KL ECO CITY SDN. BHD., KPKT code 11889, licence 11889/10-2027/0156(R) · CURRENT to 7 October 2027 · register code 11889-2 · Pangsapuri Servis · Jadual J — the first in 80-plus sheets in this series · CCC 9 Jun 2021 · Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL), Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPURViiA Residences, KL Eco City, Pantai Baru / Jalan Bangsar, 59200 Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — a COMPLETED Pangsapuri Servis filed on Jadual J: 326 units, 40 storeys, CCC 9 June 2021 — and the register prints the project name as Kl Eco City Sdn Bhd, the licensee’s own company name, so the only string that reaches it is the code 11889-2
This is a finished, licensed home, and the page says that first because it is the part that protects you. The KPKT KPKT TEDUH register files registration 11889-2 as Pangsapuri Servis, 326 units over 40 storeys, under a live developer licence, with peratusSiap 100.00, Siap Dengan CCC and a CCC dated 9 June 2021 — and the developer’s own filed statutory panel agrees with the register on the licence, the building type, the unit count and the minimum price, character for character. Four things then follow that nobody else publishes, and they are the reason this page exists. ONE: the register’s project-name field reads Kl Eco City Sdn Bhd — the licensee’s own company name, “Sdn Bhd” included. Three of the four registrations on this licence do the same and the fourth carries the development’s name, so not one of them carries a project name at all. A buyer, a solicitor or a bank searching TEDUH for “ViiA” finds NOTHING. Only the code works, so this page prints the code beside every figure. TWO: the scheme is filed on Jadual J while the three sibling registrations on the same licence are all Jadual H. One licence, two different statutory sale and purchase schedules. This page states the filed value and stops there: it could not verify Schedule J’s legal effect against a primary statutory text, and it will not describe protections it has not read. THREE: an approved extension of 21 months exists in the register and appears in no marketing anywhere. The original vacant possession date was 1 November 2019; the extension moved the governing date to 1 August 2021; the CCC landed 53 days inside the revised date and 586 days past the date the first purchasers signed for. Both numbers belong on the page. Neither alone is the truth. FOUR: the developer’s own panel reads Baki Unit: 80 Unit against Jumlah Unit: 326 Units — 80 units unsold five years after the CCC, on the developer’s own live surface, while the advertising and sales permit for this registration lapsed on 23 September 2021. That is why this page is filed as a completed, subsale-stage building and not as a new launch.
11889-2Pangsapuri ServisJadual J326 units40 storeysCCC 9 Jun 2021Baki Unit 80 of 326Leasehold 99 years, expiring 5 Dec 2113Sekatan Kepentingan LIVEBCA Green Mark Gold, valid to 19 Mar 2027Licence 11889/10-2027/0156(R)DBKL · WP Kuala LumpurLouis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, Registered Estate Agency · every figure on this page is attributed to the document it came from, and the ones nobody publishes are listed as missing rather than filled in
11889-2the only string that reaches this scheme in TEDUH, beside “Eco City”0.00 per cent built
ViiA Residences at a glance — every line from a named document
Read this block as the register and the developer’s own filed panel read, not as a brochure reads. Where the two surfaces agree, the line says so, because agreement is itself evidence. Where they disagree — and they disagree on exactly one field — both values are printed and neither is adjudicated. Everything here was read on 14 October 2026 from the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record 11889-2, from the developer’s own statutory panel on its project page, and from the developer’s own green certificate.
- Registered name, verbatim
Kl Eco City Sdn BhdThe register’sprojek.namafield. It is the LICENSEE’S OWN COMPANY NAME, not a project name — so searching TEDUH for “ViiA” returns nothing. Use the code11889-2.- Marketing name
- ViiA ResidencesThe developer’s own collection page and all twelve plan titles in its CMS. Its own surfaces also write
Viiain one place; the CMS spellingViiAis the one followed here, and the name is PLURAL. - Licensed developer
KL ECO CITY SDN. BHD.KPKT developer code11889,statusPemaju: Aktif,mempunyaiKesalahan: null— no offence recorded. Its registered office in the register’s own field IS S P Setia Berhad’s corporate headquarters. No company registration number is published for the licensee by any source reached.- Developer licence
11889/10-2027/0156(R)Valid 8 October 2022 – 7 October 2027, i.e. CURRENT, with 358 days to run as at 14 October 2026. The(R)suffix means RENEWED, not first issue. The developer’s own panel prints this licence identically.- Advertising and sales permit
11889-2/09-2021/0505(A)-(S), LAPSED24 September 2020 – 23 September 2021, so it lapsed fifteen weeks after the CCC, which is normal on a completed scheme. The developer’s own panel does not print a permit number at all — the field is absent, under a printed declaration that the advertisement was approved by theJabatan Perumahan Negara. The-(S)tail reads strata title.- Building type and contract schedule
Pangsapuri Servis·Jadual JThe register and the developer’s panel BOTH filePangsapuri Servis. The schedule isJadual J, while the three sibling registrations on this same licence are allJadual H. What Schedule J does legally is NOT stated on this page, because it was not verified against a primary statutory text.- Units
- 326Agreed by four independent surfaces: the register, the developer’s filed panel (
Jumlah Unit: 326 Units) and two 2016 press previews. Four surfaces, one number. - Still unsold
Baki Unit: 80 UnitThe developer’s own filed panel, live on 14 October 2026 — 246 sold and 80 unsold, about 24.5 per cent of the tower, five years after the CCC. This is the developer’s own number and it is why this page is filed as completed stock, not as a new launch.- Storeys
- 40Register
tingkat: 40and the developer’s own “40-storey” wording agree. The type schedule’s level names run L3A to L39 and skip 4, 13, 14, 23, 24, 33 and 34 (printing23Aand33A), so a level NAME is never a storey count. - Completion
- CCC 9 June 2021Register
status.keseluruhan: Siap Dengan CCC,peratusSiap 100.00; the developer’s panel readsStatus Projek: SiapandTarikh Siap Pembinaan: 9 Jun 2021. The register records NO vacant-possession date at all (vp: “-”), so actual handover to purchasers cannot be dated from it. A CCC is not a vacant possession. - Delivery, both ways round
- 53 days inside · 586 days pastFirst sale and purchase agreement 1 November 2016; original 36-month period giving VP 1 November 2019;
pindaanTempohSerahKosong: YawithtempohTambahanDiluluskan: 21 Bulan, taking the construction period to 57 months and the governing date to 1 August 2021. CCC 9 June 2021 is 53 days inside the date that legally governed, and 586 days — about 19.3 months — past the date the first purchasers signed for. TheLewatflag was checked and is not flagged. - Tenure
Pajakan, 99 TahunLeasehold 99 years, expiring 5 December 2113, from the developer’s own filed panel.Bebanan Tanah: Tiada— no charge or encumbrance recorded on that panel.- Restriction in interest
Sekatan Kepentingan— LIVEThe panel records that the land may not be transferred, leased, charged or pledged without the approval of theJawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. A restriction in interest can bar a foreign buyer regardless of price, so clearing the price floor is necessary and may not be sufficient.- Plan approval
(17) dlm.BP S1 OSC 2015 3378Approving authorityDewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpuron the developer’s own panel. TheBP S1prefix is DBKL’s own building-plan series, which is how the district was settled before any threshold was looked up: Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP Kuala Lumpur, and the register agrees in its own two fields.- Register price band,
11889-2 - RM1,252,000 – RM2,202,060The KPKT public register band for registration
11889-2only — the other three registrations on this licence carry their own bands and two of them price buildings that were never built. not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. - Developer’s filed panel band
- RM1,252,000 – RM2,470,000The developer’s own statutory panel,
Harga Minima/Harga Maksima. The minimum is IDENTICAL to the register’s to the sen; the maximum is RM267,940 higher and this page does not adjudicate which is right. not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. - Built-up, as the developer prints it
- 635 – 1,259 sq ft (type schedule)And the same page’s own statutory panel prints
Keluasan Binaan: 636 kps – 1,252 kps— which is exactly the 2016 press range, so the panel is the stale surface on THIS field while being current on the licence field. Twelve published types, and four more type codes with no built-up at all. - Bedrooms and bathrooms
- NOT PUBLISHED per typeThe register files
bilik: 0andbilikAir: 0— a null, not a studio. The developer publishes no bedroom count per type; its specification table gives one water closet for types A1 to B4 and two for types C1 to D2, which is a sanitary-fitting count and not a bathroom count. - Car park
- NOT PUBLISHED anywhereNot in the register, not on the collection page, not on the statutory panel. Neither a total bay count nor an allocation per unit is published by anyone.
