Ekotitiwangsa, Jalan Pahang, Kuala Lumpur — there are TWO KPKT registrations about 25 metres apart, both named Ekotitiwangsa, and the first one’s permit has been CANCELLED. This page is about 13673-2: 500 Schedule H homes, 100% of them licensed

Nine things about Ekotitiwangsa that are true, sourced, and published nowhere else together

Four of these are points in the developer’s favour and five are things a buyer will not find in any brochure or on any portal. Both halves are below, and neither is softened.

Six filed type codes, a dual-key label the developer actually filed, and a contradiction inside the current filing

Built-ups ARE filed here — in both generations — and that is a better result than most projects on this site manage. They are printed in kps (sq ft) and no square-metre figure is published by the developer, so none is converted on this page. The register corroborates the shape without giving areas: bilik: 1, 2, 3 and bilikAir: 1, 2 on 13673-2, with keluasan: 0 mps — the “not filed” value for LAND area, not a built-up in disguise. Two cautions before the table. First, no per-type PRICE is filed anywhere — the filed band is per BLOCK — so “how many units of type X cost what” is undeterminable from any document. Second, three portals publish a price-per-square-foot figure derived from a below-filed-minimum price, so NO psf figure from this project is used on this page.

No floor plan is reproduced on this page because none is published anywhere reachable. The current P45 filed brochure does contain plan sheets, but it is a government-hosted PDF and no extractable plan image exists on the developer’s host, which carries no renders, no facility images, no interiors and no plans at all. Louis can ask the developer for the plan set, the per-type price list and the car-park allocation — all three of which are undocumented in public.

Two location graphics, five refused assets, and why there are only three images on this page

Why three images and not nine. Eight assets on the developer’s host were individually verified as present, using plausible-but-nonexistent control filenames that continue the real series, run twice on two extensions. Five were REFUSED: three 1800×880 banners uploaded 20 May 2018 and a wire-service press photograph whose filename embeds 07/12/2016, all of which predate the current permit by six to ten years and depict the CANCELLED 696-unit, three-tower scheme; plus a 2018 PDF, which is not a confirmable image. The project logo was deliberately not used: it is a brand mark, not a project image. And the developer is still serving three of the refused banners on its live Ekotitiwangsa page today, which is why page placement on this host is not sufficient evidence of currency — the test applied here is the asset date against the COMPONENT’S OWN PERMIT, not against a completion certificate. There is no floor plan, no site plan, no facility image and no current render of this scheme on the public web, and there is no project microsite. If you want current artist impressions, ask — an agency project folder is the only remaining source.

Where Ekotitiwangsa actually is — and why the project is named after a locality it is not in

No filing prints a street address, a lot number or a PT number at all, and both myBina records record the lot number as “not stated” with the full address subscriber-locked. The site is located here from the register’s own filed coordinates: 3.184446, 101.701378 (13673-2) and 3.184255, 101.701593 (13673-1, the cancelled record) — about 25 m apart. Two mutually exclusive street addresses are in circulation: 266, Jalan Pahang, 53000 Kuala Lumpur (propertygenie) and Jalan 9/48a, Sentul Pasar, 53000 Kuala Lumpur (metproperty), with PropertyGuru and iProperty placing it in Setapak and the developer saying only “along Jalan Pahang”. The one element every one of them shares is Jalan Pahang, which is also how the register’s trade record names the project — EKOTITIWANGSA @ JALAN PAHANG — and it is the locality this page files it under.

