Aricia Residences @ Sungai Besi

Six things about Aricia Residences that are worth knowing before you see a show unit

None of these is a criticism of the building. Each is a published fact, or a published gap, that a buyer is entitled to have in front of them — and each one came out of reading the government filing against the developer’s own material, line by line.

Five marketed types, four in the filing — and a label that does not match

The filed statutory schedule lists four types: A1 550 sq ft, B1 757 sq ft, C1 872 sq ft and D2 1,410 sq ft. The developer markets five, and calls the 1,410 sq ft type D1, with D2 as 1,420 sq ft. So the filing’s “D2” carries D1’s built-up. One of the two is mislabelled, and the page shows both labels rather than choosing. Sizes are printed in the filing as “kps” (kaki persegi, square feet); no square-metre column exists in any source, so no sq m figure appears here.

Type A1 — 550 sq ft

1+1 bedrooms · 1 bathroom · 1 car park (developer) · filed and marketed, consistent

Filed: 550 kps1+1 Bilik Tidur1 Bilik AirIn the filing

The only type where the filing, aricia.com.my/serviced, aricia.my and PropertyGuru all agree: 550 sq ft, 1+1 bedrooms, 1 bathroom. The “+1” is a flexi or study room — chansowlin.my calls it “flexi” — but no source publishes a room-by-room schedule, so the +1 is not independently verifiable. This is not a studio office, SOHO or SOFO: it is filed as “1+1 Bilik Tidur / 1 Bilik Air”, residential. Floor plan published by the developer and labelled Type A1 on its own page (confirmed caption).

Ask for the A1 plan and stack

No floor plan for Type B1 is published by the developer. The microsite publishes plans only for A1 and D1, as images. We do not substitute a plan we cannot source.

Type B1 — 757 sq ft

2+1 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms · car park contested · filed and marketed

Filed: 757 kps2+1 Bilik Tidur2 Bilik AirNo plan published

Filed at 757 sq ft with 2+1 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, and marketed the same way. The car park count is the disagreement: the developer’s aricia.my table says 2, myrumahbaru says 1, and chansowlin.my says “2–3”. The filing gives only a global “1 / 2 / 3” statutory field and no per-type allocation at all, so none of the three can be checked against it. Note too that the April 2024 preview coverage describes the range as starting at 872 sq ft — this type is absent from that description.

No floor plan for Type C1 is published by the developer. Nothing has been substituted.

Type C1 — 872 sq ft

3+1 or 3 bedrooms · 2 or 3 bathrooms · 2 car parks (developer) · the developer’s two sites disagree

Filed: 872 kpsBathrooms: 2 filed vs 3 marketedBedrooms: 3+1 vs 3No plan published

This is where the developer contradicts itself. The filing says 2 bathrooms and 3+1 bedrooms. aricia.my says 3 bathrooms and 3 bedrooms. myrumahbaru and PropertyGuru both say 2 bathrooms, agreeing with the filing against the developer’s own second site. chansowlin.my calls it “3+1 (flexi)”. Count the bathrooms on the plan at the gallery, and have the figure confirmed in the sale and purchase agreement schedule.

Type D1 — 1,410 sq ft sky duplex

3+1 bedrooms · 3 bathrooms · 2–3 car parks (developer) · filed as “D2”

Filed: 1,410 kps as “D2”Marketed as D13+1 Bilik Tidur3 Bilik Air

The duplex the project is built around — the feature strip reads “Duplex Living from 1,410 sq.ft.” The filing schedules this built-up under the label D2; the developer labels it D1 on aricia.com.my/duplex and on aricia.my. Both the group’s press material and AmBank describe these as “the first-ever 3-bedroom sky duplexes in the Sungai Besi area” — a self-scoped claim with no registry definition of “sky duplex” and no independent support, so it is attributed here and not repeated as fact. Plan published by the developer and labelled Type D1 (confirmed caption).

Ask for the duplex plan and stack

No floor plan is published for this type, and this type does not appear in the filed statutory schedule at all.

