TMW Maxwell Has The Cheapest 1-Bedroom New Launch, Is In The CBD And Has 319 of 324 Units Unsold.
Three hawker centres within a 5-minute walk. Two MRT lines within walking distance. A Maxwell Road address in District 2 which sits in the heart of the CBD.
A blanket 7% discount (as of writing) applied to nearly every unit in the building. And the lowest 1-bedroom entry price among six competing new launches and yet, only 5 of 324 units have sold.
So what is actually going on?
Is It Priced Too High?
The most natural first guess: the price is wrong. Buyers looked at the quantum, compared it to alternatives, and walked away.
The comparison table below kills that hypothesis quickly.
| Project | District | Tenure | 1BR Entry | Entry PSF | Smallest 1BR | Available | Total | Sell-Through |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMW Maxwell | D2 | 99-yr | $1,316,000 | $2,673 | 474 sqft | 319/324 | 324 | 1.5% |
| CanningHill Piers | D6 | 99-yr | $1,317,000 | $2,823 | 409 sqft | 9/696 | 696 | 98.7% |
| Union Square Residences | D1 | 99-yr | $1,400,000 | $2,767 | 463 sqft | 198/366 | 366 | 45.9% |
| Grand Dunman | D15 | 99-yr | $1,412,000 | $2,373 | 549–581 sqft | 87/1,008 | 1,008 | 91.4% |
| The Arcady at Boon Keng | D12 | Freehold | $1,419,000 | $2,693 | 527 sqft | 73/172 | 172 | 57.6% |
| Zyon Grand | D3 | 99-yr | $1,453,000 | $3,065 | 474 sqft | 76/706 | 706 | 89.2% |
| The Orie | D12 | 99-yr | $1,467,000 | $2,838 | 517 sqft | 37/777 | 777 | 95.2% |
Lowest entry. Largest discount. Worst sell-through. TMW Maxwell is cheaper than every other 1-bedroom new launch in this snapshot — and has sold fewer units than all of them.
TMW Maxwell's entry price of $1,316,000 is $84,000 below The Arcady, $96,000 below Grand Dunman, and $151,000 below The Orie. On PSF, it comes in at $2,673 — above Grand Dunman's $2,373 but below Union Square Residences, CanningHill Piers, Zyon Grand, and The Orie.
This is not a project that buyers found overpriced and bypassed. It is a project buyers considered and did not buy — despite the cheapest entry point in its competitive set. Price is not the primary explanation.
Is the Developer Holding Back?
A second hypothesis: the developer is quietly managing inventory, not actively pushing sales.
The discount structure makes this hard to sustain.
| Project | Discount Structure | Unsold Units | TOP | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMW Maxwell | ~7–7.4% blanket on all units | 319/324 | Jun 2028 | 1.5% sold, 2 years to TOP |
| Grand Dunman | $20K–$100K tiered by unit type | 87/1,008 | 2026 | 91% already sold — clearing the tail |
| The Continuum | Up to $278K on specific units | 42/816 | Nov 2027 | 95% already sold — targeted clearance |
| Midtown Bay | Price promotion (1BR from $1,488K) | 59/219 | Completed 2024 | Post-completion clearance |
Grand Dunman's tiered discounts and The Continuum's unit-specific offers are completion-phase promotions — both projects are over 90% sold and nudging the last fraction of inventory out the door. A blanket 7% markdown applied to 319 unsold units, two years before TOP, with fewer than 10 units sold, is a different signal entirely.
The RCR market itself is not in retreat. Across Q3 2025, Q4 2025, and Q1 2026, the sector moved 903, 758, and 684 units respectively. The Orie sold 95% of its 777 units. Zyon Grand sold 89% of 706. The weakness belongs to TMW Maxwell specifically — not to its region, not to its timing.
One Project That Complicates the Picture
Before reaching the structural explanation, one number in that table demands a direct response.
CanningHill Piers (D6, 99-year leasehold, TOP 2027) has sold 687 of 696 units — a 98.7% sell-through. Its 1-bedroom entry price is $1,317,000. That is $1,000 more than TMW Maxwell. Its smallest 1-bedroom is 409 sqft, smaller than TMW Maxwell's 474 sqft minimum.
