Alora Residences @ 2Fifth Avenue, Subang Jaya

Six things about Alora that the marketing does not tell you

None of these is a criticism of the project. Each one is a document saying something different from the brochure, and each one is a question to put to the developer in writing.

The filed type schedule, and the two types nobody has sized

Built-ups below are as filed, in kps (kaki persegi, square feet) exactly as printed. No square-metre figure is published by the developer anywhere and none is converted here. Bedroom and bathroom counts come from the filed statutory type schedules — the developer’s own type page omits them.

Type A and A(a) — Tower A

1,042 sq ft · 4 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms

Filed schedule 30162-1Largest published Tower A type

As filed in the Tower A statutory type schedule. Car park allocation is NOT PRINTED for this or any other type.

Type A1 and A1(a) — Tower A

1,042 sq ft · 4 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms

Filed schedule 30162-1French balcony

Same filed built-up and room count as Type A. The French balcony is noted on the filed brochure.

Type B — Tower A

1,028 sq ft · 3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms

Filed schedule 30162-1

As filed. This type appears on both the filed schedule and the developer’s own type page.

Type C — Tower A

923 sq ft · 3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms

Filed schedule 30162-1Also the Tower B minimum

923 sq ft is also Tower B’s filed minimum built-up. One lifestyle article prints “932 sq ft” for a three-bedroom; every filed and official source says 923, so treat 932 as a typo and not a variant.

Type D and E — Tower A

568 sq ft · 1 bedroom · 1 bathroom

Filed schedule 30162-1Private gardenSmallest filed type

The filed room list says 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom — not a studio and not a study. The 30162-1 narrative gloss calls the range “studios to 4-bedroom apartments” and PropertyGuru calls this type “1 BR + 1 Study + 1 BA”. Neither label is supported by the filed statutory room list. The private garden is noted on the filed brochure. Variants D1/E1 and D2/E2 appear on the schedule.

No plan and no dimensions are published for Type GA or Type GC by the developer or in either filing. This card is deliberately empty rather than filled with a guess.

Types GA and GC — Tower A

Built-up, bedrooms and bathrooms: NOT PRINTED

On the filed scheduleMissing from the developer’s own pageNot sized by anyone

These two types are the likeliest explanation for the ~400 sq ft of filed built-up that no published type reaches. They appear as rows in the filed Tower A statutory schedule with every dimension left blank, and in EdgeProp’s record inside a “923–1,457 sq ft” band, which suggests they are the large ground-floor or garden units. The developer’s own microsite omits them entirely, so a buyer reading only the official site sees five Tower A types where the filing has nine rows. Ask Louis to request the GA and GC plans.

Type F — Tower B

1,042 sq ft · 3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms

Filed schedule 30162-2

Tower B is glossed in its own filing as “3-bedroom service apartments” and files only three types: F, F(a) and H.

Type F(a) — Tower B

1,042 sq ft · 3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms

Filed schedule 30162-2

Same filed built-up and room count as Type F.

Type H — Tower B

923 sq ft · 3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms

Filed schedule 30162-2Smallest Tower B type

No Tower B type reaches Tower B’s own filed maximum of 1,463 sq ft. The largest published Tower B type is 1,042 sq ft. The type that would account for the remaining ~420 sq ft is never named or sized by any source.

The 8 Alora Signature Retail Shops

688 – 7,150 sq ft · ground level, road-fronting

Outside both APDLsLikely non-HDA7 standard + 1 drive-through

Seven standard units plus one two-storey drive-through, with 6 m floor-to-floor on units 1 to 7. These 8 units are not inside either APDL’s count, and no statutory particulars block of any kind is published for them — so no Schedule H, no HDA liquidated damages and no HDA housing development account should be assumed. A retail buyer would be on the developer’s own contract terms.

Units per type and the unit mix per tower are not published by any filing or any source. No dual-key type exists and no SoVo, SoFo or studio-office type exists in either filing — every filed type label is residential. There are no office suites in Alora; the “smart offices” named on the Avenue25 masterplan belong to later phases.

The developer’s own images, graded by how the subject was established

How these were graded. Eight gallery URLs on the developer’s microsite were individually fetched and returned an image payload at research time; the remainder were caption-published in the same gallery HTML and were then confirmed by downloading cleanly into this site’s own media library. That second check matters here, because avenue25.com.my returns its homepage HTML with HTTP 200 for any non-existent file path — a negative control on a deliberately bogus filename came back 200 with the homepage body, so a plain 200 on that host proves nothing. The developer’s REST media API returns 401, so CMS titles could not be read there; one facade asset was CMS-title confirmed on the parent site instead. No subject on this page is guessed from a filename alone. The developer’s own disclaimer applies to all of them: “All visual materials are artist’s impressions only … subject to variations, modifications, changes and substitutions.”