- Green certification
- BCA Green Mark Gold, valid to 19 Mar 2027New Residential Buildings tool, RB Version 4.1, issued 19 March 2024 by Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority, expiring 19 March 2027 — read first-hand from the developer’s own certificate. No GBI certificate exists for this tower in the developer’s own certificate set, and no GreenRE row exists for this development.
- Foreign buyers
- 326 of 326 clear RM1,000,000The Federal Territory floor is RM1,000,000 for strata and landed alike, and the register band’s minimum of RM1,252,000 is 1.25× it, so on the register band every unit clears the floor, including the 635 sq ft Type A5. But the live restriction in interest means the Federal Territory Land Working Committee’s consent is a separate step. Consent runs through the EPU because Kuala Lumpur is a federal territory.
- Township, and what it is not
- KL Eco City, Pantai BaruA 25-acre integrated development on the former Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukum site, under a joint-venture arrangement with Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. It is adjacent to, and NOT part of, Bangsar South — a different development by a different licensee about 800 m away — and nothing on this page is borrowed from there.
- Imagery, stated honestly
- 12 plans + 1 certificate, and nothing elseThe developer publishes no captioned exterior, facade, facility or interior image for this tower. A graded facade render exists in the development’s township image set and names no component in a development with at least seven towers, so it is declined rather than captioned with a guess. That is also why there is no photograph of the pool or the lobby here.
- What else is on this licence
- 708 built · 739 CANCELLED
11889-1: 708 units, 56 storeys,Jadual H, CCC 1 June 2017.11889-3and11889-4: bothPermit Telah Dibatalkanatperatus 0.00— 289 units over 41 storeys and 450 units over 62 storeys, 739 units and 103 storeys that were never started.
Explore related topics
The register-first pages on this site that this one actually depends on, plus the glossary entries for the terms used above.
Six things about this building that only the register and the filed panel will tell you
Nothing in this section is an opinion about the building. Each card is a field value from a named document, with the thing it implies for a buyer stated once and no further.
A TEDUH search for “ViiA” returns nothing
The register’s project-name field for this scheme reads Kl Eco City Sdn Bhd — the licensee’s own company name. Three of the four registrations on this licence do it, and the fourth carries the development’s name, so not one of them carries a project name. The only strings that reach this scheme are “Eco City” and the code 11889-2. Give your solicitor or banker the code, not the marketing name.
Jadual J, and the page will not explain it for you
This is the first Jadual J in more than eighty register sheets in this series, and the three sibling registrations on the same licence are all Jadual H. The 2016 press describes the scheme as sold on a “10:90” basis, which is a payment structure and lines up with a build-then-sell schedule. But the legal effect of Schedule J could not be checked against a primary statutory text, so this page states the filed value and tells you to have your solicitor confirm which schedule governs YOUR agreement.
A 21-month extension that exists only in the register
pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 21 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 57 Bulan. The original delivery date was 1 November 2019; the governing date became 1 August 2021; the CCC is 9 June 2021. So the building landed 53 days inside the date that legally governed it and 586 days after the date its first purchasers signed for. An extension is not automatically a delay — and here it was genuinely consumed. Both figures are printed; neither is the whole answer.
739 units on this licence were cancelled before a spade went in
11889-3 (289 units, 41 storeys) and 11889-4 (450 units, 62 storeys) both read Permit Telah Dibatalkan with komponen: Belum Mula and peratus: 0.00. Both permits were issued one day apart in September 2020 and both were dead by September 2022. That is 739 units and 103 storeys of approved, permitted residential development inside the same 25-acre site that was never built, and it is the honest answer to “what else is coming here?” No source says why they were cancelled or what they were to be called, and this page does not guess.
80 units unsold, and a permit that lapsed in 2021
The developer’s own filed panel reads Baki Unit: 80 Unit of 326 Units, five years after the CCC. The advertising and sales permit for this registration lapsed on 23 September 2021, which is normal on a completed scheme — but it does mean the remaining stock is not being sold under that permit, and no reachable document explains the arrangement it is being sold under instead. Ask, in writing, before you pay a booking fee.
There is a hotel in the same building, and it is outside the licence
The licence covers 326 residential units and there is no second row in the register, so the hotel wing of this 40-storey, two-wing building sits outside the Housing Development Act — the normal, lawful position for a hotel. The operator is Amari Kuala Lumpur, established from the licensee’s own business address in the register rather than from the project page, which never names it. How the two wings divide the common property, the management corporation and the service charge is published by NOBODY, and it is the single most important unanswered question on this page.
The filed particulars, the facilities as the developer publishes them today, and the dated record
The statutory particulars are the spine of this section, not a footnote to it. The statistics strip below carries only figures that a named document prints; the facilities columns carry the developer’s CURRENT four headings and say plainly which 2016 launch items no current source carries; and the timeline is dated from the register, the developer’s panel, its green certificate and two 2016 press previews. Nothing here is converted, estimated or inferred.
tingkat: 40; the developer says “40-storey”)Abdullah Hukum Integrated LRT & KTM Station, the developer’s own figureFacilities — the developer’s current four headings, the one level it names, and the 2016 list that shrank
The developer publishes four facility headings for this tower and assigns exactly ONE of them to a level — and the level is a word, not a floor number. The 2016 launch press listed ten items; five of those ten appear on no current developer surface. Both states are printed.