Type D2 — 1,420 sq ft

3+1 bedrooms · 3 bathrooms · 2 car parks (developer) · NOT in the filing

Not filedMarketed only3+1 Bilik TidurNo plan published

The developer’s aricia.my table and chansowlin.my both list a D2 at 1,420 sq ft. The filed statutory schedule does not contain a 1,420 sq ft type at all — it uses the label D2 for the 1,410 sq ft unit. PropertyGuru sidesteps the problem by printing “1,410–1,420” as one range. If you are buying this type, get the label, the built-up and the plan written into the sale and purchase agreement schedule, because the filed advertisement will not corroborate them.

NOT PUBLISHED. No source states how many A1, B1, C1, D1 or D2 units exist.

Unit count per type

A genuine gap — and one worth asking about

NOT PUBLISHEDAsk the developer

The filing gives the block split — 438 in Blok A, 349 in Blok B — and nothing more. No source anywhere breaks the 787 units down by type, so the actual supply of duplexes, and of the 550 sq ft type, is unknown from published material. chansowlin.my adds “Tower A: 15 units per floor, Tower B: 9 units per floor”, and the arithmetic only half closes: 349 ÷ 9 = 38.8 against a filed 39 storeys, which works, but 438 ÷ 15 = 29.2 against a filed 40, which does not. Treat the per-floor figures as unverified.

Layout sizes above are the filed statutory schedule and the developer’s own published tables, with every disagreement named. Floor plans are reproduced only where the developer publishes one and labels it. Where no plan is published, the space says so — nothing is substituted and no subject is captioned that cannot be sourced. All built-ups are approximate and subject to final survey; the governing figures are those in the sale and purchase agreement and its schedules.

The developer’s own renders, with the developer’s own captions

Every image on this page comes from the licensed developer’s own published material — aricia.com.my and its layout, facilities and gallery sections. Captions marked confirmed reproduce the caption the developer publishes beside the image; captions marked confirmed by position take their subject from the labelled section the image sits in. No image subject on this page is inferred from a filename alone, and no stock photograph has been substituted. All renders are artist’s impressions. The developer’s own disclaimer reads: “All renderings are artist’s impressions only. All measurements are approximate… subject to variations, modifications and substitutions as may be required by the Authorities.” The developer also publishes a 360° virtual tour.

Jalan Sungai Besi, Chan Sow Lin corridor, Kuala Lumpur

One site, and four different locality labels in circulation. The locality is settled not by a portal field but by the filing: both the filed brochure and the filed newspaper advertisement name the approving authority as Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, with building-plan reference DBKL.BPS1OSC20242271(24). DBKL’s planning jurisdiction runs to the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and nowhere else. The developer’s own statutory block repeats the same authority and the same reference on every page of its microsite.

BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN — the filed advertisement particulars, licence/phase 30632-1

This is the spine of the page, not a footnote. Everything in the table is transcribed from the two documents the developer is required by law to file with the Ministry of Local Government Development (KPKT): the advertisement brochure and the newspaper advertisement, both retrieved from the HIMS folder files/30632/30632-1/. The Malay label is given as printed. Where a field was filed empty or as a placeholder, the table says so instead of filling it in. The developer’s own published completion date is set beside the filed one so you can see both.

Transcribed from the two filed documents under licence/phase 30632-1 and read against each other. Where the two filings differ in wording they do not differ in substance: both give 438/40 and 349/39, both give the same two price bands, and both give November 2027. A serial walk on 30632-2, 30632-3 and 30632-4 returned 404 in each case, so licence 30632 carries one registered phase only — there is no hidden extra scheme and no undisclosed phase.

The two price ranges above are the Harga Jualan Unit, Minima – Maksima as legally filed — that is, the filed sale and purchase agreement price ranges. They are published here because they are public statutory filed particulars. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, they describe the scheme as filed and not any individual unit, and they may have been superseded. The real figures for a specific unit come from the dated developer price list and from the sale and purchase agreement itself at the sales gallery. Ask me and I will go and get both.

