Linari @ Kwasa Damansara

Nine things that do not add up on this project

None of these is a rumour. Each one is a disagreement between named published sources, or a document that exists and cannot be read. Where a figure is withheld, this page says so and says why.

Layouts — the filed schedule first, then the marketed one

Two complete, non-overlapping sets of built-up figures exist for this project. The filed figure is the main parcel, and it is the statutory one. The marketed figure adds an accessory parcel, described by the one source that explains it as an air-conditioner ledge — and that explanation only reconciles two of the five types. Both sets are below, with the gap shown, because the marketed figure is what a maintenance bill and a per-square-foot comparison are built on.

Type A

Filed 1,595 sq ft main parcel · marketed 1,637 sq ft (+42) · 3+1 bedrooms · 3+1 bathrooms · 2 car parks

Largest condominium type3+1 bed+42 sq ft unexplained

The largest filed condominium type. The 42 sq ft between the filed and marketed figures is not accounted for by the 29 sq ft accessory parcel that the same source uses to explain Types D and D1, and no source publishes an accessory area for Type A. One agent site reports Types A, B and C as sold out; this page records that as availability, not as a price.

Ask for the Type A plan

No Type B floor plan is published on the developer’s own site in a form this page can verify. The image is reachable but carries no record in the developer’s content system, so it is not reproduced with a caption we cannot source.

Type B

Filed 1,384 sq ft main parcel · marketed 1,434 sq ft (+50) · 3+1 bedrooms · 2+1 bathrooms · 2 car parks

3+1 bed+50 sq ft unexplainedReported sold out

The widest gap of the five types: 50 square feet between filed and marketed, with no published accessory area. The “+1” on the bedroom count is the utility or store room, and the “+1” on the bathroom count is the utility WC — the filing does not say so, and that reading rests on one agent site’s description of Type D1.

No verifiable developer record exists for a Type C plan image. Not reproduced.

Type C

Filed 1,309 sq ft main parcel · marketed 1,353 sq ft (+44) · 3+1 bedrooms · 2+1 bathrooms · 2 car parks

3+1 bed+44 sq ft unexplainedReported sold out

Filed as 3+1 bedrooms and 2+1 bathrooms, with two car parks. Three independent sites describe this project as offering “up to 4 bedrooms” or “3 to 4 bed”. The filed schedule has no four-bedroom type, and the developer’s own agent FAQ states that all condominium layouts are three-bedroom.

A Type D1 plan image is reachable on the developer’s site but carries no record in its content system, so it is not reproduced here. Ask for the plan directly.

Type D1

Filed 1,201 sq ft main parcel · marketed 1,230 sq ft (+29) · 3+1 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms · 2 car parks

3+1 bedGap fully explainedReported still available

One of the two types whose filed-to-marketed gap is fully explained: 1,201 sq ft main parcel plus a 29 sq ft accessory parcel, described as the air-conditioner ledge, equals the marketed 1,230 sq ft. Our arithmetic confirms it exactly. The published worked maintenance example for this type is about RM431 a month at RM0.35 per sq ft — computed on 1,230 sq ft, not on the filed 1,201.

A Type D plan image is reachable on the developer’s site but carries no record in its content system, so it is not reproduced here.

Type D

Filed 1,139 sq ft main parcel · marketed 1,168 sq ft (+29) · 3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms · 2 car parks

Smallest filed type3 bedGap fully explained

The smallest filed type, and the only one filed as a plain 3-bedroom rather than 3+1. 1,139 sq ft main parcel plus 29 sq ft accessory equals the marketed 1,168 sq ft — the second of the two reconciliations that works. Published worked maintenance example: about RM409 a month. Built-ups are printed by that source as subject to final survey.

Parkhome town house, two-storey

Filed 2,992 sq ft and 3,077 sq ft · 8 units · 3 car parks · bedrooms and bathrooms NOT PRINTED

8 unitsTwo filed built-upsBed/bath not filed

Eight of the sixteen town houses. The filing gives two built-up figures for this product, 2,992 and 3,077 sq ft, three car-park bays, and no bedroom or bathroom count at all. The developer’s own site says only “generous square footage” with no figure. The most detailed agent site names the Parkhomes and publishes no built-up, no bedroom count, no bathroom count, no price and no car-park count for them.