On the rooftop — the only level assignment the developer makes
- Infinity sky pool
- Jacuzzi
- Pool lounge
- Gymnasium
- No floor number is published for any of these, here or anywhere
The developer’s four printed headings, verbatim
HOTEL CONVENIENCESGOURMET LOUNGEPOOL LOUNGELUXURY LOUNGE- A BBQ area, and a luxury lounge “with audio-visual systems”
- No level is assigned to any of these four
“Hotel conveniences” — read this one carefully
- The collection page says only that the tower “adjoins a business-class hotel”
- The master page describes a “hotel and residences” of “two integrated wings”
- The operator is
Amari Kuala Lumpur— established from the licensee’s own business address in the register, NOT from the project page - What a resident is actually entitled to use is stated by NO source
- So this is a benefit of a commercial neighbour in the same building, and the page will not describe it as a facility you own
The five 2016 items that no current source carries
- Rock climbing
- Steam bath and sauna
- Zen deck
- Steps studio
- AV room
- These are NOT published here as facilities. The 2016 press list ran to ten items and the developer’s current page runs to four headings; the difference is a finding, not a gap to paper over
- The document that would settle it: the as-built strata plan, or the management corporation’s common-property schedule
What is NOT published about this building’s own facilities and plant
- The car park — neither a total bay count nor an allocation per unit, on any surface
- The service charge and the sinking-fund rate — published by nobody
- How the residential wing and the hotel wing divide the common property, the management corporation and the service charge
- Lift count and lift zoning for the residential wing
- Which level the gourmet lounge, the BBQ area and the luxury lounge sit on
- Whether a resident may use any hotel facility, and on what terms
- Any facility this page does not list, because this page lists only what the developer publishes today
The dated record — register, filed panel, certificate and press
Yayasan Gerakbakti Kebangsaan and a CIMB valuation dated 1 July 2011 put the 40 per cent at between RM53 million and RM73 million. The Edge Malaysia. DBKL is named in that report as the counterparty to a privatisation agreement, not as a shareholder.(17) dlm.BP S1 OSC 2015 3378, authority Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur — the developer’s own filed panel11889-2/09-2018/0735(P), a 24-month term — issued 38 days BEFORE the first sale and purchase agreement, which is the right way round and is credited heretarikhPjbPertama), starting a 36-month delivery periodpindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 21 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 57 Bulan — an approved extension that appears in no marketing surface anywhereserahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama)Siap Dengan CCC, peratusSiap 100.00; 53 days inside the governing date, 586 days past the original. The register records NO vacant-possession date (vp: “-”), so handover itself cannot be dated11889-3 and 11889-4: permits issued one day apart, then both Permit Telah Dibatalkan at peratus 0.00 — 739 units and 103 storeys never started11889/10-2027/0156(R), the (R) marking a RENEWAL11889-1, whose own permit expired in 2018, while 11889-2 reads brochure: null and iklan: []. It is an image-only PDF with no text layer: it EXISTS and CANNOT BE READ, which is not the same finding as “none filed”ViiA Residences at Residensi ViiA, No 3, Jalan Bangsar, KL Eco City, 59200 Kuala LumpurBaki Unit: 80 Unit; permit lapsed; mempunyaiKesalahan: null11889/10-2027/0156(R) expiresTwelve published types — twelve for twelve against the developer’s own CMS, and four more codes with no plan
The developer’s live type schedule lists exactly twelve type codes, and its own media library holds exactly one floor plan for each of those twelve and no thirteenth. Twelve for twelve across two independent fields is a stronger corroboration than a title alone, and it is what licenses every plan on this page. The square-metre figures below are the DEVELOPER’S OWN, printed beside its own square footage — not a conversion done here. Three things the schedule does NOT give, and nor does anything else: a bedroom count per type (the register files bilik: 0, which is a null and not a studio), a unit count per type, and a car-park allocation per type. The water-closet counts come from the page’s own sanitary-fittings specification table and are a fitting count, not a bathroom count.
Type A1 — A1
The smallest of the A family that sits in the tower’s lower-middle band. Its level band, 16–21, is the only one of the twelve that starts on a plain numbered level rather than on a lettered one.
Ask for this type’s as-built schedule
Type A2 — A2
The widest level band of any type — 23A to 38 — which is as close as the developer’s own schedule comes to saying which type is the tower’s standard unit. It does not say that in words, and this page will not say it for the developer.
Ask for this type’s as-built schedule
Type A3 — A3
A single-level type: the schedule gives it level 39 and nothing else. “Level 39” is a NAME, not the 39th floor — the schedule skips 4, 13, 14, 23, 24, 33 and 34 and prints 23A and 33A, and the register files the storey count as 40.
Type A4 — A4
A4 and A6 are published at the SAME built-up, 678 sq ft, on the SAME level band. What distinguishes them is not stated anywhere, and this page is not going to deduce it from the drawings.
Ask for this type’s as-built scheduleType A5 — A5
The smallest published type in the tower, and the one that settles the foreign-buyer question: on the KPKT register’s own band for 11889-2 even this type clears the RM1,000,000 Federal Territory floor, because the band’s minimum is RM1,252,000. Clearing the floor is necessary and may not be sufficient — the title carries a live restriction in interest.
Type A6 — A6
The twin of A4 on built-up and on level band. The developer’s CMS holds one plan for each code and no thirteenth, so both codes are real; the difference between them is simply not published.
Ask for this type’s as-built schedule
Type B1 — B1
The lowest-starting type in the tower: level 3A. There is no level 1 or 2 unit in the schedule, and no source says what is on those levels — a 40-storey building with a hotel in the same two-wing structure does not have to put homes at its base, and the developer does not say what it put there instead.
Ask for this type’s as-built schedule
Type B2 — B2
The code B2 is the one to be careful about on this project, and it is the developer’s own fault, not yours. The size lines printed under the plans for B3, B4, C3 and D2 all read “TYPE B2” on the live page. The headings and the CMS titles are the reliable fields; the size lines are not. If you are shown a “Type B2” plan, check the heading.
Ask for this type’s as-built schedule
Type B3 — B3
B3 and B4 are published at the same 807 sq ft on DIFFERENT level bands — 3A to 21 for B3 and 23A to 33 for B4 — which is the one pair where the schedule itself distinguishes two equal-sized types. Its size line is one of the four mislabelled “TYPE B2”.
Ask for this type’s as-built schedule
Type B4 — B4
The high-band twin of B3 at the same built-up. Its size line is also mislabelled “TYPE B2” on the developer’s own page.
Ask for this type’s as-built schedule
Type C3 — C3
The only published C-family type — and the developer’s own specification table knows about C1, C2 and C4 as well, with no plan, no built-up and no level for any of them. C3 is the first type on the sanitary schedule’s two-water-closet side. Its size line is mislabelled “TYPE B2”.
Ask for this type’s as-built scheduleType D2 — D2
The largest published type. And it is the reason the developer’s own statutory panel is out of date on one field: the panel prints Keluasan Binaan: 636 kps – 1,252 kps, which is exactly the 2016 press range, while this schedule on the same page runs 635 to 1,259 sq ft. Its size line is mislabelled “TYPE B2” too. A D1 code exists in the specification table with no plan at all.
Types C1, C2, C4 and D1 — the four codes with no plan
The developer’s own specification table lists four type codes that its type schedule and its plan set have both dropped: C1, C2, C4 and D1. So the specification is the complete surface here and the schedule is the lean one — the opposite of the usual case. Printing the four codes as a finding is the honest move; inventing built-ups for them is not. The document that would close this: the as-built schedule of parcels.
Levels are NAMES, not counts. The schedule runs L3A to L39 and skips 4, 13, 14, 23, 24, 33 and 34, printing 23A and 33A instead — the register files tingkat: 40 and that is the storey figure used on this page. Plans are the developer’s own and are not to scale. No price is shown against any type, because no per-type price is published by anyone — the two filed bands in the register block below are the whole of what is publishable, and they are not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.
The gallery, and the honest reason it is a drawing set
ViiA Residences at Residensi ViiA, No 3, Jalan Bangsar, KL Eco City, 59200 Kuala Lumpur and signed by the CEO of Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority. The certificate’s own address line is where the postcode 59200 and the street number on this page come from — the register carries neither.THIS IS THE WHOLE OF THE PUBLISHABLE IMAGERY FOR THIS TOWER, AND THE PAGE WOULD RATHER SAY SO THAN FILL THE GAP. The developer publishes NO captioned exterior, facade, facility or interior image for ViiA Residences. Thirteen assets in its own media library carry a title that names both this project and the subject, and twelve of the thirteen are line drawings. A graded facade render does exist in the development’s township image set — and it names no component in a development that contains at least seven towers, so using it here would be a caption on a guess. The same township set also contains assets belonging to two OTHER developments by the same group, which is exactly why a township folder is not a source for a single tower’s hero shot. So: no pool photograph, no lobby photograph, no facade render, and no stock substitute. Ask Louis for the real photographs instead.
