Skip to the content.

How cookie-cutter are Singapore’s malls?

Tenant-mix similarity across 59 malls with ≥15 listed brands. Brands normalised + alias-merged; similarity = Jaccard on brand sets.

back to shopping · back to the index

Please note. The labels “cookie-cutter” and “distinctive” here are purely descriptive of brand-set overlap in our scraped data — they are not judgments about a mall’s positioning, design quality, customer experience, or strategic intent. A high chain-share simply means the brand list overlaps a lot with other malls; a low one means a mall’s tenant mix is more unusual. Both can be desirable depending on what the mall is positioned to do. Operators are welcome to flag missing or out-of-date entries; we will update with a citation.

Tenant-mix similarity heatmap

Each cell is the Jaccard similarity between two malls’ brand sets. Darker = more shared brands. Hover for exact values.

Chain-share by mall — sortable

Click any column to sort; type to filter. The colour wash on the chain-share column highlights heartland templates (red) vs distinctive malls (green).

Homogeneity by positioning

Region bucket Malls Avg chain-share
Suburban / Heartland 34 69%
Unknown 3 62%
Orchard belt 10 49%
Downtown / Central 12 34%

Does the owner predict the tenant cluster?

Comparing owner vs region/positioning as predictors of tenant mix:

Predictor Within-group sim Between-group sim Lift Nearest-neighbour same-group Cluster agreement (ARI)
Owner 0.046 0.037 1.24× 39% -0.047
Region 0.057 0.027 2.12× 59% 0.051

Within-group sim = avg Jaccard between malls sharing the label; lift = within/between. ARI: cluster the malls (avg-linkage on Jaccard distance) and score agreement with the labelling (0 = chance, 1 = perfect).

See mall_dendrogram.png and mall_heatmap.png for the static clustering visuals, and data/mall_similarity.csv for the raw matrix.