The Vividz @ Bukit Jalil — the filed government advertisement prints the statutory minimum price twice, and the two copies do not agree

Where this project’s own documents disagree with each other — and what each disagreement costs you

Not one of these is a portal’s mistake. The first four are contradictions inside material published by the developer itself, in some cases inside a single PDF. I raise them because each one changes what you should get in writing before you sign anything. Two genuinely good findings are at the end, because this filing is in several respects the cleanest in this family.

The four filed layout types — and the one thing on this project every source gets right

This is the unit-type schedule in the filed brochure. Four types, three built-ups. The square-metre figures are the developer’s own, printed beside each square-foot figure in the filing. And here is the clean finding on this project: 484, 689 and 915 sq ft agree across the filing, the appointed agent’s microsite, PropertyGuru, portal editorial and a forum listing. Five independent publishers, no drift. That is unusual and it is worth saying. What does not agree is the naming: the filing uses A1 / B1 / C1 / C2, the developer’s own layout page uses A / B / C1 / C2, its own floorplan page collapses to A / B / C, PropertyGuru publishes three types, and portal editorial publishes four by inventing a Type D. No unit count per type, no type-to-tower assignment and no car-park allocation per type is published by anyone.

What is not published about the layouts, and therefore not here: the unit count for each type; which tower each type sits in; the car-park bays per type (the filing gives only a development-wide “1 – 3 UNIT” range); the share-unit or strata allocation per type; ceiling and floor-to-floor heights; the balcony area on C1; room-by-room dimensions; the handover specification, bare or partly fitted; stack orientation and which units face the other tower. The filing’s own floor-plan pages are headed “PELAN LANTAI — Jenis A / Jenis B / Jenis C” with floor bands printed as “TINGKAT 8 – 46”, “TINGKAT 47 – 50” and “TINGKAT 51 – 56”, which is where the 56-storey reading comes from. No source states which types sit in which band. One thing worth asking for by name: the developer’s own e-brochure PDF exists and is linked from its navigation, but exceeds 30 MB and could not be retrieved for this page. It is the most likely place a site plan and a land area would appear.

Gallery — and exactly how the subject of each image is sourced

How the subjects on this page are graded, and the honest limit of that grading. The developer’s own gallery prints 18 render captions in order — Facade, Facade, Chromatic Funland, Butterscotch Garden, Herbs Garden, Grill Garden, Proposed Park by Master Development, Proposed Park by Master Development, Leisure Villa, Cloud Lounge, Lobby Lounge B, Social Lounge, Gourmet Villa, Wellness Studio, Body Builder Studio, Vividz Pool, Vividz Pool, MultiPurpose Hall — so the facility subjects here are caption-published: the developer itself prints those subject names. They are not confirmed against a content-management title, and on this project they cannot be: vividz.com.my is a static HTML site, not WordPress, and its /wp-json/wp/v2/media route returns a hard 404. No subject on this project can be graded “confirmed” and none is. The render files themselves are not retrievable from the developer. The only image path the served gallery HTML exposes is template/img/gallery/image01.jpg, and that URL returns a hard 404 — verified, with negative controls (zzzznotreal999.png and gallery/image99.jpg) proving this host answers a missing file with a real 404 rather than its HTML shell, so “404” here means absent, not blocked. The renders are loaded by script from a path the HTML does not contain. The renders used above are the files already published on the earlier version of this page on this site since August 2026; their subject basis is the filename as published here, corroborated by the developer caption-publishing those same subject names. Three of the developer’s 18 captioned subjects — Social Lounge, Gourmet Villa and the second Vividz Pool — have no file in this site’s library and no substitute has been invented for them. The facilities key plan, the proposed shuttle-bus route and the location map were each fetched individually from the developer’s own server for this page and returned real image bytes. The developer’s vector floor-plan and unit-layout drawings — typeA, typeB, typeC, unitplansA1, unitplansB1, unitplansC1, unitplansC2 — were also verified as live, but are SVG files this site cannot currently accept, which is why the layout section above shows no plans. Ask EXSIM or the appointed agent for the render set and the stamped plans directly, and note that a GreenRE logo graphic probed at the path the sibling microsites use also 404s: the microsite does not display a GreenRE mark at all, which is odd given the project genuinely holds a provisional rating. Every render above is an artist’s impression, subject to change and to the approval of the relevant authorities.