Ask Louis for the actual photographs and plansKL Eco City, Pantai Baru — 23 developer-published distances, and whose distances they are
Every figure in this section is the developer’s own, and all 23 of them carry a distance rather than a travel time — zero minute-claims, which is a credit worth recording. But the SAME 23 places with the SAME 23 figures are served on the development’s other component page too, to the metre, in the same order. So these are DEVELOPMENT-wide distances measured from the 25-acre site, not from this tower’s own lobby. The two are a few hundred metres apart at most, so the error is small — but the page says which thing was measured. Nothing below is estimated and nothing is converted.
The lot reference is the development’s, not this tower’s. Nothing published says the 25-acre site is one lot, and the mukim, the seksyen, the PT number and the individual parcel title for this tower’s own plot are NOT PUBLISHED by anyone. A sibling registration on this same licence files its coordinates with the latitude and longitude SWAPPED (lat: 101.673778), which is recorded here as what the register shows and is not used for anything.
Transport — the developer’s own figures
Abdullah Hukum Integrated LRT & KTM Station— 50 mMid Valley KTM Station— 1 kmBangsar LRT Station— 1.7 kmKL Sentral— 3.6 km- The rail hub is a COMPONENT of this development, which is why the transit claim here is structural rather than marketing: the developer also lists a two-tier internal road system, pedestrian links, new access ramps and link bridges as masterplan infrastructure
- AND THE TRAP: this is NOT the Kerinchi LRT station. Kerinchi serves the adjacent, separate Bangsar South developments and is one stop away on the same line. Nothing on this page is borrowed from those projects’ pages
- The walking distance and route from this tower’s own lobby to the station gates is NOT PUBLISHED — 50 m is to the station, not through it
Retail
KL Eco City Mall— 50 m (inside the development)Mid Valley City— 100 mBangsar Village— 2.7 kmNU Sentral— 3.1 km (the developer spells itNu Sentralon its other component page — same table, two spellings)Bangsar Shopping Centre— 4.2 kmBukit Bintang— 9.3 kmSuria KLCC— 12.0 km
Healthcare and education
Pantai Medical Centre— 1.8 kmUniversity of Malaya— 2.7 kmUniversity Malaya Medical Centre— 3.3 kmAssunta Hospital— 5.3 kmKuen Cheng High School— 5.4 kmAlice Smith School Primary Campus— 8.1 kmPrince Court Medical Centre— 10.5 km
Parks and golf
Kuala Lumpur Butterfly Park— 5.0 kmRoyal Selangor Golf Club— 5.5 kmKuala Lumpur Bird Park— 5.6 kmPerdana Botanical Garden— 6.3 kmTournament Players Club (TPC) Kuala Lumpur— 8.0 km
What NO source publishes a distance to
- Any national or Chinese primary school
- Any kindergarten
- Any wet market
- The nearest supermarket inside the development
- KLIA or Subang airport
- Any mosque other than the on-site
Masjid Jamek Abdullah Hukum— for which no distance is published either - These are not estimated here. If a distance matters to your decision, measure it on the ground before you sign
KL Eco City is adjacent to, and not part of, Bangsar South. They are two developments by two different licensees about 800 m apart, and this page took nothing — not a distance, not an image, not a plan reference, not a green row and not a licensee — from the Bangsar South pages on this site. Pantai Baru and Abdullah Hukum are written in Malay throughout, in both languages, because no verified Chinese rendering of either was found and this site does not transliterate a place name.
KPKT TEDUH register 11889-2 and the developer’s own filed statutory panel, field by field
Two surfaces exist for this scheme and there is no third. The KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record 11889-2, and the developer’s own statutory panel on its project page. The one filed advertisement on this whole licence is an image-only PDF with no text layer — it EXISTS and it CANNOT BE READ, which is a different finding from “none filed” — and the register attaches it to a SIBLING registration whose own permit expired in 2018. So where the register and the panel disagree, there is no third document to break the tie, and this page prints both values and adjudicates neither. Read 14 October 2026.
| Field | Register 11889-2 | Developer’s filed panel | What it means here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project name, verbatim Licensed developer KPKT developer code Developer licence Licence validity Advertising and sales permit Permit validity Building type Contract schedule Units Still unsold Storeys Bedrooms / bathrooms Built-up Tenure Restriction in interest Encumbrance Plan approval Approving authority Price band Construction completed Built percentage Status Vacant possession Filed advertisement | Kl Eco City Sdn BhdKL ECO CITY SDN. BHD.1188911889/10-2027/0156(R)8 Oct 2022 – 7 Oct 2027 11889-2/09-2021/0505(A)-(S)24 Sep 2020 – 23 Sep 2021 (LAPSED) Pangsapuri ServisJadual J326 not a register field 40 ( tingkat)bilik: 0 / bilikAir: 0keluasan: 100 mps (a built-up in m², NOT a land area)not a register field not a register field not a register field not a register field not a register field RM1,252,000.00 – RM2,202,060.00 not a register field peratusSiap 100.00Siap Dengan CCCvp: “-” — NONE RECORDEDbrochure: null, iklan: [] | KL Eco City Sdn Bhdsame company not printed 11889/10-2027/0156(R) — IDENTICAL08/10/2022 – 07/10/2027 — IDENTICALTHE FIELD IS ABSENT ENTIRELY — Pangsapuri Servis — AGREESnot printed 326 Units — AGREESBaki Unit: 80 Unitnot printed not printed Keluasan Binaan: 636 kps – 1,252 kps (and the same page’s own type schedule runs 635–1,259 sq ft)Pajakan, 99 Tahun — expiring 5 Dec 2113Sekatan Kepentingan — consent of the Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur requiredBebanan Tanah: Tiada(17) dlm.BP S1 OSC 2015 3378Dewan Bandaraya Kuala LumpurRM1,252,000.00 – RM2,470,000.00 Tarikh Siap Pembinaan: 9 Jun 2021not printed Status Projek: Siapnot printed IKLAN INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA | Search the CODE, never the name The licensee, not the group Give this to your banker Two surfaces, one licence, character for character CURRENT, 358 days to run The register supplies the permit the panel omits Lapsed 15 weeks after CCC — normal on a completed scheme Both surfaces agree Siblings are all Jadual HFour surfaces agree 80 unsold five years after CCC A level NAME is not a storey count A register null, NOT a studio 14th record of this trap — unusable as a land area The remaining term is what a bank prices Price alone may not be enough for a foreign buyer No charge recorded on that panel BP S1 is how the district was settledFederal Territory jurisdiction They disagree by RM267,940 on the MAXIMUM and the minima are identical to the sen Both surfaces agree Quoted as the band the register prints Completed A CCC is not a vacant possession EXISTS AND CANNOT BE READ — on the SIBLING record |
The two price bands above are the only prices on this page. The left-hand band is the KPKT public register band for registration 11889-2 ONLY; the right-hand band is the developer’s own filed statutory panel (Harga Minima / Harga Maksima). Each is labelled by its surface and neither is adjudicated: the minima are identical to the sen and the panel’s maximum is RM267,940 higher. Both are not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. The other three registrations on this licence carry their own bands and NONE of them belongs to this tower — two of them price buildings that were never built.