Ekotitiwangsa — KPKT project 13673-2 (LIVE) read against 13673-1 (CANCELLED), as the statutory record prints them

Read the provenance before the numbers, because it is unusual. The filing the register itself links — the P45 generation — contains NO statutory particulars block at all. It was checked at offsets 0, 3,000 and 8,000: it is a floor-plan, specification and facilities-plan brochure, and its two companion documents both 404. The full BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN block exists ONLY in the SUPERSEDED generation at files/13673/13673-2/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf, and the CANCELLED record 13673-1 has no filed advertisement in any form at all (iklan: [], brochure: null). So every statutory particular in this table is: the superseded filed generation, read together with the live register — and that is said here rather than left for a reader to assume. Two fields in that filing are wrong or missing, and both are new variants. The Nombor Lesen Pemaju field prints 13673-1/01-2027/0941 (A) — the CANCELLED record’s phase index spliced into the developer-licence number, against the register’s 13673/01-2027/0941(A); the dates reconstruct correctly from the /01-2027/ segment, so only the serial is corrupt. And the Nombor Permit Iklan dan Jualan field is BLANK — label printed, no value at all. The filed brochure’s own disclaimer, verbatim, earns its place here: “Pembangun tidak akan bertanggungjawab atas sebarang ketidaktepatan dalam kandungannya” — the developer will not be responsible for any inaccuracy in its contents.

Sources, field by field: KPKT TEDUH register records 13673-2 and 13673-1 and the developer record under code 13673; the SUPERSEDED filed HIMS advertisement at files/13673/13673-2/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf, which is the ONLY document carrying a statutory particulars block; the CURRENT register-linked P45 filing, for the type schedule, specifications, facilities plan and the Kepadatan Rendah claim; myBina records 38805 and 76639; the developer’s own project and awards pages; Ekovest Berhad’s Annual Report 2020; The Edge of 16 June 2015 and 19 January 2017; the GreenRE public register, all four tiers plus the certification-entry lists; and seven consumer portals, each attributed where used.

Nothing in this table is a price list, a quotation or an offer. The price figures are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band from the legally filed advertisement particulars and the public KPKT TEDUH registry band, which on this project agree to the sen. Statutory particulars can change without notice. Verify the current licence, the current permit and every price at TEDUH.KPKT.GOV.MY and in the Schedule H SPA before you commit to anything.

Can a foreigner buy at Ekotitiwangsa? The territory halves the threshold — and the answer is still ZERO of 500

The short answer is no, and it is not close: ZERO of the 500 licensed units is purchasable by a foreign buyer, on price alone, and no source anywhere states this. The authority first, because it decides the threshold. The filed plan-approval reference is BP U2 OSC 2022 2491(28) — the DBKL BP — OSC — form, and DBKL has Federal Territory jurisdiction only. Corroborated three further ways: the register reads negeri: WP Kuala Lumpur and daerah: Kuala Lumpur on both records; the filed approving authority is printed as Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur; and the filed GPS 3.184446, 101.701378 sits inside the Federal Territory. There is no Selangor-against-Kuala-Lumpur dispute on this project — every source agrees on Kuala Lumpur. So the minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM1,000,000, the Kuala Lumpur / Federal Territory figure, and NOT Selangor’s RM2,000,000. Two independent citations, one of them this agency’s own parent: propcashflow.my’s state table (updated February 2026) gives Kuala Lumpur RM1,000,000 with the same threshold for all property types, strata and landed alike, and notes the federal RM1m floor under the Ministry of Economy’s property-acquisition guideline effective 13 July 2022, with Kuala Lumpur consent processed by the EPU; and IQI’s own foreign-buyer guide (8 October 2026) gives Kuala Lumpur RM1,000,000 for both landed and strata against Selangor’s RM2,000,000. Neither states any strata-only or landed-title restriction for Kuala Lumpur — the Selangor landed-title bar is a Selangor circular and does not apply here. Now the arithmetic, per block, against the filed band: Blok B (38 storeys, 196 units), filed RM434,700 – RM600,020: the block ceiling is 60.00% of the floor — 0 of 196 clear it. Blok C (36 storeys, 304 units), filed RM434,700 – RM740,600: the block ceiling is 74.06% of the floor — 0 of 304 clear it. Whole scheme: the DEAREST filed unit in the building reaches 74.06% of the threshold and is short of it by RM259,400. Zero of 500. Title is a separate question, and here it does not rescue anything — which is the unusual part. No Sekatan Kepentingan is filed at all, and a filed interest restriction is the single strongest foreign-buyer bar this site has found anywhere — it is absent. Tenure is freehold (Pegangan Kekal in the superseded filing, PEGANGAN BEBAS in the current one) and the product is strata (Schedule H, APDL tail -(S)), so the Selangor individual-title landed bar is inapplicable twice over. So title does not bar a foreigner here. Price does, absolutely. One line more, because it is the re-registration that closed the door: the cancelled record 13673-1 carried a band reaching RM1,725,630, and its 40-storey and 50-storey blocks would have cleared the Federal Territory floor comfortably. A foreign buyer who booked into this project in 2015–17 and a foreign buyer approaching it today are in completely different positions, and nothing published anywhere explains that. And one thing that CANNOT be determined from any document: per-unit-type prices are not filed — the filed band is per block — so “how many units of type F clear the floor” is undeterminable. It happens not to matter here, because the block ceilings already settle it at zero. No per-type price is estimated on this page. One further caution, stated as unconfirmed: nuprop.my states the land title as “Commercial (HDA)”. No filing or register field states the land-title category at all, so that is portal-sourced. If it is correct it is the ordinary commercial-title serviced-apartment position — still inside the HDA 1966 because a licence and a permit exist, but with commercial assessment rates and commercial utility tariffs. Worth knowing; worth labelling as unconfirmed.