Location: not one source publishes a single distance or travel time to anywhere

That sentence is the finding, and it is not a figure of speech. No source — not the filing, not the developer, not the appointed agent, not the portals — publishes a distance or a travel time from The Vividz to any named place. The developer’s own location page carries a map graphic and names places; it attaches a figure to none of them. The filed brochure names KL Wellness City, KMI Taman Desa Medical Centre, Sunway Medical Centre, Bukit Jalil Recreational Park, Taman Bukit Komanwel, Novel Park and others, with no distance against any of them. And the sibling projects’ LRT distances are not transferable here. The Kingswoodz and Queenswoodz pages on this site carry a contested Awan Besar figure — but those are distances from Jalan Jalil Perkasa 1, a different parcel under a different licence on a different land title. The Vividz is reported at Jalan Bukit Jalil Indah 1. Transplanting a sibling’s station distance onto this project would be an invented figure. I have estimated nothing and filled in nothing.

The Vividz @ Bukit Jalil — the filed statutory advertisement particulars

This is the spine of the page. Source: the advertisement brochure lodged with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, HIMS filing 30357-2, corroborated field for field by the filed newspaper advertisement at the same filing. Malay labels are as printed. Where a field is blank or filled with a placeholder on the filing, the cell says so and nothing is substituted for it. The developer publishes no statutory block of its own: vividz.com.my prints no licence number, no APDL, no chargee, no tenure, no land area, no unit count, no storey count and no completion date on any page, and its terms and disclaimer pages are generic boilerplate carrying no company name, no registration number, no licence number and no permit number at all. So there is no developer-published block to set against this one. The route that exposed the licensee on other EXSIM microsites fails here: this developer’s own website never names its own licensee.

The licence suffix is worth one line of its own: this filing prints the licence as …0034(A) while the Veladaz Residences filing under the very same licence and the very same validity window prints it as …0034(N). Identical serial, identical dates, different terminal letter. This page reproduces this filing’s own string and does not harmonise the two.

The statutory selling prices above are the legally filed Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima — the filed SPA price range — and are published here because they are public filed particulars. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and they do not tell you the price of any particular unit or type. How this filing was located, for anyone who wants to repeat the check: the APDL shortcut could not be used because the APDL is an unfilled placeholder, so the HIMS folder was reached from the developer code 30357, already on record for this same company as the licensee of Veladaz Residences, and then walked by serial. 30357-1 is Veladaz Residences (“RESIDENSI SEJAHTERA DAMAI”, 508 units, 42 storeys, expected October 2026); 30357-2 is this scheme; and 30357-3, -4 and -5 all return 404, so licence 30357 carries exactly two filed schemes. For completeness, 30741-3 and -4 — the EXSIM Jalil Link licence that carries The Kingswoodz and The Queenswoodz — were re-checked and also 404, which is the positive confirmation that The Vividz is not a scheme under that licence at all.

Two statutory blocks, one filed advertisement, two different price floors — the full reading

The filed brochure’s final regulatory page carries two complete butir-butir iklan blocks printed one after the other. Read field by field they are identical in every single field except one: pemaju, licence number, licence validity, both XXXX permit fields, approving authority, plan reference, tenure and expiry, sekatan kepentingan, chargee, completion date, the unit line, the car-park range, the Bumiputera field and the development type all match exactly.

The one field that differs is the statutory minimum selling price: RM462,882.00 in the first block and RM460,822.00 in the second, against an identical maximum of RM827,811.00 in both. The two minima are a digit transposition of each other — …2,882 against …0,822.

