D’Evia Residences @ Kwasa Damansara

Six things that decide whether D’Evia Residences is worth your time

None of these is a complaint about the building, which may well be good. They are the gaps and the errors in the public record, and a buyer should know them before a deposit, not after.

Three marketed types, seven published layout variants, and a Type D nobody will discuss

There is no filed layout schedule to check these against, because no KPKT filing for this project could be located. What follows is the marketed schedule, source by source, with the developer’s own unexplained extra variants set out rather than tidied away. Every square-metre equivalent you may see elsewhere is somebody’s conversion — no source publishes square metres.

Built-ups, bedroom and bathroom counts above are marketing figures from the sources named in each card, not values read off a filed advertisement — there is no filed advertisement in the public record. Car-park allocations come from a single portal and are unverified. No price is shown for any type: no filed Unit Selling Price min–max exists in the public record, so there is no figure here that could be tied to an SPA price. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the SPA and the developer’s own price list before you pay anything.

The developer’s renders — and how confident I am about each caption

The developer’s gallery page publishes sixteen render captions. Seven are shown here. The remaining nine — Harvest Pavilion & BBQ, The Evia Pool, Little Lagoon & Pocket Garden, Ripple Playground, Healing Garden, Tree Shade Retreat, Little Lagoon, Cascade Drop Off and Pickle Ball Court — are captions whose image files the developer’s server does not expose at any path I could resolve: the gallery loads them by script from a location not present in the served HTML, and a negative control confirmed that this server answers a missing file with the site’s own HTML shell rather than a 404, so a “reachable” guess cannot be trusted. Rather than caption a picture I cannot source, I have left them out and asked for the files. Every caption above is graded inferred, never confirmed, because devia.com.my publishes no image titles at all. No site-progress photograph exists: the developer’s own site-progress page says “Coming Soon”, four months after works began.

Seksyen U4, Shah Alam — near Kwasa Damansara City Centre, not inside it

Two corrections first, because the portals have this wrong and one of them changes which city hall approves the building. The site is in Seksyen U4, Shah Alam, so the approving authority is Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam. And the project sits on parcel MX-4(ii): it is near Kwasa Damansara City Centre, which is a separate named town-centre parcel, not in it.

Filed advertisement particulars for D’Evia Residences @ Kwasa Damansara — and why this table is almost entirely blank

This is normally the strongest part of one of my pages: the BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN block that HDA requires on every advertisement, read straight off the filing. For D’Evia there is nothing to read. The table below is printed blank on purpose, with the Malay label that would appear in each field, so that you can see exactly what you are not being told — and so that you can ask for it.

Every “not published” above is a finding, not an omission on my part. The routes I tried are listed below so that nobody has to repeat them, and so that you can judge for yourself whether the search was serious.

Because no filing was located, nothing in this table may be relied on as filed particulars. The figures that are filled in come from the developer’s marketing pages, two contractor announcements and four property portals, each named. This page is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and it does not form part of any contract.

Every route I tried for the filed particulars, and what each returned

The developer’s own site: all eleven pages of devia.com.my read — index, gallery, floorplan, layout, location, facilities, siteprogress, developer, contact, terms, disclaimer. The disclaimer carries only an artist’s-impression notice; the terms page carries the company name and registered address and nothing statutory. No BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN block exists on the site. I then tried the paths where a sibling EXSIM project kept its statutory block: /apdl, /apdl.html, /tnc.html, /policy.html — each returned the site’s own HTML shell, because this server answers a missing file with the shell rather than a 404. KPKT HIMS: hims.kpkt.gov.my exposes only login and registration routes; it has no public search. The documented direct-path shortcut to a brochure PDF needs the APDL number, which nobody publishes. 2026 filings have moved to a path of the form files/<developer code>/P45/P45-<date>-<8 digits>/, and that eight-digit application serial cannot be guessed, so serial-walking the range — which works for older filings — does not work here. Search-engine indexing of HIMS PDFs (those brochures do get indexed) was tried instead, restricted to hims.kpkt.gov.my, on the scheme name, the licensee name, the licensee’s company number, the lot number and a Malay description of the built form. Nothing for D’Evia or EXSIM MX4 was returned; the APDL dates from about August or September 2026 and appears not to be indexed yet. KPKT TEDUH: teduh.kpkt.gov.my/semakan-projek offers no usable public query interface. EdgeProp: both the 5 August 2026 editorial and the new-launch project record were read in full on the chance that EdgeProp had transcribed a No. Lesen Pemaju even where the APDL is unpublished, which it sometimes does. Neither carries a licence or permit field. Price-band registries: D’Evia is not in RHB’s public green-projects list; no NAPIC or LPHS band was located; lphs.selangor.gov.my currently fails on a broken TLS certificate; and eHartanah covers affordable schemes only, so a market-priced project like this one has no record there by design. myBina holds a record for the project but keeps the statutory fields behind a paid subscription. The developer’s own e-brochure, devia.com.my/pdf/Devia_E-Brochure.pdf, exists and is linked from the site but exceeds the size my tools can retrieve. That PDF is the single most likely public home of the statutory block, and it is the first thing I will ask EXSIM for.

