Official property records
101 Jln Rajah: recorded history
Explore the sales, rental records and building information available from our connected sources.
Property Upside score
What helps, what holds it back, and the evidence behind each score.
63% evidence coverage · 4 of 7 applicable dimensions scored
The outer ring is 100. Gaps mean a dimension is unscored.
Strongest supported dimension: Connectivity (80). Lowest supported dimension: Value (24).
Value20% weight24/100Latest recorded sale reference of S$610,000 is 10.4% above the S$552,500 comparable central price, based on 16 compatible sales. Being above comparable sales brings the score below the 50-point midpoint. This is a historical comparison, not a valuation or forecast.View evidence and calculation
How it is assessed. 50 + 250 × (comparable central price − assessed price) / comparable central price, bounded 0–100. At least 5 compatible sales and a latest comparable within 12 months. Historical reference and private asking-price scenarios are labelled separately.
Resale demand15% weight · Unscored—We cannot yet judge how regularly homes in this segment resell. This needs at least 5 matching resales and a source covering 12 completed months; missing records are not evidence of weak demand.View evidence and calculation
How it is assessed. 100 × months with resale activity / 12 completed calendar months, minimum 5 single-unit resales in the selected property segment and full source coverage. Monthly activity consistency is a proxy, not turnover or time-to-sell; no dwelling-count denominator is available.
Rental appeal10% weight42/100Rentals were recorded in 5 of 12 completed months, based on 5 matching flat-type records. More months with recorded activity earn a higher score, so regular activity helps and gaps bring it down. These are owner-declared records; gaps do not prove vacancy and the score does not measure rental returns.View evidence and calculation
How it is assessed. 100 × months with recorded rentals / 12 completed calendar months, minimum 5 contracts and full source coverage. Uses the same flat type. Activity continuity, not occupancy, investment return or project-size-normalised demand.
- Recorded HDB rentals: 5 records; 2025-09 to 2026-08 (2026-08) Source
Connectivity15% weight80/100The nearest recorded operational MRT is Toa Payoh MRT, approximately 545 m away. Being more than 400 m but within 800 m earns 80 points; closer stations score higher. This is straight-line distance; the actual walking route may be longer.View evidence and calculation
How it is assessed. Nearest operational MRT straight-line distance: 100 at ≤400 m, 80 at ≤800 m, 60 at ≤1,200 m, 40 at ≤2,000 m, 20 at ≤3,000 m. Beyond covered evidence is unscored; distances are not walking times.
- Nearest sourced MRT: Toa Payoh MRT (2026-09-06) Source
Everyday living10% weight · Unscored—We do not have current, verified nearby location evidence for shopping. All four everyday amenity categories are needed for a fair score. This does not mean those amenities are absent.View evidence and calculation
How it is assessed. Average proximity across schools, food/markets, parks and shopping: 100 at ≤500 m, 75 at ≤1,000 m, 50 at ≤2,000 m, 25 at ≤3,000 m. All four categories require sourced coverage; school proximity does not establish admission eligibility.
Tenure resilience15% weight54/100The selected records indicate approximately 53.3 years remaining as of Sep 2026. The score compares that remaining time with a 99-year lease: more years left raise the score, up to 100, while a shorter lease brings it down. Tenure longevity only; no financing or resale guarantee.View evidence and calculation
How it is assessed. Lease score = 100 × remaining years / 99, bounded 0–100; an explicitly recorded freehold title scores 100. Deduct elapsed time from recorded remaining lease, or use term and commencement year. Median across selected recent records; year-only starts are approximate.
- Recorded tenure: 99-year leasehold (2025-12) Source
URA growth catalysts10% weight · Unscored—No current, geographically matched growth announcement in the reviewed coverage.View evidence and calculation
How it is assessed. Highest matched catalyst score, without stacking overlapping announcements. Under-construction interchanges: 90 for a 2028 target, 85 for 2030, 80 for 2032; long-term district plans: 60 for Jurong Lake District, 55 for Greater Southern Waterfront. Subtract 10 beyond 500 m or 20 beyond 1 km. These are editorial proximity/stage points, not predicted returns. Reviewed catalogue covers selected announcements, not every Singapore plan. Reviews expire after 90 days; zoning alone earns no catalyst points.