What being outside the HDA 1966 actually costs a buyer — and why it does NOT apply to the 500 homes

First, the good news, because it is the headline and it is only the second such result on this site: the advertising and sales permit covers 500 of 500 residential units. One hundred per cent. Every home here is inside the HDA 1966. But the development the developer describes is larger than the licence, and the gap is locatable. Its own page describes one office tower and two blocks of freehold serviced apartments on approximately 2.31 acres: 115 office units (marketed 1,033–2,120 sq ft, with an expansion option stated up to 7,546 sq ft), the 500 residential units (690–1,120 sq ft), and approximately 42,000 sq ft of retail. Separately, myBina 76639 records a 48-storey office block under construction for the same licensee on the same road. None of the office or retail component holds any KPKT registration: it is in neither 13673-1 nor 13673-2, and 13673-3 returns a 404. What that means in plain language for anyone buying one of the 115 office suites or a retail lot. You get no Schedule H and no Schedule G sale and purchase agreement — the statutory contract forms do not apply to you. You get no statutory liquidated-damages formula for late delivery: whatever the contract says about lateness is all you have. You get no section 7A housing development account holding your progress payments, so your money is not ring-fenced by the Act. You get no statutory defect liability period — the 24 months that Schedule H prescribes is not yours. And you get no recourse to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims, which hears claims against licensed housing developers only; your route is the ordinary courts. Your contract is whatever the developer writes. And here is the finding, stated as a finding: NO document published anywhere states the housing-law status, the contract schedule or the title category of the 115 office suites or the retail. Not the register, not either filed generation, not the developer’s page, not one portal. On the balance of how Malaysian commercial components work, the office suites are almost certainly commercial title and outside the Act — which is precisely why they hold no licence — but that is a READING and this page prints it as one, not as a filed fact. What it does NOT apply to: the 500 homes. They are all inside the Act, all on Schedule H, all under a current permit. Do not let the office tower’s silence contaminate the residential position.

Build progress, take-up and density — with the arithmetic shown and seven denominators named