The price — no filed statutory range, so no figure on this page

No filed Unit Selling Price minimum or maximum exists in the public record for this project. Where no filed statutory range exists there is nothing that can honestly be presented as an SPA price, so this page publishes no price at all. Starting figures do circulate on property portals and on agent sites, the developer’s own appointed-agent channel included. None of them can be tied to a filed SPA price, so none of them is reproduced here. What I will tell you is the shape of the problem: six independent sources carry a starting figure, the six do not agree with one another, and two of them sit below the lowest figure that the appointed-agent channel itself published. That discrepancy is real and I am telling you it exists; I would not advise anyone to negotiate from any of those figures. A real price comes from two documents and from nowhere else: the developer’s own price list, and the sale and purchase agreement — both at the sales gallery, where the law also requires the statutory advertising-permit particulars to be on display. Ask me and I will tell you which fields of that price list to read, and in what order. No government price band exists for this project. It is not in RHB’s green list, no LPHS or NAPIC band was located, and eHartanah covers only affordable schemes. Anyone quoting you a “government valuation” for D’Evia is quoting something that does not exist.

“Low density”: the arithmetic, and the trap

EdgeProp’s article of 5 August 2026 is headlined “A Low-Density TOD Living by EXSIM” and describes a “low-density high-rise”. The same article prints the parcel at 2.014 acres. Those two numbers do not sit together: 440 ÷ 2.014 = 218.5 units per acre — my arithmetic, from EdgeProp’s own two published figures. The Selangor planning norm for high-rise residential is in the region of 60 to 120 units per acre. 440 units over 32 storeys is about 13.8 units per floor, which is an ordinary floor plate, not a sparse one. The trap is the other division. The EXSIM / Kwasa Land joint-venture parcel MX-4(ii) is 15.91 acres, and 440 ÷ 15.91 = 27.7 units per acre — a figure that looks low only because it divides one block’s units by the land under five planned blocks. EXSIM MX4 already has a second block of 492 units under construction on the same road, so two of five planned blocks already account for 932 units on that parcel. Any density figure computed against 15.91 acres, or against the township, is arithmetic abuse. The developer itself never uses the words “low density”. The claim originates with EdgeProp’s editorial, and that is worth saying out loud. I have no view on whether 218.5 units per acre is right or wrong for this site — it is a transit station’s doorstep, where density is the point. I only object to being told it is low.

Can a foreigner buy at D’Evia Residences?

Shah Alam lies in the Petaling district, which is Selangor Zone 1. In Zone 1 the minimum price at which a non-citizen may buy residential property is RM2,000,000, and only strata title units and gated landed strata qualify. For comparison, Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — is RM1,000,000, and Kuala Lumpur is RM1,000,000 with EPU consent. No figure circulating for D’Evia is within four times that floor. On the published figures this project is effectively closed to non-citizens, and I will say so before you spend anything on a booking. State policy and thresholds change; verify the current Selangor rule and your own eligibility with a Malaysian solicitor before you commit. Company purchases, MM2H and trust structures each have their own rules and are not covered by that one-line answer.

What is not published, therefore not on this page

The registered scheme name as filed. The developer’s licence number and its validity. The APDL number and its validity. The building-plan approval number and the approving authority as filed. The land tenure term in years and the lease expiry date. Sekatan kepentingan. The chargee bank — no bank is named by any source. The filed Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum. Any government price band. Total car-park bays, the number of car-park levels, and whether the mezzanine or basement is parking. Per-type unit counts — how many of the 440 units are Type A, B or C. Built-up, bedrooms, bathrooms and car park for B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2 and D. Whether built-ups include balconies. Number of lifts and the lift-to-unit ratio. Ceiling and floor-to-floor heights. Approved density or plot ratio. Any facility’s floor area, the pool length, the gym size. The service-charge mechanism beyond RM0.46 per sq ft, the sinking-fund split, and the managing agent. Distances to any hospital, clinic, school, university, mall in kilometres, grocer or highway entry. Bumiputera lot allocation — no filing was seen, so it is not even known whether the field exists. Site-progress photographs or a percentage of completion. Each joint-venture partner’s equity share. The scope of “Package 1”, D’Evia being Package 2. Nine of the sixteen published render captions. Show-unit location and opening date. And what this page will never publish, whatever I am sent: any discount, rebate, nett price, promotion, freebie, incentive, agent commission, Bumiputera discount percentage, guaranteed-rental or leaseback rate, or yield projection. Those are confidential to the developer’s own channel and are not mine to broadcast — which is also why the two low starting figures above stay unprinted.

Build progress, and the dates that do not line up

The Taghill Projects contract — RM133 million over 28 months — commenced on 16 June 2026, which makes it the firmest date on this page. myBina records the project as under construction with superstructure works in progress, but dates the construction start to March 2025, fifteen months before the contract it would have been built under. The developer’s own siteprogress.html still reads “Coming Soon” with no photographs at all, nearly four months after works began. No percentage of completion is published by anyone. If you want to know where the structure actually is, the answer is a site visit, not a website.

D’Evia Residences @ Kwasa Damansara — straight answers

Also worth seeing

Published 5 October 2026 · Last verified 5 October 2026 · Marketing information, not an offer. Filed particulars for this project were not publicly available on that date; this page will be rewritten from the APDL as soon as EXSIM MX4 Sdn Bhd releases it.