- Master Plan zoning at the mapped reference point: Residential; gross plot ratio 2.8. (2026-09-06) Source
- Redevelopment evidence boundary: MP2025 zoning is indicative. A legal site boundary and existing gross floor area are required before calculating redevelopment headroom. Check subsequent amendments in URA SPACE. (2025-12-01) Source
En bloc potential5% weight · Not applicable—This metric follows collective-sale activity for private strata developments, so it does not apply to this property type.View evidence and calculation
How it is assessed. Editorial activity rubric: interest 25, committee 40, consent 55, mandate 70, tender 80, negotiation 65; a failed, ended or withdrawn attempt within 3 years scores 20. Latest dated reviewed event supersedes earlier events; repeat attempts add no points. Active stages expire at the earlier of a stated deadline, 90 days after the event, or 90 days after review. Inactive scores also require review within 90 days. Sold projects and older or expired activity are unscored. Exact private residential project identity only. This is an activity indicator, not a probability of sale, valuation or investment return. Redevelopment feasibility is not established: strata ownership, lawful GFA, entitlement, consent, costs and commercial viability require separate verification.
An editorial research indicator, not a price forecast or government rating. Overall requires at least 70% of applicable weight, including value and resale evidence. Compare only within the same property class and coverage profile. As of 2026-09-07 · Method upside-1.1.
4 ROOM · strata area · Resale · 1 unit per transaction · Tenure not classified. All charts use this comparison segment; price per sq ft uses strata area.
Fair value & asking price
A 1,010 sq ft property in 101 Jln Rajah
S$537,500 – S$568,000
Middle 50% of recorded prices
16 comparable sales over 5 years
Recent comparable sale is S$57,500 higher than the benchmark.
Recorded sale from 2025-12. Add an asking price above to compare a property you are considering. The amber band covers the middle 50% of similar-sized recorded prices. The benchmark is their median, not an adjusted or bank valuation.
- Median price / sq ft
- S$546
- Comparable sales
- 16Past 5 years
- Recorded PSF change
- Limited historyNeeds five sales in each year
- Recorded tenure
- Tenure not classified
Comparable recorded prices over time
Half-yearly recorded sale prices per sq ft of strata area for the selected size band · This property
Completed sales, not a forecast. Plotted periods have at least five matching sales. Boundary periods may be incomplete; changes in the units sold can move the median.
View half-yearly figures
| Period | Sales | Median / sq ft | Middle 50% |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1 1990 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1990 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 1991 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1991 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 1992 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1992 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 1993 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1993 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 1994 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1994 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 1995 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1995 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 1996 | 6 | S$272 | S$266–276 |
| H2 1996 | 6 | S$315 | S$312–331 |
| H1 1997 | 4 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1997 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 1998 | 4 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1998 | 4 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 1999 | 4 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 1999 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2000 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2000 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2001 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2001 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2002 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2002 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2003 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2003 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2004 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2004 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2005 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2005 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2006 | 4 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2006 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2007 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2007 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2008 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2008 | 4 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2009 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2009 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2010 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2010 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2011 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2011 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2012 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2012 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2013 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2013 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2014 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2014 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2015 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2015 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2016 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2016 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2017 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2017 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2018 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2018 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2019 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2019 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2020 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2020 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2021 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2021 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2022 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2022 | 0 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2023 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2023 | 2 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2024 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2024 | 4 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H1 2025 | 3 | Insufficient sales | — |
| H2 2025 | 1 | Insufficient sales | — |
Price versus other developments
KALLANG/WHAMPOA · HDB · Tenure not classified
Median recorded PSF over 5 years, using the same size band. Peers need five sales and are ordered by price proximity. Location, lease age, floor and condition are not adjusted.
Where the price sits
Against other kallang/whampoa · hdb transactions
Price percentile
33.5% below the kallang/whampoa · hdb median of S$821 / sq ft.
Based on 1651 other sales. A lower relative price does not by itself establish that a property is undervalued.
Price versus the local market
The distribution of kallang/whampoa · hdb recorded sale prices for similar-sized properties
Bar height shows the number of other transactions in each price band. Same kallang/whampoa · hdb, property type, area basis, recorded tenure, sale category and unit count, 5 years of sales and ±15% size band. This development is excluded from the market sample.