USJ 25, Subang Jaya — one published distance, and it is to something not yet built

One distance is published by anyone for this project, and it describes a covered walkway that does not exist yet. Everything else below is named by at least one source with no distance attached, and nothing here is estimated.

Statutory particulars as filed — 2Fifth Avenue – Alora Residences (30162-1) and ALORA SUBANG JAYA (30162-2)

Transcribed from HIMS filings 30162-1 and 30162-2 and from the developer’s own statutory APDL page. Every cell shows both towers. Where the two documents for one tower disagree, both values are printed and the disagreement is named below the table.

Both APDLs were current at the last verification date in this page’s footer. A developer licence validity date is never a substitute for an APDL validity date, and on this project that distinction matters twice: the HIMS brochure for Tower A prints no APDL at all (the field is filed as a literal dash) and the HIMS brochure for Tower B prints the APDL number and both of its dates as literal XXXX placeholders. The APDL numbers and dates in this table therefore come from the developer’s own statutory APDL page, which is the only source that prints them.

Walking the licence serials returned hits on 30162-1 and 30162-2 only; 30162-1 second brochure, 30162-3 and 30162-4 all return 404. Licence 30162 therefore carries exactly two filed schemes, both Alora, and no filed HDA scheme for the retail parcel.

Foreign buyers: on the filed schedule, no unit in either tower qualifies

Subang Jaya is in the Petaling district, which is Selangor Zone 1. The Zone 1 minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM2,000,000, and purchase is restricted to strata and gated landed strata titles. The filed statutory maximum is RM1,145,170 for Tower A and RM1,388,140 for Tower B. Both fall below the RM2,000,000 floor, so on the price schedule as filed there is no unit in either tower open to a foreign buyer. The strata requirement is met — these are serviced apartments — so the constraint is price, not title. For completeness, the other Selangor zones: Zone 2 is also RM2,000,000, and Zone 3, meaning Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam, is RM1,000,000. Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory are RM1,000,000 with EPU consent. If you are a foreign buyer, say it plainly to the developer and get written confirmation of eligibility before you pay any booking sum, deposit or fee. Zone thresholds are reviewed from time to time and the figures above are the filed maxima, not a current price list.

770, not 778 — and the 8 retail shops are outside both permits

The two APDLs total 492 + 278 = 770 units exactly. That leaves no room in either permit for the 8 Alora Signature Retail Shops, and the serial walk on licence 30162 found no third filing to cover them. No APDL, no licence reference and no statutory particulars block of any kind is published for the retail parcel on the developer’s own retail page. On that evidence the 8 shops should be treated as non-HDA commercial until a filing says otherwise: no Schedule H statutory sale and purchase agreement, no HDA liquidated damages if delivery is late, and no HDA housing development account holding progress payments. StarProperty’s “778 units”, and a lifestyle article’s “778 freehold units”, are 770 + 8 — they fold a likely non-HDA commercial parcel into a residential unit count. No source states the HDA position for the retail outright; this is the inference the filings support and the first thing to put to the developer in writing.

The licensed developer is USJ Citypoint Sdn Bhd — and the two filings print two different registration numbers for it

USJ Citypoint Sdn Bhd is named on both APDLs and on the developer’s own statutory page. Avaland Berhad (881876-X) is the listed parent, not the licensed developer, and it is also the entity that EdgeProp, The Edge, Business Today, StarProperty, PropertyGuru and myrumahbaru all name as the developer. USJ Citypoint is additionally the employer named in the construction contract. Your SPA counterparty is USJ Citypoint Sdn Bhd. Two further traps. First, the business press misspells it “USJ Citipoint” with an i, following the Bursa contract announcement, so an SSM search on the news spelling will fail; both filings and the developer’s own site spell it Citypoint with a y. Second, the two filings disagree on the registration number: HIMS 30162-1 prints 802951-A in the old format, while HIMS 30162-2 and the developer’s own APDL page print 200801001667 in the new format. Those are consistent with one 2008-incorporated company written two ways, but no single source reached prints both together, so this page records both and does not assert to you that they are the same registration. The developer’s own About text also states the corporate relationship backwards in one place, calling Avaland a subsidiary of USJ Citypoint, while its footer and disclaimer state it correctly.