Neither block carries a heading, a tower name, a phase label or a language label. Both are in Malay. So there is no basis in the document for assigning one block to MENARA A and the other to MENARA B. Two readings are possible and the filing chooses between them nowhere:

Reading one: one block per tower. The filing’s own floor-plan pages do label MENARA A and MENARA B, and portal editorial states explicitly “1,138 residential units across two towers (569 units per tower)”, which would make the filed line “569 Unit” a per-tower figure and the total 569 × 2 = 1,138 — exactly the number every marketing source gives. Reading two: a duplicated block with a typing error in one copy. Both fit the document.

Either way, the filing itself never prints the number 1,138, never prints a per-block split and never labels either block. That was confirmed by direct search of the document: the strings “1,138” and “1138” do not appear anywhere in it. So this page quotes the filed unit line verbatim, publishes both filed minima, states that 1,138 is the marketed total and is arithmetically 569 × 2, and does not pick a minimum on your behalf. What to do about it: a buyer should know that the government copy of this project’s price floor exists in two versions, and should take the figure that binds them from the current price list and from the sale and purchase agreement — not from either statutory block and not from this page. Get written confirmation of which block of particulars applies to the tower and unit you are being shown.

How many storeys is this building? Four published answers, and this page reconciles none of them

This is the single worst contradiction on the project, because the filed statutory figure is contradicted by the floor plans inside the very same filed PDF.

Publish the filed 49 as the filed figure — it is the statutory one, and it is printed twice. But a buyer should know that the developer’s own facilities page places a sky deck on Level 57, that the same filing’s floor bands run to TINGKAT 56, and that the main contractor and the construction register both describe a 58-storey building. Those are not small differences and nothing published reconciles them. The question matters beyond trivia: it determines how many floors of lifts serve your unit, where the sky facilities actually are, and whether the floor band your type sits in (“TINGKAT 8 – 46”, “TINGKAT 47 – 50”, “TINGKAT 51 – 56”) exists as drawn. Get the storey count per tower in writing, and get the level of the sky deck in writing.

Has the advertising permit lapsed? The check cannot be performed, and here is exactly why

On the filed brochure the No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan field is rendered as the literal placeholder XXXX and its validity period as Xxxxxxxxxxxx, and no other published source gives an APDL number or validity for this scheme. So nobody can establish from public records whether the permit under which this project is being advertised is current or has lapsed. This is the fifth filing in this EXSIM series with the same defect. The developer licence 30357/01-2028/0034(A) runs to 30 January 2028 and is current — but a developer licence is not an advertising and sale permit, and the 2028 date must never be presented to you as APDL validity. If you need the APDL it has to come from the statutory particulars board at the sales gallery or the back page of a physical brochure, and it is the first thing on my list to ask for.

Foreign buyers — Kuala Lumpur, and a threshold question that needs answering before anyone commits

The site is in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, under DBKL, where the published minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer has been RM1,000,000, with Economic Planning Unit consent where it applies. The filed statutory maximum here is RM827,811.00, which sits below that threshold — so on the face of the filed particulars every unit in this development would fall under the Federal Territory minimum and be out of reach for a foreign buyer. No source addresses foreign eligibility for this scheme at all, and I am flagging this as a question rather than publishing it as a finding: thresholds are revised, state and territory guidelines differ in how they treat serviced apartments on commercial title, and the arithmetic above rests on the filed statutory band rather than on an actual transacted price. It must be confirmed against the current Federal Territory guideline and in writing from the developer before a foreign buyer commits. For comparison, Selangor Zone 1 and Zone 2 require RM2,000,000 and apply to strata and gated landed strata only, while Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — requires RM1,000,000.

Density — why this page computes none, and why the obvious shortcut is a trap

Keluasan tanah is NOT PRINTED on the filing, no acreage appears in the filing’s prose, and vividz.com.my publishes no site area on any page. The developer publishes no land area anywhere, so density cannot be computed and no density figure appears on this page.