Foreign buyers: the whole of Blok B is below the Kuala Lumpur threshold

In the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur a foreign purchaser needs a minimum purchase price of RM1,000,000 and the consent of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU). Set that against the filed statutory bands and the consequence is precise. Blok B’s filed maximum is RM938,000, so the entire block sits below the threshold — no Blok B unit, at any size or on any floor, reaches it. In Blok A, whose filed band runs to RM1,396,000, only units at or above RM1,000,000 qualify, which in practice means the upper end of the stack; the 550 sq ft and 757 sq ft types cannot get there. Two further points a foreign buyer should have in front of them: a reduction in price works against you here, because the threshold is tested on the purchase price, so bringing a unit down can push it under RM1,000,000 and disqualify it outright; and EPU consent is a separate approval that is not automatic. Not one source located on this project mentions foreign eligibility at all — not the developer, not the portals, not the agents — even though most of the price stack falls below the threshold. Kuala Lumpur is also not Selangor: the Selangor Zone 1 and Zone 2 figure of RM2,000,000, and the Zone 3 figure of RM1,000,000 with state consent, do not apply to this project, which is why the two directories that mis-tag it “Selangor” are worth correcting rather than ignoring.

Why the APDL row says “cannot be assessed” rather than “current” or “lapsed”

The APDL is the permit that makes it lawful to advertise and sell a housing development, and checking whether it is current is normally the single most useful thing you can do with a filed advertisement. Here you cannot. The KPKT copy prints the permit number as the literal string xxxxx-x/xx-xxxx/xxxx(x)-(x) and its validity as xx/xx/xxxx – xx/xx/xxxx — the fields went up unfilled. That is a documented failure of the filing, not an inference. What we can do is three things, and the page does all three. First, record the placeholder for what it is. Second, print the number the developer itself publishes — 30632-1/01-2028/0076(N)-(S), valid 25/01/2025 to 24/01/2028, which on its face is current as at 7 October 2026 — while being explicit that the source is marketing material. Third, refuse the easy error: the developer’s licence is valid 28/11/2023 to 27/11/2028, and that date is not the APDL validity. Pages that quietly put the licence expiry in the permit row are wrong, and this one does not. Before you sign anything, ask to see the physical APDL and check the number and the expiry against what is above.

Price: why the only figures on this page are the two filed statutory bands — and what this page does not publish, and why

This page publishes the filed statutory price ranges and nothing else, and on this project that decision needed more care than usual. Four separate publishers carry a “from RM___” starting figure that sits BELOW the filed statutory minimum of RM530,000. The four are a major portal, a new-launch aggregator, an agent microsite — and, remarkably, the developer group’s own corporate page, which prints a sub-minimum figure with an unexplained asterisk. These are four distinct publishers, not one syndicated feed. The finding is that a parent company’s own website undercuts its own subsidiary’s filed statutory minimum. The figures themselves are withheld here, deliberately. On top of that, one of those four labels its range “SPA price before rebate” — rebate language on the face of the source — which means every third-party price figure on this project has to be treated as rebate-adjusted and therefore unpublishable, including the duplex figures, which disagree with each other type for type anyway. So: this page carries no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera discount value, no rental-guarantee rate and no yield or ROI projection. That is a deliberate rule, not an oversight. The rule is simple — if a number is not the sale and purchase agreement price, it does not go on this page, and if we are not certain what a number represents, it is left out entirely. A consistency check that does pass is worth noting: AmBank gives the GDV as RM467 million which, across 787 units, implies an average near RM593,000 — comfortably inside the filed band, and a further reason to distrust the sub-minimum figures. No public government registry price band (NAPIC/JPPH or similar) was located for this project. For a current price on a specific unit, ask me: I will go to the developer and bring back the dated price list and the sale and purchase agreement.

