Knight Frank Singapore / Ipsos (2025). Quality of Life Report. Singapore: Knight Frank.
Singapore Department of Statistics (2025). General Household Survey and Population Trends.
Lee Kwan Ok (2025). Expert commentary on Singapore residential trends. National University of Singapore, Dept. of Real Estate.