Tower A files no chargee; Tower B and the developer’s own page file AmBank

Inside one licence, the developer’s own documents contradict each other. HIMS filing 30162-1 for Tower A files Bebanan as “Tiada” — no encumbrance. HIMS filing 30162-2 for Tower B, and the developer’s own statutory page for both towers, file the chargee as AmBank (M) Berhad. A Tower A buyer is told two different things about whether the land is charged. AmBank announced RM129.8 million in green financing facilities for Alora in October 2023, before the Tower A permit renewal, which makes the “Tiada” entry look stale rather than correct — but this page does not resolve it. Have your solicitor run a land search and confirm the current charge, and the developer’s redemption or disclaimer position, before you sign anything. Tower A also files Sekatan Kepentingan as “Tiada” while Tower B leaves that field NOT PRINTED.

Expected completion has four answers, and two of them are the developer’s own

Tower A: the developer’s own statutory page says August 2027; HIMS filing 30162-1 says “Dis 2027” — a gap of about four months between two of the developer’s own documents. Tower B: the developer’s own page says Q2 2028; HIMS filing 30162-2 says “Dis 2027” — a gap of about two quarters, in the other direction. Third parties: StarProperty says September 2027; the EdgeProp project record says 2027 Q4; EdgeProp editorial says Q3 2027; The Edge says 2027. The contractor: a 33-month programme from a tentative Q2 2024 start lands around Q1 2027, earlier than every filed date. Note that EdgeProp, The Edge and theedgemalaysia.com share one publisher and must never be counted as three independent corroborations. Only the date written into your own signed SPA binds the developer. Ask for it, and check it against the filed date for your tower and against the defect liability period that runs from delivery of vacant possession.

Storeys, car park provision and land area are NOT PRINTED in either filing

Storeys. Bilangan Tingkat is absent from both HIMS brochures and from the developer’s own page. Two unfiled answers circulate and they differ by nine floors on each tower: the contractor’s scope of works as announced to Bursa Malaysia describes 1 basement, a 10-level podium carpark and facilities floor, a 34-level Tower A and a 29-level Tower B, while PropertyGuru publishes 43 and 38 storeys. The contract scope is the stronger source, being the builder’s own filed scope, but neither figure is presented here as filed fact and you should not rely on a storey count no statutory document carries. Car park. Tempat Letak Kereta is NOT PRINTED in either filing: no per-unit allocation, no total bay count, no visitor bays, no motorcycle or bicycle provision. The only figure anywhere is an editorial “1–2 bays per unit”. Get your allocation written into the SPA. Land area. Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in either filing, which means the filed record supports no density computation at all. The 2.68-acre parcel figure comes from The Edge and EdgeProp, not from a filing; on that editorial basis 770 units is roughly 287 per acre, which is our own arithmetic and not a published density.

About 400 sq ft of filed built-up is unaccounted for in each tower

Tower A’s APDL and the developer’s own page both give the built-up range as 568 – 1,457 sq ft, yet the largest type in the filed statutory schedule and the largest on the developer’s microsite are both 1,042 sq ft. Tower B’s filing gives 923 – 1,463 sq ft against a largest published type of, again, 1,042 sq ft. For Tower A the likeliest explanation is types GA and GC: they are rows on the filed schedule with every dimension left blank, they are omitted entirely from the developer’s own microsite, and EdgeProp’s record is the only source that places them inside a “923–1,457 sq ft” band, which suggests large ground-floor or garden units. For Tower B, the type that reaches 1,463 sq ft is never named or sized by anyone. A buyer reading only the official site sees five Tower A types where the filing has nine rows: A, A(a), A1, A1(a), B, C, D/E, GA and GC. The marketed range also drifts with the sales cycle — the 2023 launch coverage says 923–1,457 sq ft, StarProperty and The Edge say 568–1,457, and EdgeProp’s 2025 editorial narrows to 923–1,042. Same tower, three ranges, each describing a different release tranche.

Why the Selangor eHartanah register gives no cross-check on this project

Louis’s project pages normally cross-check a Selangor scheme’s registered name, mukim and coordinates against the state’s eHartanah register. That cross-check is unavailable here, and not because anything is missing. The eHartanah register at ehartanah.lphs.gov.my is the Selangor affordable-housing register: its own project-type filter offers only Rumah Selangorku, Komersial Mampu Milik and Kedai / Industri Mampu Milik. Alora’s filed band of RM270,000 to RM1,388,140 places it outside that scope entirely, so Alora is correctly absent and no registered-name, mukim or GPS record exists there to compare against. One adjacent register document that surfaced on an Alora-targeted search was checked and rejected: it is Residensi Nuria in Ulu Kelang, Gombak, under MPAJ and a different licence and developer, and has nothing to do with Alora. The location on this page is corroborated instead by the MBSJ building-plan references printed on both filings and by the licensed developer’s own filed Jalan USJ 25/1 address.