Schedule H is expected here — and the commercial land category is a different question

Two things get confused on serviced apartments and they are worth separating. On the HDA question the indicators are positive. The filed unit schedule contains five residential types only (A1, B1, C1, D1/D2), every one of them expressed in bedrooms and bathrooms; a direct read of the filing finds no pejabat, no office suite, no SOHO and no SOFO parcel; the developer holds a current HDA developer’s licence; an APDL was issued for this phase; and KPKT published the statutory advertisement — which is the licensing chain used for HDA housing accommodation. On that basis Schedule H is what you should expect, with its statutory defect liability period and its liquidated-damages mechanism. State it positively, then get it in writing: no source states, unit by unit, whether Schedule H or Schedule G is used, how long the defect liability period runs, or what the LAD basis is. One piece of hygiene while you are at it — the “office suites” and “dual-key” wording circulating about “Chin Hin’s new launch” belongs to Dawn, KLCC, a different development unveiled at the same preview event. It is not Aricia, and this page does not carry it over. Separately, and not the same issue: the land is filed Syarat Nyata: Komersial. That is normal for a Kuala Lumpur serviced apartment, but it means commercial assessment rates and commercial utility tariffs, with no residential-rate electricity or water — a real and recurring cost. Budget for it. It is an outgoings issue, not an HDA one, and conflating the two helps nobody.

Density, build percentage and site progress — what can and cannot be computed

Density cannot be computed from any developer-published figure, because no developer source publishes a land area. Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in the filing, and it is absent from aricia.com.my, from aricia.my and from the corporate project page. The only figure in circulation is 2.615 acres, carried by PropertyGuru, chansowlin.my and StarProperty — three publishers whose identical three-decimal figure and near-identical wording suggest one origin recycled rather than three independent measurements. If that figure were right, 787 units across 2.615 acres would be about 301 units per acre: a high-density tower project. We show the arithmetic so you can see what the third-party number implies, and we present it as third-party, not as published by the developer. Note that the developer makes no “low density” claim — correctly, since 301 units per acre would not support one — and this page will not introduce one. On build percentage: no figure is published by anyone. What the developer does publish is four site-progress photographs headed “As at September 2026”, which is evidence of activity and not a percentage. The construction database myBina holds the main contractor name and contract sum behind a paywall (“Main Contractor: Awarded”, project value “between 50 and 100 million” — a construction value, well below the RM467m GDV, and not a unit price), and no Bursa contract announcement for this project was located. The architect, C&S and M&E engineers and quantity surveyor are all paywalled too: myBina says 16 companies across 14 roles are on record and names none of them.

Not published, therefore not on this page — the list I will go and ask for

Every item here is a question a buyer would reasonably ask that no source answers. The land: lot or PT number, mukim, daerah, seksyen; the land area; any GPS coordinate for the site (the only coordinates the developer publishes are its Chow Kit sales gallery’s). The filing: the registered scheme name (none was filed); the APDL number and validity from the filing itself (placeholder only); the chargee or financier of the land beyond “Beban Tanah: Tiada” at filing date. The building: how many units of each layout type; the number of car-park levels and the visitor-parking provision; the lift count and lift-to-unit ratio; ceiling and floor-to-floor heights; the ground-floor facilities schedule and whether any retail or commercial parcel exists; the eighth item in the developer’s own Level 9 list. The money: the service charge and maintenance rate per sq ft, and the sinking fund — none of it published by anyone; whether any unit is sold furnished, and the fit-out specification beyond the four marketed items. The legals: whether Schedule H or Schedule G applies, the defect liability period length and the LAD basis; the Bumiputera allocation and its quota mechanics; foreign-buyer eligibility, which not one source mentions. The parties: which entity actually owns Aricia Sdn Bhd; the main contractor and contract sum; the architect and consultants; and the management company for the completed building — “Maplehome” is named as a maintenance and housekeeping partner in the April 2024 press, with no scope, term or appointment published. Certification: any as-built GreenRE certification (only provisional exists), and GBI status (no registry entry, and no claim made). Transport: any rail distance from the developer, and any distance at all to Sungai Besi station, TBS, KL Sentral or KLIA. Ask me for any of these and I will put the question to the developer in writing rather than guess at it.

Aricia Residences @ Sungai Besi — frequently asked questions

Also worth seeing nearby

Published 7 October 2026 · Last verified 7 October 2026 against the KPKT HIMS filings (licence/phase 30632-1), the GreenRE public register, the developer’s own microsites and corporate page, the financier’s announcement and the portals named above. Marketing information, not an offer.