The only land figure in circulation is 2.55 acres, carried by portal editorial and by a forum listing — and those two are not independent: the forum post reproduces agent material and matches the portal on every other figure too. So one unverified source gives 2.55 acres. Against that figure the marketed 1,138 units would be about 446 units per acre and the filed single block of 569 about 223 — both very high. Neither rests on a developer-published parcel size, so neither is a publishable density figure, and I am naming the arithmetic only to show what it would rest on.

And here is the trap to avoid: do not divide the unit count by the KL Wellness City masterplan acreage to get a flattering number. The construction register titles this job “… SERVICED APARTMENT (PLOT 3)” of a larger master development it does not name. The project’s own land is the plot, not the masterplan — and as the location section sets out, the developer’s own filing treats KL Wellness City as a neighbour, not as the parcel this sits in. Ask for the land area in writing so density can be computed rather than asserted.

Construction progress — what percentage is published

None. No completion percentage is published for this scheme by the developer, by the filing or by any portal. The developer’s site-progress page carries quarterly photo galleries for 2025 Q1–Q3 and 2026 Q1–Q3 but prints no percentage-complete figure and no date in text beside any quarter. The construction register describes the status as “Construction – Structural, with superstructure works in progress”, which is a stage, not a percentage. What is unusually solid here is the date arithmetic: the main contract is RM327.74 million to Binastra Builders Sdn Bhd on a 42-month term from 9 December 2024, which lands on June 2028 — the filed date exactly. Note that the two Edge-family outlets report their own 42-month figure inconsistently in their prose, one deriving a completion “approximately October 2028” and the other “approximately March 2028”. Neither matches the arithmetic. Use the filed date and the contract term, not a portal’s derivation of it.

The due-diligence question nobody publishes the answer to

This licensee has delivered, or failed to deliver, exactly one other scheme — and the answer is available to you and not to me. EXSIM Bukit Jalil City Sdn Bhd’s only other registered scheme is Veladaz Residences, filed under the same licence as 30357-1, 508 units over 42 storeys, with a filed expected completion of October 2026 — that is, now. Whether Veladaz was delivered on time is the single most useful piece of due diligence available on this licensee, and nobody publishes it. It is a question you can put to the sales gallery in one sentence, and you should. Note also that Veladaz has no GreenRE entry at all on the developer’s own register, so the green rating here is scheme-specific and not something the licensee carries across its portfolio.

Not published, therefore not on this page

Statutory: the APDL number and its validity; which of the two filed statutory minima governs; the per-block unit split; the land area (keluasan tanah); the project’s own site address, lot or PT number, and the registered proprietor of the land; which master development this “Plot 3” belongs to and whose land the neighbouring proposed park sits on. Building and units: a single reconciled storey count — four are published; the unit count per layout type; which types sit in which tower and in which of the three filed floor bands; the car-park bays per type, the number of car-park levels, and whether the Level 8 facilities deck sits on the parking podium; the C1 balcony area; ceiling and floor-to-floor heights; lifts per tower and the lift-to-unit ratio; the share-unit or strata allocation per type; the handover specification, bare or partly fitted. Facilities and running cost: the maintenance charge and sinking-fund rate per square foot — nobody publishes either; whether the Level 8 deck is shared between the two towers or split; whether a master-community charge applies across the master development and who maintains the shared roads, drainage and boundary after handover; whether the proposed shuttle bus will exist, which stations it will serve, how often, for how long and at whose cost; whether the proposed park will be built, by whom and when. Location: any distance or travel time to any named place — not one is published by anyone, which is why this page carries none; a verified street address. Green and legal: the GreenRE certificate number and validity period, and when final post-construction certification is expected; foreign-buyer eligibility for this project against the current Federal Territory threshold; the Bumiputera unit quota, allocation and release mechanics; vacant possession terms, the defect liability period and the liquidated-damages rate; the managing agent or joint management body arrangement. Consultants: the construction register confirms an architect, a C&S engineer, an M&E engineer, a quantity surveyor, a landscape designer and a green consultant are all appointed, but their names sit behind a subscription. Worth buying access for, because the green consultant would confirm the GreenRE pathway. Also worth a manual look: the developer’s own e-brochure PDF exceeds 30 MB and could not be retrieved for this page; it is the most likely place a site plan and a land area would be printed.