If a near-identical entry price and smaller unit size produced 98.7% sell-through at CanningHill Piers, why has the same quantum produced 1.5% at TMW Maxwell?
The answer is product type, not price. CanningHill Piers is a mixed-use integrated development jointly developed by CapitaLand and CDL, with a direct connection to Fort Canning MRT. It is not a standalone compact-investor product — it is a branded lifestyle development with a built-in owner-occupier appeal that the unit mix alone does not capture.
Its sell-through validates that location and product complementarity matter enormously. It does not disprove the compact investor thesis. It illustrates the difference between a project that attracts owner-occupiers and one that depends almost entirely on investors.
The Real Explanation: Who TMW Maxwell Is Built For, and What They Already Know
TMW Maxwell has 324 units. Of those, 240 are 1-bedrooms — 74% of the project. Add the 34 one-bedroom-plus-study units and those units accounts for 84.6% of total inventory. The remaining 50 units are two-bedders.
The comparison becomes more visceral when you look at nearby HDB resale transactions. A 1-bedroom at TMW Maxwell starts from $1.316M for 484 sqft. At City Vue @ Henderson, a 5-room flat at 96A Henderson Road sold for $1.53M in January 2026. It was 1,216 sqft, on the 34th to 36th floor, with about 92 years of lease remaining. Another 5-room unit in the same block sold for $1.728M in April 2026, on the 46th to 48th floor.
These are not ordinary flats, and they are not perfect substitutes. City Vue is high-floor, relatively young-lease, city-fringe HDB stock in one of Singapore’s most desirable public-housing resale pockets. A buyer still faces HDB eligibility rules, MOP rules, and a different ownership structure. But that is exactly why the comparison matters: in the same broad quantum band, the buyer is choosing between a 484 sqft private 1-bedroom at TMW Maxwell and a 1,216 sqft high-floor city-fringe HDB flat. One is a compact investment-style private unit. The other is a much larger owner-occupier home in a premium HDB location.
The investor pool, then, is the project's primary buyer. And that investor pool has access to data. Here is what it shows.
D2 resale condos — 99-year leasehold, compact-heavy:
CBD and Downtown Core resale condos — investor-led comparables:
| Project | Txns | Completion | Typical Unit | Typical Resale PSF | Win Rate | Avg Profit / Loss | Ann. Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Clift | 29 | 2011 | 527 sqft | $2,004–$2,036 | 41.4% | –$39,120 | 0.0% p.a. |
| Robinson Suites | 8 | 2016 | 495 sqft | $2,327–$2,337 | 0% | –$289,921 | –1.5% p.a. |
| Eon Shenton | 9 | 2017 | 538 sqft | $2,066–$2,155 | 0% | –$94,333 | –0.5% p.a. |
| One Shenton | 33 | 2011 | 904 sqft | $1,840–$1,858 | 45.5% | –$29,997 | +1.2% p.a. |
| V On Shenton | 33 | 2017 | 947 sqft | $1,953–$1,989 | 24.2% | –$89,713 | –0.7% p.a. |
| Wallich Residence | 16 | 2017 | 1,098 sqft | $2,957–$3,039 | 18.8% | –$119,941 | –1.1% p.a. |
| Marina One Residences | 56 | 2017 | 1,044 sqft | $1,999–$2,006 | 3.6% | –$292,539 | –1.9% p.a. |
| Marina Bay Residences | 36 | 2010 | 1,076 sqft | $2,274–$2,278 | 44.4% | –$221,233 | –0.5% p.a. |
| Marina Bay Suites | 20 | 2013 | 1,625 sqft | $1,931–$1,936 | 10% | –$648,914 | –1.2% p.a. |
| The Sail @ Marina Bay | 89 | 2008 | 883 sqft | $2,045–$2,085 | 64.0% | +$204,156 | +0.9% p.a. |
| Altez | 12 | 2014 | 926 sqft | $2,073–$2,110 | 50.0% | –$34,888 | 0.0% p.a. |
| Skysuites@Anson | 35 | 2014 | 667 sqft | $2,260–$2,263 | 71.4% | +$37,943 | +0.4% p.a. |
Win rate = share of resale transactions where the seller made a profit. Based on caveated resale transactions in the June 2026 resale dataset. Typical unit and PSF use median/average observed resale values, not original launch mix.
