It is well known that the majority of Singaporeans live in public housing (that is, housing provided by the Housing and Development Board, or HDB). However, what you may not know is that the majority of residents obtain their housing through a model that shares some high-level similarities with the way we deliver new condominiums in Toronto.
In 2001, the HDB introduced a program known as Build-to-Order (BTO). The way it works is fairly straightforward: the HDB announces a new project, prospective buyers apply and are assigned a queue number, and then, if they're selected, they get to buy. Once a sufficient number of "pre-sales" have been obtained, the project begins construction, and buyers get a brand-new, subsidized apartment in 3 to 5 years.
Singapore also mandates that the apartments must be owner-occupied and so, in this carefully controlled delivery model, supply very closely mirrors demand. This is different from traditional condominium pre-sales where some buyers might be end users, some might be planning to rent out the home, and some might want to sell immediately upon completion. In those markets, the risk of overbuilding and speculative volatility is greater.
HDB classifies the apartments themselves into three groups: Standard, Plus, and Prime. This classification is meant to reflect the locational value of certain projects; but importantly, the intent is that they're all equally attainable to citizens. The difference is that "choicer" locations (their vocabulary — now you have a new Scrabble word) require greater subsidies to make them affordable, and so they come with additional obligations.
For example, in the case of Prime flats, there is a subsidy recovery upon any future sale (I'm told it's between 6-9% of the first resale price), the minimum occupation period (MOP) is 10 years (versus 5 for the Standard class), and you can never ever rent out the whole home, even once the MOP has lapsed. Once again, this is about strictly matching new supply to end-user demand.
It's a lot of rules. But in Singapore, the majority of people accept them in exchange for affordability.
Cover photo: Tengah, Singapore via Monocle
One of the common criticisms of new housing is that it's designed for rich people and that it does nothing to help the housing situation of average citizens. The YIMBY response to this is, "Well, yes, it does actually, because supply eases overall housing pressures and because of the filtering effect." This is the process whereby housing becomes gradually more affordable and available to people as new housing is built and vacancies are created. But most people don't like this explanation. It feels slow and indirect.
Here's something that might help.
In this recent study, researchers looked at the downstream effects of a new condominium tower in Honolulu called The Central Ala Moana. Completed in 2021, the building contains 512 units, of which 60% are income-restricted (310 units) and 40% are market-rate (202 units). It was developed under a state affordable-housing program that gave the developer height and density bonuses, plus fee waivers totalling about $13 million in exchange for delivering income-restricted units. (In my opinion, this is directionally preferable to unfunded inclusionary zoning mandates.)
Using address-history microdata, the researchers tracked who moved into the new condominium tower, and constructed detailed vacancy chains across multiple rounds of moves. Here's what they discovered:
Among documented vacancies, the 202 market-rate units produced 87 downstream vacancies (0.43 vacancies per initial unit), while the 310 income-restricted units produced 90 (0.29 vacancies per unit). Thus, market-rate units are more likely to generate a downstream vacancy. The main mechanism is new household formation: movers into income-restricted units are more likely to be a newly formed household, leaving family or roommates at the prior address and thus preventing a vacancy from being created.
In absolute numbers, they found that the completion of the building induced more than 500 local vacancies in the three years after construction, by setting off a chain of moves. Importantly, the researchers also found that the homes being vacated were, on average, about 40% less expensive than those in The Central. So even though a new building may be more expensive than the existing housing stock (which is generally the case or else the development wouldn't happen), it does generate benefits.
It eases overall housing supply constraints and expands affordability in the local housing market.
Cover photo by Michael Olsen on Unsplash
Why rent control isn't "free"
New research shows restrictive reforms can result in a 10% reduction in rental supply
One of the basic principles behind rent control policies is that you're trying to make housing more affordable for some, while at the same time more expensive for others. Economics is the study of choice, and this is a choice, whether it gets talked about or not. Previously, we spoke about a memo from Howard Marks where he describes the impact of rent control in New York City. In economic terms, that impact looks like this:
Some people who couldn't afford to live in New York City if rents were set by the free market get the opportunity to live in the city (their housing is more affordable)
Other people who would like to live in New York City and could afford higher rents can't because there are no available apartments (rent controls reduce housing supply)
And lastly, landlords with unregulated apartments can command higher rents than would be the case if new housing supply were not being discouraged (their housing is more expensive)
Today, let's talk about a recent research paper (June 2025) published in the Journal of Housing Economics called, "Rent control and the supply of affordable housing." What the authors discovered was the following:
Restrictive rent control reforms are associated with a 10% reduction in the total number of rental units available in a city
Restrictive rent control reforms led to an increase in the availability of units affordable to extremely low-income households
This was offset by a decline in the availability of units to other income groups, particularly those at slightly higher affordability thresholds
Once again, we see the economic trade-offs inherent in supply-side interventions like rent control. It's better for some and worse for others. However, governments tend to favor it because it's "free" to them; the costs are borne by landlords and renters at higher affordability thresholds. I'll let all of you comment on whether you think this is good or bad, but regardless, I think it's crucial that we acknowledge the trade-offs being made.
Cover photo by Benjamin Ashton on Unsplash