Luminar Residence @ Federal Avenue, Subang

Why Luminar Residence is worth a look — and the six things to settle first

Freehold, on the Federal Highway, by a developer that has been building since 1964, with a government filing you can actually read. Those are real strengths. The open questions are mostly about dates and documents rather than about the building.

All five layouts

Built-up, unit count and the statutory price band for each type come from the government filing and are republished identically in the developer’s own statutory block — that is unusually solid provenance. Bedroom and bathroom counts come from marketing material only. No source publishes a car park allocation for any type.

Type A and Type B — the 1+1 bedroom units

Type A 549 sq ft (about 51.0 sq m) · Type B 721 sq ft (about 67.0 sq m) · 1+1 bedroom, 1 bathroom each

A: 142 units · statutory RM415,150 – RM546,250B: 141 units · statutory RM546,250 – RM687,70038% of the scheme between them

The entry product, and together 283 of 751 units. Type A at 549 sq ft is the smallest layout and carries the scheme’s statutory minimum price. Type B is 172 sq ft larger for the same stated 1+1 bedroom, 1 bathroom configuration, so the extra area goes into living space rather than another room — worth seeing both plans side by side before choosing. A forum post claims Type A has no balcony while Type B does; that is a forum claim only and not published by the developer, so confirm it on the plan.

Type C — 872 sq ft, and 43 per cent of the building

872 sq ft (about 81.0 sq m) · 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms · 324 units · statutory RM660,100 – RM793,500

The dominant type324 of 751 unitsTwo bedrooms, two bathrooms

This single layout accounts for 324 of the 751 units — 43 per cent of the entire scheme. That matters in two practical ways. First, availability and choice of stack and facing will be widest here. Second, if you buy one and later let or sell it, your competition inside your own building is 323 near-identical units, so floor level, facing and outlook will do most of the work in differentiating yours. Ask specifically which stacks face the parks rather than the highway.

Type D and Type E — the family layouts, and there are few of them

Type D 1,076 sq ft (about 100.0 sq m), 2+1 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms · Type E 1,389 sq ft (about 129.0 sq m), 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms

72 units eachD: statutory RM826,850 – RM943,000E: statutory RM1,075,250 – RM1,219,000

Seventy-two units each, so 144 between them — 19 per cent of the scheme. Type E at 1,389 sq ft is the largest layout and sits at the top of the statutory band. Scarcity is the thing to weigh here: a family-sized unit in a predominantly small-unit building is genuinely rare stock, which can support resale value, but it also means a thinner pool of comparable transactions when you come to sell or refinance. Note that The Edge describes the scheme as offering 1+1 to 3+1 bedrooms — no 3+1 type exists in the filed schedule; Type E is a 3-bedroom.

Built-up in square feet, unit counts and statutory price bands are from the advertisement particulars filed with KPKT, republished identically in the developer’s own statutory block. Square-metre figures are our own conversions at 1 sq ft = 0.09290304 sq m, rounded — neither document publishes metric areas. Bedroom and bathroom counts are from developer marketing material and the developer’s advertorial, not from the filing. Balcony provision is a forum claim only. Car park allocation per type is not published by any source — a forum post claiming one to three bays depending on type is unverified and is not a developer or government statement. Unit counts sum to 751, matching the filed total.

Luminar Residence and Federal Avenue in pictures

All images are the developer’s own, published on federalavenue.com.my. A caveat worth stating: the developer’s WordPress media library contains only favicons, because every content image is committed into the site theme’s assets folder — which means no title, caption, alt text or dimensions exist for any of them. The captions above are therefore derived from each image’s filename and from the page section it appears in, not from a developer caption, and we have not independently confirmed what each render depicts. All are artist impressions and are not a representation of the finished building.

Location and distances — all from one source, and it is the developer

Every distance below is published by the developer in the location section of federalavenue.com.my, already stated in kilometres. No independent source publishes distances for this project, so the developer is the single source for all of them — and they describe the Federal Avenue master development rather than being independently measured.

Statutory particulars — the filing and the website, side by side

Two versions of the advertisement particulars exist: the copy filed with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the block the developer publishes on its own site. They agree on the developer, the licence, the tenure, the unit count, the price schedule and the chargee. They disagree on three fields, and one field is redacted in the government copy. All of it is set out below.