Why the panel’s own Baki Unit does NOT explain the price disagreement, and the page checked before saying so: a filed table whose quantity column reads Baki Unit can legitimately show a MINIMUM above the register’s, because the cheapest stock has sold. Here the mismatch runs the other way — the minima are identical and it is the MAXIMUM that is higher on the developer’s surface, and remaining stock cannot raise a maximum above the register’s. So it is not a remaining-stock effect, not a splice of two permit generations and not an orphan figure. It is an unexplained disagreement on one field, and the document that would resolve it is the image-only filed advertisement that cannot be read.
Foreign buyers — 326 of 326 clear the floor, and the floor is not the only question
The district was established FIRST, from the filed plan-approval reference, and the threshold looked up SECOND. The developer’s own panel prints (17) dlm.BP S1 OSC 2015 3378 with the approving authority Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur; BP S1 is DBKL’s own building-plan series, DBKL has Federal Territory jurisdiction only, and the register agrees in its own two fields (daerah: Kuala Lumpur, negeri: Wp Kuala Lumpur). So this is a Federal Territory project and the floor is RM1,000,000 — the same figure for strata and for landed — under the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022, with consent through the EPU rather than a state authority because Kuala Lumpur is a federal territory; National Land Code (Act 828) s.433B is also cited. IQI’s own guide gives the same “from RM1,000,000” for Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan. THE ANSWER HERE IS UNUSUALLY CLEAN: the register’s own band for 11889-2 starts at RM1,252,000, which is 1.25× the threshold, so on that band ALL 326 UNITS clear it — including the smallest published type, the 635 sq ft Type A5. Most pages on this site have to explain a straddle; this one does not, and that is worth telling a foreign buyer plainly. BUT TWO CAVEATS TRAVEL WITH IT. First, the title carries a LIVE restriction in interest: the land may not be transferred, leased, charged or pledged without the approval of the Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. A filed restriction in interest can bar a foreign buyer regardless of price, so clearing RM1,000,000 is NECESSARY AND MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT — the consent is a separate step and it must be checked against the actual title before anything is signed. Second, no Selangor figure applies here and none is used on this page. Selangor Zone 1 and Zone 2 are RM2,000,000 and Zone 3 is RM1,000,000; this project is not in Selangor. And a current market figure for a resale is a different question again: no NAPIC or land-registry transaction band was obtained for this tower, and no portal figure has been substituted for one.
Built percentage, and what the register will and will not support
The register files peratusSiap 100.00 with status.keseluruhan: Siap Dengan CCC, and the developer’s panel reads Status Projek: Siap with Tarikh Siap Pembinaan: 9 Jun 2021. That figure is quoted here as the band the register prints and nothing is computed from it. What the register does NOT give is a vacant-possession date: the field reads vp: “-”, so actual handover to purchasers cannot be dated from the public record at all, and a CCC is not a vacant possession. The Lewat (late) flag was checked on this record and is NOT flagged — that is a positive read of a readable field, not an inability to check. The unitSummary.keluasan field reads 100 mps, which is a built-up in square metres (about 1,076 sq ft, inside the 635–1,259 sq ft type range) and NOT a land area; the three sibling registrations read 0 mps. So no density and no plot ratio appears anywhere on this page, and the reason is arithmetic rather than modesty: the only parcel figure in existence is the development’s 25 acres, and those 25 acres carry this tower, a second completed residential tower, an office tower, three further office buildings, twelve boutique office blocks, a mall, a hotel, a mosque and a rail hub. Dividing 326 units by 25 acres would be meaningless, so it is refused.
The four registrations on this licence — one delivered, one completed late, two cancelled before a spade went in
This licence carries FOUR registrations and the delivery record of all four is published by nobody, so it is set out here because it is the honest answer to “what else is coming here?” 11889-1: 708 units, 56 storeys, Rumah Pangsa/Kondo, Jadual H, CCC 1 June 2017 against a contractual date of 22 January 2015 and pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak — 861 days past its only date with no extension recorded, which must be attributed to THAT registration and not to this one, and with the caveat that for a 2012-era registration an absent extension may itself be a register gap. On the weight of three converging legs that record is the development’s first completed residential tower, marketed as Vogue Suites — stated as weight of evidence, because the register itself calls it Kl Eco City. 11889-2 is this tower. 11889-3: 289 units, 41 storeys, Pangsapuri Servis, Jadual H, an approved extension of 16 months — and Permit Telah Dibatalkan, komponen: Belum Mula, peratus: 0.00. 11889-4: 450 units, 62 storeys, the tallest tower on this licence, an approved extension of 18 months — and cancelled at 0.00 per cent as well. Both permits were issued one day apart in September 2020 and both were dead by September 2022: together, 739 units and 103 storeys of approved, permitted residential development on this site that was never started. Why they were cancelled is published nowhere, and what they were to be called is NOT ESTABLISHED — a third-party encyclopaedia offers two names and no source links either name to either code, so this page prints them as unidentified. Not one of the four registrations beat its original contractual date. And both cancelled records carry an empty lesen_records array while their two siblings carry six and four; because this licence’s suffix is (R) for renewed rather than a first issue, that emptiness is recorded here as a REGISTER GAP and not as a positive finding.
The permit history — five permits, no uncovered day, and a lapse that is normal
The register prints the current permit as 11889-2/09-2021/0505(A)-(S) for 24 September 2020 – 23 September 2021, and four earlier permits all marked Tamat (expired): …/09-2021/02970(P), …/09-2020/02684(P), …/09-2019/02730(P) and …/09-2018/0735(P), the last of these a 24-month term from 24 September 2016. Permit coverage is therefore CONTINUOUS from 24 September 2016 to 23 September 2021 — five years, five permits, not one uncovered day. That is a credit and it is said as one. The first permit also pre-dates the first sale and purchase agreement by 38 days, which is the right way round. Two oddities are printed as the register shows them and not reconciled: the current permit …/0505(A)-(S) and the expired …/02970(P) cover the IDENTICAL 24 September 2020 – 23 September 2021 window under two different serials, one marked active and one expired; and the (P) suffix sits on four consecutive permits across five years, so the free landed-versus-strata read off a -(L) or -(S) tail was unavailable for the whole of this tower’s selling life and became available only on the current (A) generation. The permit LAPSED on 23 September 2021, fifteen weeks after the CCC. On a completed scheme that is normal and it is not a defect. What it does mean, and it is worth one sentence: the developer is no longer permitted to advertise and sell the remaining 80 units under that permit, so any current sale of that stock is being made under some other arrangement that no reachable document explains. Ask for it in writing.
Jadual J — the filed value, and the limit of what this page will say about it
The register files this scheme on Jadual J, and the three sibling registrations on the same licence are all Jadual H. One licence, two different statutory sale and purchase agreement schedules. This is the first Jadual J in more than eighty register sheets compiled for this site. Two legs point the same way: the register’s own field, and the developer’s 2016 marketing of this tower on a “10:90” basis — buyers paying 10 per cent at the outset and the remaining 90 per cent on handover — reported in identical terms by two independent publishers. AND HERE IS THE LIMIT, STATED PLAINLY: a primary statutory text for Schedule J could not be reached when this page was researched, so the legal effect of Schedule J is NOT described here. This page states the value the register files and tells you to have your own solicitor confirm, in writing, which schedule governs the agreement you would actually sign and what its delivery and defect-liability terms say. Describing protections nobody has read would be the one thing worse than saying so. The documents that would close it: the Regulations themselves, or the executed agreement for the specific unit.