This is a more uncomfortable table than a simple “compact units always lose” argument. The Sail @ Marina Bay and Skysuites@Anson show that a CBD investor product can still produce positive exits, especially when the entry cohort was early enough or the project found a durable buyer base. But the broader pattern is still difficult to ignore: Robinson Suites, Eon Shenton, Wallich Residence, Marina One Residences, Marina Bay Residences, Marina Bay Suites, V On Shenton, and One Shenton all show negative average profits in the same CBD/Downtown Core universe that TMW Maxwell buyers are being asked to underwrite.
That is the investor’s problem. Rental demand can exist and still fail to produce a clean resale exit. A tenant may pay for convenience; the next buyer has to believe the same compact central unit can be resold at a higher price later. In this part of the market, that belief has been repeatedly tested, and the results are mixed at best.
Win rate = share of resale transactions where the seller made a profit. Based on caveated resale transactions for each project.
The picture broadens when you look beyond D2.
CCR compact-heavy resale condos — comparable product:
| Project | District | Completion | Typical Unit | Win Rate | Avg Return | Ann. Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robinson Suites | D1 | 2016 | 495 sqft | 0% | –18.7% | –1.48% p.a. |
| Devonshire Residences | D9 | 2015 | 495 sqft | 0% | –15.2% | –1.37% p.a. |
| Liv On Wilkie | D9 | 2017 | 527 sqft | 0% | –7.5% | –0.74% p.a. |
| Espada | D9 | 2013 | 560 sqft | 12.5% | –3.2% | –0.28% p.a. |
| 26 Newton | D11 | 2016 | 560 sqft | 21% | –5.9% | –0.74% p.a. |
| Midtown Bay | D7 | 2024 | 753 sqft | 0% | –5.5% | –0.95% p.a. |
Midtown Bay resale data is based on 3 transactions (TOP 2024) — directional only, not a definitive sample.
Robinson Suites (D1, 99-year, 495 sqft): 0% win rate. Devonshire Residences (D9, 99-year, 495 sqft): 0% win rate. Liv On Wilkie (D9, 99-year, 527 sqft): 0% win rate. This is not a D2-specific pattern. Compact 99-year leasehold condos in the CCR and Downtown Core have, as a class, produced poor resale outcomes across multiple projects and multiple completion years.
Midtown Bay is the most recent comparable. Completed in 2024, D7, 99-year, compact-heavy with 1-bedrooms from 409 sqft, and a 0% win rate across its first resale transactions despite active rental demand — 1-bedrooms in the building lease at around $4,300 per month. Rental demand exists. Resale profit does not. An investor evaluating TMW Maxwell can read that data directly.
The one meaningful exception in D2 is Skysuites@Anson, which shows a 71% win rate and modest positive returns. The freehold D2 comparable — Spottiswoode 18, not shown in the table above, but referenced in the research — has returned 1.87% annualised. The D2 projects that have held value are predominantly freehold. TMW Maxwell is 99-year leasehold.
The Location Is Genuinely Strong — That Is What Makes This Interesting
TMW Maxwell’s location is not the weak point. Maxwell Food Centre is roughly 180m away, Amoy Street Food Centre roughly 250m, Tanjong Pagar Plaza Market roughly 300m, and Guoco Tower roughly 250m. The exact walking route will differ, but the broad point is clear: this is a genuinely amenity-rich CBD-fringe address.
On transit, the real story is not Tanjong Pagar alone. TMW Maxwell sits closest to Maxwell MRT on the Thomson-East Coast Line, roughly 130m away by straight-line distance from the project address at 31 Tras Street. Tanjong Pagar MRT is also walkable and Outram Park MRT adds the wider interchange angle with EWL, NEL, and TEL access.
The location is not the problem. The project type is.
A strong postcode reduces the investor's concern about tenant demand — and the rental floor is real. But investors in compact central condos are not buying for rent. They are buying for resale appreciation. And the resale data for this product type, in this location class, on 99-year leasehold tenure, is not encouraging.