Both documents agree on every field in this row. A search for a second registered phase under this licence serial returns nothing, which indicates Fasa 1C is the only phase registered so far. Total units 751; storeys 48 per the KPKT filing; encumbrance a charge to Alliance Bank (M) Berhad; statutory Unit Selling Price RM415,150 to RM1,219,000.

Sources: the advertisement particulars filed under licence serial 30367 on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s HIMS portal, and the statutory block published on federalavenue.com.my, both read on 30 September 2026.

Conflict one — the completion date, 21 months apart

The KPKT filing says Mac 2028 — March 2028. The developer’s own website says December 2029. The Edge reports the second quarter of 2029; an agent listing gives 18 December 2029. Two of those four are the developer’s own documents, which is what makes this worth raising rather than dismissing as media error. A revised date may simply have superseded the filed one without the filed copy being updated. What is certain is that neither published date creates an obligation: the delivery period in your signed sale and purchase agreement is the only date that binds, and the liquidated damages clause attaches to that date alone. Ask which date the developer stands behind today, and read the clause.

Conflict two — the approving authority

The KPKT filing says Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya (MPSJ); the developer’s website says Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya (MBSJ), with the building plan reference otherwise identical at BP2.600-1/10/5/5(15). This one has a benign explanation: the council was upgraded from a municipal council to a city council, so the KPKT copy carries the pre-upgrade name while the developer’s block uses the current one. It is a dating artefact rather than a discrepancy of substance — but it is also a useful hint that the filed copy has not been refreshed, which bears on the completion date above.

Conflict three — the APDL is redacted in the government copy

In the KPKT-hosted document the advertising and sale permit number is printed as the placeholder XXXXX-X/XX-XXXX/XXXX(X) with its validity as XX/XX/XXXX. The live permit — 30367-1/06-2028/0455(A)-(S), valid 11 June 2025 to 10 June 2028 — appears only on the developer’s own website. So the number is almost certainly current and correct, but it rests on the developer’s own publication rather than on a government document you can check. Ask for the permit number and expiry in writing and have your conveyancing lawyer verify it independently.

The restriction in interest field is absent, not nil

The Sekatan Kepentingan field does not appear in the filed document at all, and the developer does not publish it either. An absent field is not the same as a field stating nil. On freehold land a nil restriction is the common case, but it is not something to assume: ask the developer to state the restriction in interest in writing and have your lawyer confirm it against a fresh land search. The land lot and title description, and the land area, are likewise absent from the filing.

The statutory price schedule, in full — and what it is not

Both documents publish the same per-type schedule: Type A 549 sq ft, 142 units, RM415,150–RM546,250 · Type B 721 sq ft, 141 units, RM546,250–RM687,700 · Type C 872 sq ft, 324 units, RM660,100–RM793,500 · Type D 1,076 sq ft, 72 units, RM826,850–RM943,000 · Type E 1,389 sq ft, 72 units, RM1,075,250–RM1,219,000. The counts sum to 751, matching the filed total. On our own arithmetic that band is roughly RM756 to RM995 per sq ft. This is a statutory disclosure of the price range, not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and it does not tell you what any individual unit is available at. There is no government transaction price band for this scheme, because it is under construction with no completed transactions — so none is quoted here.

Not published, and therefore not on this page

The car park levels and total bay count (absent from the filing, unpublished by the developer); the car park allocation per layout; the restriction in interest; the land lot and title description; the land area of the Fasa 1C parcel; square-metre built-ups; the maintenance charge per square foot; the sinking fund; a confirmed vacant possession date; dimensioned floor plans; the plot ratio; and the contractor and architect. This page also carries no discount, rebate, nett price, promotional package, incentive or commission figure, whether or not such things exist — those belong in a private conversation with a licensed agent, never on a public web page.

Luminar Residence: the questions buyers actually ask

Other Selangor projects documented the same way

Published 30 September 2026 · Statutory particulars read on 30 September 2026 from the filing under licence serial 30367 on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s HIMS portal and from the statutory block on federalavenue.com.my. The two disagree on the expected completion date (March 2028 versus December 2029) and on the approving authority’s name; the government copy prints the APDL number and validity as placeholders. Images are the developer’s own; because the site serves them from its theme assets rather than its media library, no alt text or captions exist and subjects are inferred.