Not published, therefore not on this page — and what would close each gap
This is the list Louis will go and ask the developer and the management corporation for. Nothing on it has been filled in from a portal, a brochure or an inference. The licensee’s company registration number — TEDUH omits the field entirely and no reachable source carries one; an SSM company search would close it, and it is a paid search. The current shareholding of the licensee, and DBKL’s equity position if any — the 100-per-cent position rests on a 2011 report of an intention, not on a filing read here; S P Setia Berhad’s audited subsidiary list would close it. The terms, date and consideration of the privatisation agreement with DBKL — the Bursa announcement would close it. The readable statutory block for this tower — it exists as a single image-only PDF with no text layer; reading that one file by eye or by OCR is the cheapest open gap on this whole project. This tower’s advertising-permit number as the DEVELOPER states it — the field is absent from its panel, and the number on this page comes from the register instead. The mukim, seksyen, lot and PT number for this tower’s own parcel, and its land area — only the development-wide Lot 215 exists, printed as a sales-gallery address; a title search or a DBKL planning extract would close it, and until it does there is no density and no plot ratio. The car park — neither a total bay count nor an allocation per unit, on any surface; the strata plan or the agreement would close it. Bedrooms per type — the register files 0 and the developer publishes none; the as-built plans would close it. Built-ups and levels for types C1, C2, C4 and D1 — the codes exist only in a specification table. How the residential wing and the hotel wing divide the common property, the management corporation and the service charge — published by nobody, and the single most important unanswered question here; the strata plan and the management corporation’s own documents would close it. The service-charge and sinking-fund rates. The actual vacant-possession date — the register records none. A NAPIC or land-registry transaction band — not obtained, and no portal figure substituted. Why 11889-3 and 11889-4 were cancelled, and what they were to be called. Whether any GBI certification exists for this tower — the registry was unreachable to the research tool, which is inconclusive and never a negative, while the developer’s own eight-certificate set contains no GBI item at all. A verified Chinese name for KL Eco City, Pantai Baru or Abdullah Hukum — none was found in any source, so all three stay in Latin script on the Chinese version of this page rather than being transliterated.
What this page does not publish, and why
Louis’s own compliance rule governs this page without exception, and it is absolute: no figure describing a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion, a freebie, an incentive or an agency commission from any company material may appear here in either language — and no leaseback rate, guaranteed-rental rate, yield, ROI or rental-return figure may appear either. Three specific withholdings on this project are named, so that you know a figure EXISTS rather than wondering whether anyone looked. ONE: the developer’s own filed statutory panel carries a field headed Diskaun/Rebat Bumiputera, and it is printed with a value in it. The existence of the field is published here; its value is not. That is a withholding and not a clean negative, and the page says which it is. TWO: a September 2016 launch headline price, carried by TWO independent publishers, sits BELOW both filed minima — at roughly four-fifths of them. The figure is not recorded here. What is publishable is that the discrepancy exists, that two separate publishers carry it, and the obvious explanation, which is still only an explanation: it is a 2016 pre-construction figure for a building completed in 2021, against a register band and a filed panel that are both current. It is a ten-year-old number, not a live one, and printing it “to show how much prices have risen” would be the same forbidden arithmetic in a different coat. THREE: the 2016 average per-square-foot figure carried by those same two publishers, withheld because it is the arithmetic partner of the headline above and printing it would reconstruct the withheld number. And one positive worth recording: the developer’s own project pages and brochures carry no return claim of any kind. Every return claim on this project sits on press or on paid media — which is the right way round. The two price bands this page DOES print are the KPKT public register band for registration 11889-2 and the developer’s own filed statutory panel band. Each is labelled by its surface at every appearance, their disagreement on the maximum is printed and not adjudicated, and both carry the same caveat: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. For anything beyond a filed band — what is actually payable on a specific unit today, and the current position on the 80 remaining units — ask Louis directly and get it in writing.
How to check every line of this page yourself, in about ten minutes
Search the KPKT TEDUH public register for the developer by the string “Eco City”, not by the project name. “ViiA”, “ViiA Residences” and “Viia” all return nothing, because the register holds no project name for this scheme. The licensee is KL ECO CITY SDN. BHD., developer code 11889, with four registrations; the one that governs this tower is 11889-2. A search for “S P Setia” returns a real, live, correctly-spelled licensee that is the WRONG COMPANY — a different group entity with six projects of its own — and a search for “Setia” returns forty-plus licensees of which not one is this one, because the licensee’s registered name contains no “Setia” at all. A search for “Pantai” returns five licensees and not one of them is this one, despite this project’s own address being Pantai Baru. Then read the developer’s own statutory panel on its project page for this tower and compare it line by line with what is printed above. Those two surfaces are the whole public record: the one filed advertisement on this licence is an image-only PDF attached to a sibling registration, and it cannot be read. Everything on this page was read on 14 October 2026 and dated.
KL ECO CITY SDN. BHD. — the licensee, the group, and what the register itself proves about the link
The licensed developer of this scheme is KL ECO CITY SDN. BHD., KPKT developer code 11889, holding licence 11889/10-2027/0156(R) valid 8 October 2022 to 7 October 2027 — current, with 358 days to run as at 14 October 2026. The register reads statusPemaju: Aktif and mempunyaiKesalahan: null: no offence is recorded against this licensee. The (R) suffix means the licence is a RENEWAL and not a first issue. The licensee’s company registration number is NOT printed by TEDUH and was not found in any reachable source, so this page publishes none.
Every marketing surface on this project says “S P Setia”. The licence is held by a single-development company named after the development — and the register proves the relationship in its own field rather than leaving it to a brochure. pemaju.alamat_daftar, the licensee’s registered office, reads S P Setia Berhad Corporate Hq, No. 12 Persiaran Setia Dagang, Setia Alam, Seksyen U13, 40170, … Selangor. The licensee’s own registered office IS S P Setia Berhad’s corporate headquarters, named as such in the register’s own field. That is a first-hand register link and it is stronger than any marketing claim, which is why it is how the relationship is stated here. Name the licensee on any document; name the group as the group.
A trap worth knowing before you search anything yourself: the licensee’s alamat_perniagaan — its business address — is Amari Kuala Lumpur, No.3, Kl Eco City, Jalan Bangsar, 59200, Kuala Lumpur, which is the hotel inside this very building. So the licensee’s business address is a building it built. It is useful corroboration, and it is an office address and not this tower’s site address. The same field is also the only first-hand evidence of who operates the hotel wing: the project page never names the operator at all. The register’s emel field is a bare - and alamat_web is null; the second of those is NOT evidence that the developer has no website — it has a full collection page, a live statutory panel and two brochure generations. The register simply does not hold the URL.
The land arrangement, and the care it needs. KL Eco City is developed under a joint-venture arrangement with Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, on the site of the former Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukum, and DBKL is also the authority that approved the building plans — a dual role that shows up in the title itself, because the restriction in interest requires the consent of the Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. In July 2011 S P Setia, then holding 60 per cent of the licensee, agreed to buy out the remaining 40 per cent for RM75 million, satisfied by issuing 19.379 million new shares at RM3.87 each; the seller was Yayasan Gerakbakti Kebangsaan, and a CIMB valuation report dated 1 July 2011 put the 40 per cent at between RM53 million and RM73 million. That report names DBKL as the counterparty to a privatisation agreement with the licensee — not as a shareholder. Say it as what it is: a developer-to-city-authority land arrangement. It is NOT a buyer inducement, NOT a leaseback and NOT a guarantee of any kind, and that has to be said in the same breath, because the words “privatisation” and “consideration” invite exactly the wrong reading.