Green certification: certified, targeting, or no claim at all — the sources split three ways

Four sources say GreenRE Gold certified or awarded: the October 2023 AmBank green-financing announcement, EdgeProp editorial, StarProperty’s project record and a lifestyle article. The Edge, reporting the Avenue25 masterplan in November 2024, says all components are targeting GreenRE Gold. The developer’s own Alora page makes no green-certification claim at all — its icon row says “Forest-Inspired Development” and “Vertical Green Village”, which is brand language, not a rating. The weakest supportable form is therefore the one on this page: a GreenRE Gold claim exists in the financing announcement and in third-party coverage, the developer itself claims nothing on this project’s own page, and the certificate number, issue date and whether it is design-stage or as-built are not published anywhere. The GreenRE public register returned no rows to every query made and GreenRE posts that its online project platform is temporarily unavailable, so the register’s silence is inconclusive and is not a negative finding. No GBI entry was located either. What is firmly sourced is financing, not certification: AmBank extended RM129.8 million in green financing facilities for Alora plus up to RM54 million in end-financing. No award is published for Alora Residences itself; the Asia Pacific Property Awards artwork on the parent’s site belongs to the Avenue25 masterplan with no category or year stated in text, and the Malaysia Developer Awards and StarProperty Awards belong to Avaland or to MCT Berhad as a corporate group, naming no projects. None of those is borrowed here.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing rule, applied without exception: no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, freebie, incentive or package, no Bumiputera discount percentage, no commission, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or ROI projection appears anywhere on this page. Both filings carry a Diskaun Bumiputera field; the existence of the field is recorded here and its value is withheld, and the Bumiputera lot allocation itself is not published by anyone. A named developer financing or promotional scheme is marketed for this project; its terms and its scheme-linked price are withheld. Alora is marketed as partially or fully furnished, and the fittings list carried by third parties is editorial rather than a filed specification; any bundled service period offered with the furnishing is a promotional inclusion and is withheld. Separately, one marketed “from” price for Tower B sits below Tower B’s own filed statutory minimum of RM961,740. Under the rule above that figure is not published here: only that the discrepancy exists, and that it was carried by a single source which is not independent of its own publisher group. Marketed “from” figures for Tower A sit above the filed minimum but disagree with each other across four sources and are all far narrower than the filed statutory band, so they are not published either. The only prices on this page are the two filed statutory Unit Selling Price ranges, labelled as such. For a real price for a real unit, ask Louis for the current price list and read the SPA.

Not published by anyone, therefore not on this page

These are the questions a buyer would ask that no filing and no source answers. From the filings: storeys, car park provision, land area, mukim, lot or PT number and land-title reference; Sekatan Kepentingan on Tower B; Tower A’s APDL number and dates on the HIMS brochure (filed as a dash) and Tower B’s on the HIMS brochure (filed as XXXX); units per type and the unit mix per tower; built-ups for types GA and GC; the Tower B type that reaches 1,463 sq ft. Product and legal: whether the 8 retail units are inside or outside HDA and whether they have their own permit; share of common property and strata allocation; whether Tower A and Tower B will form one management corporation or two and whether the retail parcel is in the same strata scheme; the official maintenance charge and sinking fund rate, for which only an unofficial buyer-forum figure exists and which this page does not treat as fact; apartment ceiling heights, the retail’s 6 m floor-to-floor being the only published figure; lift count, lift-to-unit ratio and whether the towers share lift cores; whether the Level 10 deck and rooftop are shared between the towers; whether the elevated covered walkway to USJ 21 is approved, who builds it, who pays, and what happens to the “300 m covered walk” claim if it is not built; the split of the RM120 million committed to 13 infrastructure upgrading works; whether any affordable-housing obligation attaches to the Avenue25 masterplan; delivery track record, CCC dates and late-delivery history for USJ Citypoint Sdn Bhd specifically as opposed to Avaland or MCT as a group; whether USJ Citypoint owns the land or holds it under a development agreement, with no joint venture, landowner or land-cost structure published by anyone; and the GreenRE or GBI certificate number, issue date and stage. Louis will ask the developer for these in writing on your behalf. An unanswered question on this list is worth more to you than a filled-in guess.

Alora Residences — frequently asked questions

Also worth seeing nearby

Published 7 October 2026 · Last verified 7 October 2026 · Filed particulars transcribed from HIMS 30162-1 and 30162-2 and the developer’s own statutory APDL page, research dated 2 October 2026 · Marketing information, not an offer