Ask for the Parkhome plans

No plan is published for the 2½-storey Parkhome. The developer’s content system does hold an image titled “UPPER UNIT”, which implies a lower/upper split for the town houses, but no source states how the two filed town-house products differ.

Parkhome town house, 2½-storey

Filed 3,277 sq ft · 8 units · 3 car parks · bedrooms and bathrooms NOT PRINTED

8 unitsLargest filed built-upBed/bath not filed

The other eight. Filed at a single built-up of 3,277 sq ft — the largest in the scheme — with three car parks and no room schedule. Note that both town-house products are filed with an identical price band despite different built-ups, which means the band is filed across all sixteen rather than per storey-type. That is our observation, not a filed statement. No developer source explains how the two-storey and 2½-storey types differ, and one agent site publishes “up to 3,886 sq ft” and “up to 5 bedrooms” for the Parkhomes — 609 sq ft above the largest filed figure, supported by nothing. It is not on this page.

Statutory SPA price band, as filed in the advertisement particulars for APDL 30704-1/10-2027/0973(N)-(S): condominiums RM784,000 – RM1,038,000; town houses RM1,913,000 – RM2,142,000. This is the filed Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum, published here because it is public statutory record. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and the filing does not say which type sits at which end of the band. For what a specific unit costs today, the only sources are the developer’s current price list and the SPA itself, at the sales gallery. No square-metre figure is published by anyone for any type, and none is computed here.

Gallery — and the stock-photograph problem

Where these images come from, and what we refused to use. Every image on this page was taken from the developer’s own project microsite and verified individually against a deliberate 404 control, so a “reachable” result on that host can be trusted. Only eight attachments on that entire site are genuine project renders — and they are the eight on this page. The rest of its media library is stock and template material: at least twenty-two files whose names are literally pexels-photo-<number>, plus the page-builder’s demo “team” portraits and “testimonial” faces. None of that is imported here, and no testimonial from that site is reproduced. Captions on this page say confirmed where the subject is the developer’s own content-system title, and say so plainly where a plan image exists on the site but carries no record. The developer also publishes a 30-second film; it is not an image and is not reproduced.

Location — plot R3-2, and the only distance the developer publishes

The parcel is pinned by the developer’s own coordinate, which is unusual and useful. Almost nothing else about the surroundings is published by the developer at all: exactly one distance figure appears on its entire site, and it is contradicted three times.

The filed record — Linari Damansara Sdn Bhd (1118165-V)

This is the spine of the page. Read the provenance note under the table before you rely on a single figure in it: the filing is live and the permit number is structurally verified, but the statutory pages of the filed document are image-only, so what follows is one transcription and is labelled as such throughout.

The price figures above are the statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum as filed in the advertisement particulars — that is, the filed SPA price range. They are published here because they are public statutory record. This is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The filing does not say which type sits at which end of either band. Both town-house products are filed with an identical band despite different built-ups, which means the band is filed across all sixteen rather than per storey-type (our observation, not a filed statement).

Figures labelled “our arithmetic” on this page are computed and labelled, never presented as filed. The 496 total, the 56.4 units-per-acre density, the 382,892 sq ft and 3.557 ha conversions of 8.79 acres, and the per-square-foot brackets implied by the filed bands are all ours. Nothing on this page is attributed to the filing unless the transcription prints it.

Where these numbers come from, and the one document that cannot be read

The APDL is 30704-1/10-2027/0973(N)-(S), and the KPKT HIMS path that number predicts resolves to a real PDF. That is strong structural verification: a fabricated or mistyped permit number would not produce a live path. But the PDF’s machine-readable text runs to 1,380 characters and contains only the specifications page — structure, doors and windows, wall and floor finishes, sanitary and electrical. The statutory particulars pages carry no text layer at all, and the other two files filed for this phase both return 404. The walk of serials −2 through −6 also returns 404 throughout, which establishes a clean positive finding: licence 30704 carries exactly one registered scheme, so there is no unlisted second Linari phase and no neighbouring scheme shares the licence.

So where does the table above come from? From one source: an independent IQI Realty agent microsite which states on its own face that it is not the developer’s official site, publishes the statutory block field by field, and dates itself 13 August 2026. A targeted search for the exact strings 30704-1/10-2027/0973 and MBSA.BGN.600-3/5/66 returns nothing else on the open web. One further agent site carries only the permit’s expiry month — October 2027 — which agrees with the 10-2027 embedded in the permit number. That is a partial independent corroboration, not a second transcription.