And what is NOT established about it, which must not be written as though it were: the CURRENT shareholding of the licensee — the 100-per-cent position rests on a 2011 report of an intention, re-reported since, not on a filing read for this page; DBKL’s equity position, if any; the terms, date, consideration and duration of the privatisation agreement; and whether the 2011 seller retains any interest. The documents that would close these are S P Setia Berhad’s audited subsidiary list and the Bursa announcement of the agreement itself. Neither was reached, so neither is asserted.
Awards: four real ones, and not one of them belongs to this tower. The development as a whole holds FIABCI World Prix d’Excellence Gold for Mixed-Use (2022), FIABCI World Prix d’Excellence Gold for Office (2020), a FIABCI Malaysia Property Award for Mixed-Use (2021) and a FIABCI Malaysia Best Office award (2019). Every one of the four is attributed by its source to KL ECO CITY as a whole, and NONE is attributed to ViiA Residences by anybody. So this page does not call this tower award-winning, and it would be wrong to do so. It says accurately that the development it sits in has won four FIABCI awards, names the years, and names what carries them: branded advertorial content, not an awarding body’s own citation list. No QLASSIC score was found for this tower, and no award of any kind attaches to the licensee by name.
Green certification, from the certificate and not from the press. The developer’s own certificate for this tower is BCA Green Mark Gold, New Residential Buildings tool, RB Version 4.1, issued 19 March 2024 by Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority and valid to 19 March 2027, in the name ViiA Residences at Residensi ViiA, No 3, Jalan Bangsar, KL Eco City, 59200 Kuala Lumpur. The grade on this page rests on that 2024 certificate, read first-hand. A 2016 press item claimed the same grade five years before the building was completed; that was a pre-construction target and it is not cited here as the source, because a claim agreeing with a certificate is not the same thing as evidence. Because the certification is time-limited, this page says “valid to 19 March 2027” and never an unqualified “is certified”: if it is not renewed, the grade comes off both language versions of this page. The same 2016 item also called this tower GBI certified. The developer’s own certificate set holds eight certificates for this development and NOT ONE of them is a GBI certificate, so no GBI claim is published here for this tower. And the GreenRE registers hold no row for this development in any tier — which here is an EXPLAINED absence rather than a hedged one: this developer certifies this development through other schemes entirely, so a GreenRE zero is the expected result and not a failed search. The sibling residential tower on this licence has a Green Mark certificate of its own. It is a different certificate for a different building and nothing from it is borrowed here.
One scoping note, so that nothing on this page is read across to the wrong product. The same 25-acre development contains a separate commercial office tower, and it is a different legal animal: it holds no developer licence, no advertising and sales permit and no filed statutory advertisement, because the Housing Development Act does not reach a commercial office product at all. Nothing on this page — not this licence, not this permit, not the Jadual J filing, not the green certificate and not the RM1,000,000 residential threshold — applies to that tower or to any other building in this development. This page is about registration 11889-2, the 326 serviced-residence units, and nothing else.
Licensee, licence, permit, registration, building type, schedule, units, storeys, price band, built percentage, extension and status: KPKT TEDUH public register, record 11889-2, read 14 October 2026. Tenure, lease expiry, restriction in interest, encumbrance, plan approval, approving authority, panel price band, built-up range, remaining units and construction-completion date: the developer’s own filed statutory panel on its project page, read 14 October 2026. Green grade, tool version, issue and expiry dates, street number and postcode: the developer’s own BCA Green Mark certificate, read first-hand. The 2011 buyout, the privatisation agreement and the valuation range: The Edge Malaysia. The four FIABCI awards, development-wide: The Edge Malaysia branded content. The 2016 launch previews, the ten-item facility list and the four-layout generalisation: two independent publishers, September 2016. The joint venture with DBKL and the former village name: a third-party encyclopaedia, labelled as such.
ViiA Residences, KL Eco City — the answers, each from a named document
Why does a KPKT search for “ViiA Residences” find nothing?
projek.nama field on registration 11889-2 reads Kl Eco City Sdn Bhd — the licensee’s own company name, with “Sdn Bhd” included. Three of the four registrations on this licence do exactly that and the fourth carries the development’s name, so not one of the four carries a project name. The only strings that reach this scheme are “Eco City” and the code 11889-2, so give your solicitor and your banker the code.Is this building finished, and when?
status.keseluruhan: Siap Dengan CCC with peratusSiap 100.00 and a CCC dated 9 June 2021; the developer’s own filed panel reads Status Projek: Siap and Tarikh Siap Pembinaan: 9 Jun 2021. What the register does NOT record is a vacant-possession date — the field reads vp: “-” — so the date keys actually reached purchasers cannot be established from the public record, and a CCC is not a vacant possession.Was it delivered late?
pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya with tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 21 Bulan, taking the construction period to 57 months and the governing date to 1 August 2021. The CCC of 9 June 2021 is therefore 53 days INSIDE the date that legally governed, and 586 days — about 19.3 months — PAST the date the first purchasers signed for. An extension is not automatically a delay, and here it was genuinely consumed. The Lewat flag on this record was checked and is not flagged. The extension appears in no marketing surface anywhere: the register is the only place it is published.What is Jadual J, and why is this scheme on it when its siblings are on Jadual H?
Jadual J and files the three other registrations on the same licence on Jadual H — one licence, two different statutory sale and purchase agreement schedules, and the first Jadual J in more than eighty register sheets compiled for this site. The 2016 press describes the tower as sold on a “10:90” basis, 10 per cent at the outset and 90 per cent on handover, which is a payment structure and is consistent with that filing. But a primary statutory text for Schedule J was not reachable when this page was researched, so its legal effect is NOT described here. Have your own solicitor confirm in writing which schedule governs the agreement you would sign, and what its delivery and defect-liability terms actually say.What are the other registrations on this licence, and what happened to them?
| Code | Units | Storeys | Schedule | Status | Delivery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
11889-1 | 708 | 56 | Jadual H | Siap Dengan CCC, CCC 1 Jun 2017 | 861 days past its only contractual date, with pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak — no extension recorded |
11889-2 | 326 | 40 | Jadual J | Siap Dengan CCC, CCC 9 Jun 2021 | 53 days inside the governing date; 586 past the original |
11889-3 | 289 | 41 | Jadual H | Permit Telah Dibatalkan, peratus 0.00 | +16 months approved, then cancelled before any work began |
11889-4 | 450 | 62 | Jadual H | Permit Telah Dibatalkan, peratus 0.00 | +18 months approved, then cancelled before any work began |
How many units are still unsold, and can I buy one?
Baki Unit: 80 Unit against Jumlah Unit: 326 Units, live on 14 October 2026 — 246 sold and 80 unsold, about 24.5 per cent of the tower, five years after the building was completed. That is the developer’s own number, and it is the strongest single reason this page is filed as completed stock rather than as a new launch. One honest complication: the advertising and sales permit for this registration lapsed on 23 September 2021, so the remaining units are not being sold under that permit, and no reachable document explains the arrangement they ARE being sold under. Ask for that in writing before paying anything.What do the two price bands on this page mean, and why are there two?