Filed progress on the live record 13673-2: Blok B 32.30%, Blok C 57.67%, with status.keseluruhan: Lancar and ccc and vp both -. That is about 25 percentage points apart on two towers sold as one project, with roughly 20 months to the governing handover date of 19 June 2028. For contrast, the cancelled record 13673-1 was left at 23.03% / 28.39% / 28.00% across its three components. Take-up: the filed Baki Unit figures are Blok B 196 and Blok C 304 — i.e. EQUAL to the block totals, with no as-at date. That makes them an as-at-launch snapshot, not a current remaining count. This page does not present them as a live availability figure, and nobody publishes one. Density, with the working shown, and the denominator labelled. The current filed brochure itself prints Kepadatan Rendah 500 unit — “low density, 500 units” — and klpropertytalk repeats “low-density mixed-use design”. Against the developer’s own sourced parcel: 500 units – 2.31 acres = 216.5 units per acre. Counting the whole development the developer itself describes — 615 units (500 residential + 115 office) – 2.31 acres = 266.2 per acre, plus about 42,000 sq ft of retail on the same parcel. The denominator is labelled NON-FILED: Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in the filing and keluasan reads 0 mps on both register records, so 2.31 acres is a developer / corporate figure and nothing more. A plot-ratio cross-check is impossible — no gross floor area is published for either registration, and neither myBina record records a built-up or a floor area at all — so 2.31 acres stands as an UNVALIDATED developer figure and is labelled that way everywhere it is used on this page. For scale, from other projects read the same way on this site: about 11.9 and 12.3 units per acre at the low end, 140.8, 228.8 and about 681 per acre at the dense end. 216.5 per acre sits at the dense end of the Klang Valley high-rise range. Three towers of 36 to 48 storeys on 2.31 acres is not a low-density development by any reading, and the claim is made in a STATUTORY ADVERTISEMENT. Seven denominators were refused, and the two worth naming are these. (1) The adjacent 6.64 acres earmarked for EkoRiver Centre. 2.31 + 6.64 = 8.95 acres would give 55.9 units per acre, a 3.9× understatement — and it is a separate future development on the developer’s own description. Refused. (2) Taman Tasik Titiwangsa’s “over 95 hectares”, which the FILED BROCHURE ITSELF PRINTS in its location block — while the project’s own land area appears nowhere in the document. A reader could take 95 hectares for the site. It is a public park 4.0 km away. Refused. Also refused: the 2015 figure of 2.91 acres, which belongs to the cancelled 696-unit scheme (696 – 2.91 = 239.2 per acre for THAT scheme; using 2.91 for the current 500 would give 171.8, an understatement of about 21%); myBina’s “more than RM100 million”, which is a construction value and not an area; the 2015 “over 500,000 sq ft net lettable area” of future retail, which is an NLA and twelve times the current 42,000 sq ft figure; the office suites’ “up to 7,546 sq ft” expansion option, which is a per-unit built-up ceiling that three portals print beside unit sizes where it reads like a total; and any gross floor area figure, none of which is published.

The price record, the clean agreement, and the one figure this page withholds

The price record on this project is clean, and it deserves the credit before anything else is said. The filed advertisement band and the public registry band agree TO THE SEN. The filed advertisement gives Blok B RM434,700.00 – RM600,020.00 and Blok C RM434,700.00 – RM740,600.00; the union of the two filed blocks is RM434,700.00 – RM740,600.00; and the KPKT TEDUH registry band for 13673-2 is RM434,700.00 – RM740,600.00. They match exactly. No splice, no stale minimum spliced onto a new maximum, no hybrid. There is only one filed generation carrying prices at all — the current P45 generation has no statutory block — so the old-minimum-with-new-maximum failure mode cannot arise here and did not. The same cleanliness holds on the cancelled record: its registry band RM591,986 – RM1,725,630 equals the union of its three component rows exactly. What these figures ARE: the statutory Unit Selling Price range from the legally filed advertisement particulars, which is the SPA price range. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. Now the one price figure this page WITHHOLDS, and why. A marketed “from” figure that sits BELOW the filed statutory minimum of RM434,700 is in circulation. The figure itself is not recorded on this page under this site’s compliance rule. What IS recorded is that the discrepancy exists and how widely — counted correctly, which matters: FOUR independent publishers carry it. metproperty.com; nuprop.my; propertygenie.com.my; and PropertyGuru Group, where propertyguru.com.my and iproperty.com.my count as ONE publisher, not two — PropertyGuru acquired iProperty Malaysia, and the two sites serve the SAME listing id 501112531, which is the proof. So the honest count is four, not five. And two sources got it right and deserve to be named for it: klpropertytalk.com (2 February 2024) prints RM434,700 as the indicative price, and EdgeProp’s /new-launches/project/eko-titiwangsa-50952 prints “Starting from RM434,700”. Both are correct against the filing. One technical note that rules out the other explanation. This is NOT the affordable-allocation shape. The filed schedule shows no paired type-code suffixes of the kind that signal a controlled-price allocation — the codes are plain A to F with letter variants (Ba, B1, B1a, B2, B2a, Ca, C1) — there is no affordable allocation anywhere in the filing or the register, and the register’s bedroom and bathroom ranges (1–3 and 1–2) match the open-market schedule. So the sub-minimum figure is an ordinary below-filed-minimum marketing figure, and the compliance rule bites. Consequence, applied: three portals publish a price-per-square-foot figure derived by dividing that same sub-minimum price by a built-up, and irumah.co and propertygenie publish a median-price and a capital-appreciation claim with no source. NO price-per-square-foot figure from this project is used on this page, and no appreciation or return projection is reproduced anywhere on it.