And the developer publishes none of it. Its official microsite carries no licence number, no APDL, no approving authority, no plan reference, no completion date, no price and no built-up figure. The site has five pages in total, one of which is still an unedited template stub carrying placeholder address, telephone and email strings. Its brochure is image-only. Its parent brand’s site blocks all automated reading, and the older group domain served an expired security certificate when checked on 8 October 2026. Treat every number in the table above as as transcribed, not as read from the filing — and ask to see the actual filed particulars at the sales gallery.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh’s standing instruction is that no page of his carries a figure that nets off or pre-empts something you should be discussing with him directly. So this page publishes no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotional package, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera discount percentage, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or return projection — for this project or any other. The only prices here are the two filed statutory bands above, labelled as such.

Three specific things were found and deliberately withheld. First, a “from” figure that sits below the filed statutory condominium minimum of RM784,000 is carried by three publishers — a major portal, one agency across two of its own domains, and a forum post. Counting publishers rather than pages is the only honest count here: those two agency pages are one company, and a fourth site that looks independent simply redirects to one of them. One of those pages prints two different price ranges on the same page, both with floors below the filed minimum, and the portal also publishes a per-square-foot floor far below what the filed minimum divided by the smallest filed built-up can produce. Every one of those figures is withheld. Second, a Bumiputera discount field is present in the statutory block as transcribed; its value is withheld. Third, one agent page carries promotional and giveaway items; none of them is named or described here.

One contradiction in the other direction is worth recording without the figure: an agent aggregator publishes a ceiling above the filed statutory maximum of RM1,038,000, while its “from” figure is the filed minimum exactly — which suggests that site saw the filed band and then widened the top of it. An above-maximum figure is not caught by the compliance rule, but it is unfiled, so it is not published here either.

If you want to know what a unit actually costs, ask. The sources that can answer are the developer’s current price list and the SPA at the sales gallery — nothing else.

Foreign buyers — Selangor, and why the condominiums are out of reach

Selangor sets its minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer by zone. In Zone 1 and Zone 2 the threshold is RM2,000,000, and it applies to strata title properties and gated landed strata only. In Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — the threshold is RM1,000,000. (For comparison, Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory sit at RM1,000,000 with Economic Planning Unit consent.)

Linari sits in the Petaling district, on the Shah Alam side of the township — Zone 1, so RM2,000,000 applies. Every filed condominium price at this project falls between RM784,000 and RM1,038,000, which is entirely below that threshold: a foreign buyer cannot purchase a Linari condominium under the Zone 1 rule. The town houses are filed at RM1,913,000 to RM2,142,000, so only part of that band reaches RM2,000,000 — and the landed restriction bites as well, because the exemption covers gated landed strata, and whether the sixteen town houses are on strata or individual title is not published by anyone. Which means it is also unpublished whether they take Schedule H or Schedule G.

None of this is legal advice and state policy changes. Verify the current threshold and the title status in writing with the developer’s solicitors before you commit anything.

All 496 units are HDA housing — a clean positive finding

This is worth stating because several towers elsewhere in this township are not like it. The filed schedule contains three products: condominium, town house 2-storey and town house 2½-storey. All three are dwellings. There is no office suite, no SOHO, no SOFO and no studio office parcel in this scheme, and no commercial or retail saleable parcel at all — the only retail-type items anywhere in it are the ground-floor “space provision” shells, which are common property, not units. There is also no studio and no one-bedroom unit: every filed condominium type is 3-bedroom or 3+1, with a minimum of two car parks.

So all 496 units are HDA housing accommodation, and the scheme holds both a developer’s licence and an advertising and sale permit. Schedule H applies to the strata condominium units. Which Schedule the sixteen town houses fall under is not published, because their title basis is not published — and this page does not guess.