View price bands
| Price / sq ft | Recorded sales |
|---|---|
| S$380–481 | 35 |
| S$481–581 | 207 |
| S$581–682 | 247 |
| S$682–782 | 228 |
| S$782–883 | 278 |
| S$883–983 | 322 |
| S$983–1,084 | 188 |
| S$1,084–1,185 | 105 |
| S$1,185–1,285 | 40 |
| S$1,285–1,386 | 1 |
What traded in this development
Recorded strata areas in sales over the past 12 months
- Under 750 sq ft
- 00.0%
- 750–1,199 sq ft
- 1100.0%
- 1,200–1,799 sq ft
- 00.0%
- 1,800 sq ft and above
- 00.0%
Completed sales activity across all sizes, not the mix of properties currently for sale. Building condition and room counts are not inferred from area.
The sales behind the comparison
859–1,162 sq ft · Past 5 years
| Month | Size | Floor band | Recorded price | Price / sq ft |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12 | 1012 sq ft | 13–15 | S$610,000 | S$603 |
| 2025-03 | 1012 sq ft | 4–6 | S$565,000 | S$558 |
| 2025-02 | 1012 sq ft | 1–3 | S$500,000 | S$494 |
| 2025-01 | 1012 sq ft | 1–3 | S$530,000 | S$524 |
| 2024-12 | 1012 sq ft | 4–6 | S$555,000 | S$549 |
| 2024-11 | 1012 sq ft | 10–12 | S$608,000 | S$601 |
| 2024-10 | 1012 sq ft | 1–3 | S$568,000 | S$561 |
| 2024-08 | 1012 sq ft | 10–12 | S$550,000 | S$544 |
Up to eight recent matching sales shown; the recent comparison contains 16 matching sales in this window (This property). The history chart also includes older matching sales. View all published sales across all sizes and categories. Source dates have month precision.
How to read this analysis
The comparable range contains the middle 50% of observed prices; it is not a forecast or a confidence interval. Floor, condition, facing and remaining lease can materially change a home’s value. A price below a benchmark is a reason to investigate, not proof of a bargain.
Contains information from HDB resale transactions, accessed from data.gov.sg under the Singapore Open Data Licence. Last checked 6 Sep 2026, 09:45 SGT. Source documentation · Licence / terms · Full methodology
Charts & price evidence
Understand what these records can tell you.
All property records
101 Jln Rajah · Every recorded date, size and property type
All published history, including archived records. No date, size, flat-type, sale-category, tenure or unit-count exclusions. Source corrections use the latest published record; all 1 retained source versions are also available.
Showing 1–1 of 1 records. Every page is available below; the download contains the complete dataset for this property.
| Captured | Property | Year completed | Maximum floor | Dwelling units | Residential | Full source record |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 Sep 2026 19:43 | 101 Jln Rajah | 1980 | 17 | 128 | Yes | All fields & provenanceHDB property information · Source terms Captured 5 Sep 2026, 19:43 SGT {
"id": 114,
"snapshot_id": "1d1f1e14-c054-4546-b48a-eb9ad20b1e83",
"row_number": 114,
"place_id": "81713b7e-44c7-4c1e-bb1b-c9f572cf9ef0",
"year_completed": 1980,
"max_floor": 17,
"dwelling_units": 128,
"residential": true,
"raw_identity": {
"blk_no": "101",
"street": "JLN RAJAH",
"exec_sold": "0",
"1room_sold": "0",
"2room_sold": "0",
"3room_sold": "0",
"4room_sold": "128",
"5room_sold": "0",
"commercial": "N",
"residential": "Y",
"1room_rental": "0",
"2room_rental": "0",
"3room_rental": "0",
"market_hawker": "N",
"max_floor_lvl": "17",
"miscellaneous": "Y",
"multigen_sold": "0",
"year_completed": "1980",
"other_room_rental": "0",
"precinct_pavilion": "N",
"bldg_contract_town": "KWN",
"multistorey_carpark": "N",
"total_dwelling_units": "128",
"studio_apartment_sold": "0"
},
"source": "hdb_buildings",
"source_url": "https://data.gov.sg/datasets/d_17f5382f26140b1fdae0ba2ef6239d2f/view",
"licence_url": "https://data.gov.sg/open-data-licence",
"captured_at": "2026-09-05 11:43:49.228448+00:00",
"last_confirmed_at": "2026-09-05 11:43:49.228448+00:00",
"snapshot_checksum": "a6e3105d02c4b59929371d1f7e4f8c0ed7939cdc081701d7e9197790bb78f4b1"
} |
Official historical records are supplied by HDB/data.gov.sg and URA. Dates retain source precision. Price per square foot uses each record’s stated area basis; land area, strata area and multi-unit sales are labelled and may not be directly comparable. Original fields, quality flags and source provenance remain available on every row.