Gross development value — never announced, in eleven years and two launches

No gross development value has ever been announced for either registration — in eleven years and two launches. Searched: the parent’s corporate site (whose /press-release/ page lists no releases at all), its Annual Report 2020, both The Edge launch articles, both myBina records and every portal. Both 2015 and 2017 launch pieces omit GDV, which is unusual for a launch story. So this page brackets it from the filed minima and maxima of the CURRENT scheme and labels the result as arithmetic, not as an announcement: floor, with every unit at its block minimum, 500 × RM434,700 = RM217,350,000; ceiling, (196 × RM600,020) + (304 × RM740,600) = RM117,603,920 + RM225,142,400 = RM342,746,320. So the current scheme’s gross development value must lie between about RM217.4 million and RM342.7 million. There is no announced figure to test, so the stale-generation cross-check that this site runs elsewhere CANNOT be run here — and that is stated rather than substituted with an invented comparison. Both myBina records independently put the construction value in the band “more than RM100 million”, which is consistent with the bracket and far too coarse to corroborate it.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency has one absolute compliance instruction and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source, whatever its provenance — and those five terms appear exactly once each on this page, here in this sentence, and nowhere else. There is one deliberate, named exception: the term Bumiputera appears twice — once here, and once in the register table above, where the page records only that the filed advertisement CONTAINS such a field and that no value for it is published here. What that means in practice. The filed statutory Unit Selling Price band and the public KPKT TEDUH registry band ARE published here, because they are the legally filed sale and purchase price range and a public government record, and because they agree with each other to the sen. They are labelled on every appearance as what they are: not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. A marketed figure that sits below the filed statutory minimum is NOT published — only the fact that it exists, and the corrected count of four independent publishers carrying it. No price-per-square-foot figure from this project is used, because every one in circulation is derived from that sub-minimum figure. No yield, no rental return and no capital-appreciation projection is reproduced, including the unsourced appreciation range one portal publishes. And two portal fields that were deliberately NOT harvested, because they are wrong in a way that would have looked authoritative: one portal prints the portal operator’s own company number in what looks like a developer field, and another portal’s “Developer Reg No.” field contains a telephone number. Neither was taken, and neither is repeated here. If you want to know what is actually available, at what price, on what terms, ask Louis and ask the developer in writing. The price list and the SPA at the sales gallery are the only documents that bind.