The town houses are two filed products, not one

Every narrative source — the developer, the master developer, the national press, both agent sites — says simply “16 Park Homes” or “16 cluster townhouses”. Only the statutory transcription reveals that they are two separate filed products: eight two-storey units at 2,992 and 3,077 sq ft, and eight 2½-storey units at 3,277 sq ft, with three car-park bays each and no filed bedroom or bathroom count. A page that says “16 townhouses” is not wrong, but it hides a distinction a buyer would want. No developer source explains how the two types differ. The developer’s content system does hold an image titled “UPPER UNIT”, which implies a lower and upper split; one indexed microsite says the town house has lower and upper floor options. Neither is a filed statement.

Not published, therefore not on this page

Building and planning: the number of storeys or levels of either block — no source anywhere gives one; the unit split between Block A and Block B; the number of lifts and the lift-to-unit ratio; the total car-park bay count, the visitor bays, any motorcycle or bicycle bays and any EV-charging provision; the level numbers of the two facility podiums; which floor plate each type sits on; ceiling heights; block orientation; the accessory-parcel area for Types A, B and C; and the bedroom, bathroom, price and built-up detail for each individual Parkhome type.

Statutory and legal: the sekatan kepentingan (restriction in interest) field, which is absent from the transcription rather than recorded as “none”; keluasan tanah as a filed field; the lot or PT number of the development parcel; whether the filing carries the national housing department’s advertisement-approval statement; the twelve-digit company registration number of Linari Damansara Sdn Bhd, of which only the old-format 1118165-V is published anywhere; the legal structure of the Kwasa Land arrangement and any equity split; the defect liability period, the vacant possession mechanism and the liquidated-damages basis, all of which are Schedule H defaults but none of which is published for this project; and the solicitors and the housing development account bank (the land chargee is AmBank Islamic Berhad, but whether that is also the HDA account bank is not stated).

Delivery and money: the main contractor, and the architect, C&S engineer, M&E engineer, quantity surveyor, town planner and landscape designer — every one of them unnamed, with no construction-industry record for this project located at all; the construction progress percentage at any date; the sinking-fund rate; the current official price list, which one agent site says is issued on request only; and any take-up or sales percentage.

Two contracts must specifically not be attributed to this project, because they surface in searches and do not belong here: a RM33.21 million piling and construction job awarded by a different employer for a mixed development with an 18-storey serviced apartment block, an 11-storey SOHO block and a podium with a medical centre; and the township-level Kwasa Land contracts for infrastructure, earthworks and affordable apartments. None of them is Linari’s.

Green certification and awards — none, and the developer claims none

The GreenRE Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze and Certified registers were read in full. Linari appears on none of them. No GBI entry for Linari, for Linari Damansara Sdn Bhd, for Serene Impian or for Impiana was located, and the public bank green-financing register carries no entry for the project, the developer or the township. No award of any kind is claimed by the developer, the master developer, any portal, any agent site or any news source. And the developer makes no certification claim at all — its only green language is “80% lush greenery”, which is a landscaping claim, not a rating, and no GreenRE logo appears anywhere on its site. That is a cleaner position than a logo with no rating behind it.

Three ratings sit within arm’s reach of this project and none of them belongs to it: a Platinum rating held by the EPF’s own headquarters building in the same township, under a different developer; a Silver rating held by a sibling project in the same township, under a different developer; and a Gold rating held by a hotel whose name contains the word “Impiana” and which belongs to an entirely different company — a name collision and nothing more. Any page that attaches one of those to Linari has borrowed it.

On the “80%” claim itself: the developer prints it two different ways — “80% lush greenery” and “80% of the development surrounded by lush greenery” — which are not the same claim. No landscape plan, no filed open-space figure and no measured area is published by anyone. 80% of 8.79 acres is 7.03 acres, which cannot also carry two blocks, sixteen town houses, two podiums and a motor court, so the figure must be measuring something else. Nobody says what. It is attributed on this page and never stated as fact.

Linari @ Kwasa Damansara — the questions buyers actually ask

Also in Kwasa Damansara

Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from the filed advertisement particulars for APDL 30704-1/10-2027/0973(N)-(S) as transcribed by one independent agent site dated 13 August 2026, structurally verified against the live KPKT HIMS path for licence 30704 (whose statutory pages are image-only and could not be read), the developer’s own microsite and content system, the master developer’s partner page, The Edge, EdgeProp, the New Straits Times, The Star of 9 September 2026, Business Today, the GreenRE Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze/Certified registers and the Selangor state housing register — all read on 8 October 2026. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.