Amber Park three-bedder resells for a record $3.515 million

An Amber Park buyer paid $3.515 million for a 1,109 sq ft three-bedroom unit on 6 October 2026, setting a newly reported project high of $3,170 per sq ft (psf).

The useful comparison sits close to home: another 1,109 sq ft unit in the same broad 16th-to-20th-floor band changed hands for $3.4 million in July. In other words, the October buyer paid $115,000 more for the same recorded floor area just a few months later.

What exactly changed hands

The October deal was a resale, rather than a purchase from the developer. Transaction records describe the home as a three-bedroom unit and place it within the 16th-to-20th-floor band; they do not publish an exact floor or identify the buyer and seller.

At $3,170 psf, the figure is simply the $3.515 million price divided by the unit’s 1,109 sq ft area. Using psf makes differently sized homes easier to compare, but it should not be mistaken for the price of every unit at Amber Park.

This distinction matters because a record psf price can come from one particular home. Public transaction data reviewed for this sale does not reveal its outlook, interior condition, exact stack, renovation standard or the parties’ reasons for agreeing on the price.

The transaction is nevertheless notable within the development’s recorded history. The new figure is $103 psf, or about 3.4%, above the $3,067 psf recorded for July’s same-sized, similarly banded sale.

That is a meaningful difference in dollars, but there is not enough public information to assign a cause. A better view, condition or negotiating outcome could matter in an individual condo sale; none of those explanations is established by the available record.

Why the July comparison helps

Comparing this sale with an unrelated one-bedroom unit would muddle size, layout and buyer budget. The July transaction gives readers a cleaner reference because both homes were recorded at 1,109 sq ft and within the same five-floor band.

Here is the arithmetic:

• July 2026: $3.4 million, or $3,067 psf.
• October 2026: $3.515 million, or $3,170 psf.
• Difference: $115,000, equivalent to about $103 psf or 3.4%.

Even this close comparison has limits. A floor band is not an exact floor, and matching floor areas do not confirm that the homes have identical facing, layout or condition. The numbers show what two buyers paid; they do not explain why the later deal was dearer.

For homeowners, the sale is best treated as a fresh comparable transaction—a recent deal that valuers, agents and prospective buyers may examine alongside other sales. It is not, by itself, a new price tag for every three-bedroom home in the project.

A completed freehold project, not a new launch

Amber Park is a 592-unit freehold condominium developed through a joint venture between City Developments Limited and Hong Realty. Sales began on 4 May 2019.

The project obtained its Temporary Occupation Permit, commonly called TOP, in December 2023 and was fully sold by the end of that financial year, according to City Developments Limited. TOP marks the stage when a completed development may be occupied.

That timeline puts the October 2026 deal firmly in the secondary market. The buyer was purchasing from an existing owner rather than selecting a unit and price from a developer’s launch inventory.

Freehold tenure means the land is not held on a fixed 99-year lease. It is an enduring project attribute, but the transaction evidence here does not isolate how much of the $3.515 million price was attributable to tenure rather than the particular home or the bargain struck.

What the record can—and cannot—tell us

The deal provides a concrete new reference point for Amber Park: one buyer agreed to $3.515 million for this unit type, and the transaction was reproduced by independent property-data services.

It offers much less support for a sweeping conclusion about District 15 or freehold condominiums generally. One high-floor resale cannot show whether prices across a neighbourhood have moved by the same percentage; that would require a broader set of comparable transactions over time.

There is also one technical limitation to keep in mind. Private residential transaction databases commonly draw from caveats lodged with the Singapore Land Authority, but URA’s transaction-search service notes that lodging a caveat is not mandatory. URA updates its published resale and sub-sale private-home transaction data twice weekly, making it useful and timely without turning it into a complete census of every sale.

For now, the clearest takeaway is narrower and more tangible: compared with July’s same-sized sale in the same floor band, the latest Amber Park buyer agreed to put another $115,000 on the table. The public record captures that choice clearly—even if it cannot tell us what, inside or outside the unit, persuaded the buyer to make it.