Not published by anyone, therefore not on this page — twenty items

Twenty things a buyer would reasonably ask that NO source answers. They are listed rather than quietly omitted, because the list is itself information. 1. What became of the purchasers under the CANCELLED registration 13673-1. Phase 1 launched June 2015 with 270 units and reached 23–28% built. No document states whether those sale and purchase agreements were rescinded, novated into 13673-2 or refunded, nor what became of deposits held in the section 7A housing development account. This is the single most important unanswered question on the project. 2. Whether a 13673-1 purchaser’s unit exists in the current building at all — the block letters were reassigned and Block A left the register. 3. Ekovest Land Sdn Bhd’s company registration number. Absent from the register (which has no such field for this licensee), from both filed generations, from the corporate site, from the annual report’s group chart and from every portal. An SSM company profile, or any announcement naming the subsidiary with its number, would close it. 4. The housing-law status, contract schedule and title of the 115 office suites and the 42,000 sq ft of retail. No licence, no permit, no filed price, no filed schedule, and no document stating what contract an office-suite buyer signs. 5. The car-park allocation for the current 500 units. NOT PRINTED in the filing and not a register field. The only hard figures anywhere — 1,297 bays over eight levels, one bay below 1,000 sq ft and two above — belong to the CANCELLED scheme (The Edge, 2015), and nuprop’s “1 to 2 per unit” simply reproduces that 2015 rule with no filed basis in the current registration. metproperty renders the car park as “0”, a placeholder, alongside maintenance fee, blocks and floors also rendered as 0. The field is ABSENT, which asserts neither none nor some. 6. The land area as a filed fact — and therefore any validated density. 7. The gross development value of either registration. 8. The current maintenance charge and sinking-fund contribution. The only figure anywhere is 35 sen per square foot, from The Edge in 2015, for the cancelled scheme. 9. The lot or PT number, and a filed street address. Not in any filing, not in the register, and subscriber-locked on both myBina records. 10. The main contractor, architect, civil and structural engineer, mechanical and electrical engineer and quantity surveyor. All subscriber-locked on both myBina records, which is a paywall and not a self-appointment — so the route that would have produced a lot number or a floor area is closed, and no contract-award announcement for either tower surfaced. 11. Per-unit-type prices. The filed band is per block. 12. The number of units actually remaining. The filed Baki Unit equals the block totals with no as-at date — a launch snapshot. 13. The land-title category. Only one portal states it, and no filing or register field confirms it. 14. A title number. No filing prints one; a lease expiry does not arise, the land being freehold. 15. Whether the developer licence will be renewed. It expires 5 January 2027, BEFORE the permit (1 February 2027), and the register shows no renewal booked forward. 16. Any distance published by the developer. Zero, including to the MRT3 station it says is “behind the project”. 17. Storey counts from the developer or any portal. Only the register gives them (38 and 36). 18. Renders, floor plans, facility images or unit interiors of the CURRENT scheme. None exists on the public web and there is no project microsite. 19. A QLASSIC score, any award, and any green certification claim or target. All three are genuinely empty, and the project claims none — so there is nothing to downgrade. 20. The status and split of the Gombak River rehabilitation reported in 2015 as a joint undertaking with MRCB. Mentioned once, in 2015, and never again. It is river works, NOT a development joint venture, and this page does not present it as one. One source-quality warning this page carries without making it an accusation: the developer’s corporate site is a stale 2018-era snapshot — footer copyright 2018, latest news 2015–2017, a /press-release/ page listing no releases — and its home-page markup is serving injected third-party spam content, including an outbound link to an unrelated gambling domain. So nothing beyond its project page is linked from here, and no link was harvested from it. Every image URL used was verified individually.

Questions a buyer actually asks about Ekotitiwangsa

Also worth seeing — read the same way, filed particulars first

Published 9 October 2026 · Last verified 9 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register records 13673-2 and 13673-1 and the developer record under code 13673, the superseded filed HIMS advertisement brochure (the only document carrying a statutory particulars block), the current register-linked P45 filing, myBina records 38805 and 76639, the GreenRE public register (all four tiers plus the certification-entry lists), the developer’s own project and awards pages, Ekovest Berhad’s Annual Report 2020, The Edge of 16 June 2015 and 19 January 2017, and seven consumer portals. Marketing information, not an offer. Statutory particulars can change without notice — verify the current licence, the current permit and every price at TEDUH.KPKT.GOV.MY and in the Schedule H SPA before you commit.