What this page does not publish, and why

This page carries no discount of any kind, no rebate, no price reduced by either of those, no promotional package, no freebie or incentive, no Bumiputera discount percentage, no agency commission, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or return-on-investment projection. Some of that information exists in material I hold as an agent and it is not mine to publish; the rest does not belong on a page whose whole purpose is that every number on it is traceable to a named public document. Three specifics, recorded so you know they exist: first, the filed brochure prints a Diskaun Bumiputera field — the field’s existence is recorded on this page and its value is deliberately withheld. Second, the appointed-agent microsite carries a cash incentive tied to early registration — recorded here only as “an incentive exists”, with its nature and amount withheld. Third, an agent listing on a property portal carries a rental-yield projection in its headline, which is withheld in full. And on prices below the filed floor: three sources carry an opening “from” figure below the lower of the two filed statutory minima, RM460,822.00, and one of them sits substantially further below it than the other two. A figure below the filed statutory minimum cannot be an open-market selling price as filed, so none of the three figures is published here; what is published is that the discrepancy exists and that three sources carry it. Those three are not three independent sources: two of the figures sit within a few hundred ringgit of each other and the forum post is a member-posted copy of agent material, so effectively two distinct sub-statutory figures circulate, one of them much lower. And not one of those figures can be tied to a sale and purchase agreement price — one of them is published with a qualifier that puts it on a different basis from an SPA price altogether. The rule I apply is simple: if a figure is not the SPA price, it does not go on the page. So the only price here is the filed statutory band, which is the filed SPA price range. Ask me for the current price list and I will get it; it will come from the developer with a date on it.

What I will ask at the sales gallery, in this order

1. Which of the two filed statutory blocks applies to the tower and unit I am being shown, and therefore which minimum — RM462,882.00 or RM460,822.00 — is the correct filed floor. 2. The APDL certificate, its number and its validity period, photographed. 3. The storey count per tower in writing, given that the filing says 49, the same filing’s floor plans run to 56, the facilities page says 57 and the main contractor says 58. 4. The actual level of the sky deck. 5. The land area for this plot, in writing, so density can be computed rather than asserted — and which master development “Plot 3” belongs to. 6. Whether a master-community charge applies, and who maintains the shared infrastructure after handover. 7. Confirmation in writing that every unit is under the Housing Development Act with a Schedule H sale and purchase agreement, and that there is no office, retail or commercial parcel in the development. 8. The unit count for my type, which tower it sits in, which floor band, and the balcony area on C1. 9. The car-park allocation for my type and the number of car-park levels. 10. The maintenance charge and sinking-fund rate. 11. Whether the proposed shuttle bus and the proposed park are committed, by whom, and for how long. 12. The GreenRE certificate number and when final certification is expected. 13. Whether Veladaz Residences, this same company’s only other scheme, was delivered on its filed October 2026 date. 14. And for a foreign buyer: written confirmation of eligibility against the current Federal Territory threshold, given that the filed statutory maximum sits below RM1,000,000.

The Vividz @ Bukit Jalil — the questions buyers actually ask

Read these beside this page

Published 5 October 2026 · Last verified 5 October 2026 · Statutory particulars from the KPKT HIMS filed advertisement brochure, filing 30357-2, corroborated by the filed newspaper advertisement at the same filing. That filing prints two statutory particulars blocks with two different minimum selling prices, RM462,882.00 and RM460,822.00; both are published above and neither is chosen. The APDL field and its validity are literal placeholders, so the advertising permit’s currency cannot be assessed, and the developer licence validity to 30 January 2028 is not an APDL validity. Land area is not printed by the developer anywhere, so no density figure appears here, and no source publishes any distance from this project to any place. GreenRE Silver is at the Provisional stage. Marketing information, not an offer.