11889-2 is RM1,252,000 to RM2,202,060. The developer’s own filed statutory panel prints Harga Minima RM1,252,000 — identical to the sen — and Harga Maksima RM2,470,000, which is RM267,940 higher. This page prints both, labels each by its surface and adjudicates neither, because the one filed advertisement that could have broken the tie is an image-only PDF that cannot be read. Both are not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer, and neither is a current asking price for any individual unit. The other three registrations on this licence carry their own bands and none of them is this tower’s — two of them price buildings that were never built. Anything beyond a filed band has to come from Louis in writing, and the page’s own disclosure above lists exactly what it withholds and why.Can a foreign buyer purchase here?
11889-2 starts at RM1,252,000, which is 1.25 times the threshold, so on that band ALL 326 UNITS clear it — including the smallest published type, the 635 sq ft Type A5. But the title carries a LIVE restriction in interest: the land may not be transferred, leased, charged or pledged without the approval of the Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, and a restriction in interest can bar a foreign buyer regardless of price. So clearing RM1,000,000 is necessary and may not be sufficient: the consent is a separate step and it has to be checked against the actual title before anything is signed. No Selangor figure applies here — Selangor Zone 1 and Zone 2 are RM2,000,000 and Zone 3 is RM1,000,000, and this project is not in Selangor. The district was settled from the filed plan prefix first and the threshold looked up second.Is it freehold?
Hakmilik Tanah: Pajakan, 99 Tahun — leasehold for 99 years, expiring 5 December 2113. The remaining term, not the original term, is what a bank and a resale buyer price. The same panel prints Bebanan Tanah: Tiada, so no charge or encumbrance is recorded there. The mukim, the seksyen, the lot and the PT number for this tower’s own parcel are NOT published by anyone; the only lot reference in existence, Lot 215, is development-wide and is printed as a sales-gallery address. A title search is the document that settles all of it.There is a hotel in the same building. What does that mean for me?
Amari Kuala Lumpur, established from the licensee’s own business address in the register and from a third-party encyclopaedia — the project page never names it, and says only that the tower “adjoins a business-class hotel”. How the two wings divide the common property, the management corporation and the service charge is published by NOBODY, and it is the single most important unanswered question about this building. The strata plan and the management corporation’s own documents are what would answer it. And “hotel conveniences” is a benefit of an adjoining commercial operator’s premises, not a facility of the strata scheme: no source states what a resident may actually use.How many bedrooms does each type have?
bilik: 0 and bilikAir: 0 on every registration on this licence — a null, not a studio — and the developer’s twelve-type schedule carries built-ups and levels but no room counts. The only bedroom information anywhere is a 2016 press line describing “four layouts from one-bedroom to three-bedroom”, which describes FOUR layouts against the developer’s current TWELVE type codes, so it is a 2016 generation and must not be mapped onto today’s codes. What IS published is a sanitary-fittings table: one water closet for types A1 to B4, two for types C1 to D2. That is a fitting count, not a bathroom count. The as-built plans are what would answer it.Is the green certification real, and is it current?
ViiA Residences at Residensi ViiA, No 3, Jalan Bangsar, KL Eco City, 59200 Kuala Lumpur. The grade on this page rests on that certificate, read first-hand, and NOT on a 2016 press claim of the same grade, which was published five years before the building was completed and is therefore a pre-construction target rather than evidence. Because the certification is time-limited the page says “valid to 19 March 2027” and never an unqualified “is certified”; if it is not renewed, the grade comes off this page in both languages. On GBI: the same 2016 item called this tower GBI certified, and the developer’s own set of eight certificates for this development contains NO GBI certificate at all, so no GBI claim is published here. The GBI registry itself was unreachable to the research tool, which is inconclusive and never a negative. The GreenRE registers hold no row for this development, and that absence is explained rather than hedged: this developer certifies this development under other schemes entirely.Which station is it next to, really?
Abdullah Hukum Integrated LRT & KTM Station, at 50 m on the developer’s own distance table — and the rail hub is a COMPONENT of this development, which is why the transit claim here is structural rather than marketing. It is NOT the Kerinchi LRT station: Kerinchi serves the adjacent, separate Bangsar South developments and is one stop away on the same line. And the developer’s own table gives Bangsar LRT Station at 1.7 km — printed here because, with an address on Jalan Bangsar, that is exactly the question a client will ask. One limit: all 23 of the developer’s distances are served identically on another component’s page in the same development, so they are measured from the 25-acre site and not from this tower’s lobby; and the walking distance and route from the lobby to the station gates is NOT published — 50 m is to the station, not through it.Why are there no photographs of the building on this page?
Is this Bangsar South?
KL Eco City, Jalan Bangsar, 59200 Kuala Lumpur, in Pantai Baru, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP Kuala Lumpur.What should I ask for before I sign anything?
ViiA Residences, KL Eco City — ask for the documents, not the brochure
This page has given you the register record, the developer’s own filed panel, the green certificate and the dated history, with both sides of every disagreement printed. What it cannot give you is the unit-level paperwork: the strata plan, the management corporation’s documents, the title search, the as-built schedule and the current price in writing. Those are the things to ask for, and Louis will go and get them.
Marketing information, not an offer. The two price bands on this page are a public government registry band and a filed statutory panel band, each labelled by its surface: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Registers, the developer’s panel and the developer’s certificate read 14 October 2026.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
Over a decade in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru property, and the reason these pages read the way they do: the filed record first, every figure attributed to the document it came from, both sides printed where two documents disagree, and an explicit list of what nobody publishes. On this project that means the register code rather than the marketing name, both price bands rather than the friendlier one, the 21-month extension that appears nowhere else, the 80 unsold units on the developer’s own panel, the two cancelled sibling permits, and twelve floor plans with no photograph of the building rather than a township image captioned as this tower. Ask for the documents; that is what the job is.
Published 14 October 2026 · last verified 14 October 2026 · KPKT TEDUH register record 11889-2, the developer’s own filed statutory panel and the developer’s own BCA Green Mark certificate all read 14 October 2026 · DIARY: the Green Mark certificate expires 19 March 2027 and the grade comes off this page in both languages if it is not renewed · marketing information, not an offer
11889-2 · Pangsapuri Servis · Jadual J · 326 units · 40 storeys · CCC 9 Jun 2021 · 80 unsoldAsk a specific question
If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.
Developer: S P Setia (11 developments on this site)
Where it is: KL Eco City, Kuala Lumpur (KL)
The unit mix, the permitted price and how far up it is
None of this table is the developer’s account of itself. It is what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government records from the 7(f) returns: unit type, bedrooms and bathrooms, built-up area, unit count, the price range on the permit, and the certified percentage complete. A brochure price can be revised; the price on the permit was filed. A brochure need not mention progress; the percentage is certified. The status vocabulary is theirs too: Lancar (on schedule), Lewat (behind), Sakit (sick), Terbengkalai (abandoned).
11889-2 · KL ECO CITY SDN BHD
Overall status: Siap Dengan CCC — completed
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pangsapuri Servis 40 storeys Siap Dengan CCC | — | 100 m² ≈ 1,076 sq ft | 326 | RM1,252,000.00 – RM2,202,060.00 | 100.00% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 11889-2. Re-read weekly.
What to do with the number. Read it against the delivery date in your own agreement, not against what a salesperson says. A project with a year left on its statutory clock and a third of the building up is telling you something the brochure will not.
How does that compare? Every development on this site, grouped by register status — cancelled, abandoned and behind schedule first.