River Park, marketed as Bangsar South, Kuala Lumpur — registered as Residensi Taman Hilir, 1,332 units on Jadual H across two KPKT registrations, 14035-4 and 14035-5

Why this page reads differently from the brochure

Six things decide a purchase here, and five of them are on documents a buyer can check without asking anyone’s permission.

The five marketed types against the three filed internal areas

The filed schedule carries THREE internal areas, not five: the advertisements pair Jenis A1 & A2 at 812 kps and Jenis A3 & A4 at 861 kps, with Jenis B at 1,180 kps on its own. The developer markets five types, and every built-up it publishes matches the filed figure exactly. That agreement is unusual and it is credited here. Two consequences a buyer should hold on to: Luas Dalaman means INTERNAL area, not strata area; and because the filing pairs the types, the unit count of any SINGLE type is NOT PUBLISHED — only the count of each pair, per block.

Filed internal areas (Luas Dalaman) from the two KPKT-filed advertisements for 14035-4 and 14035-5; bedroom and bathroom counts from the register’s bilik and tandas fields and the developer’s own table; square-metre figures are the developer’s own, printed beside its square feet. NOT PUBLISHED, therefore not on this page: which block or stack each type sits in, the per-floor unit mix, which units are corner or end units, balcony area separately from the built-up, ceiling height, furnishing, and any price per type. Whether the filed figure is an internal-floor or a strata measure is answered by its own label: Luas Dalaman is an INTERNAL area.

The developer’s own site-progress images — one update, one caption, no dates added

These three images are published by the developer as one site-progress update and they carry ONE caption between them. They are deliberately not numbered, not sequenced and not dated here: the developer’s own description names a month and NO YEAR, and inferring a year from file order would be guesswork presented as fact. Six images in total exist for this project on this page, all of them the developer’s own. No image has been taken from a neighbouring project, and no image’s subject has been guessed: where the source does not say what an image shows, the caption says so. No floor plan, no site plan and no facilities plan appears anywhere on this page, for a stated reason: every plan asset on the developer’s host is 941 px wide or smaller and the only site plan is 500 × 243 px, which is too small to read and too small to caption honestly.

Where River Park actually is, and what it is honest to call it

Read this before the label worries you either way, because two things are true at once. FIRST: “Bangsar South” is not a pure marketing invention here. The developer and Malton Berhad both use it, and the Federal Territories’ OWN affordable-housing register prints Lokasi: Bangsar South, Seputeh, Kuala Lumpur for the parcel adjoining this one, with that block’s unit type officially named Rio Bangsar South. A federal government register uses the label for this spot. SECOND: this is not inside UOA’s Bangsar South township. The filed coordinates 3.111146 / 101.674329 sit about 1.0 km east of it, and the DEVELOPER’S OWN distance table puts The Sphere — the retail heart of Bangsar South — at 2.0 km, with Abdullah Hukum LRT and KTM at 3.8 km. The site is on the Jalan Pantai Dalam side of the district, by KTM Angkasapuri, and the federal register puts the adjoining parcel in the SEPUTEH locality division, not Lembah Pantai where UOA’s township sits. So the honest formulation, and the one this page uses in both languages: River Park is MARKETED as Bangsar South, a label a federal register also uses for this spot, and it is filed about a kilometre east of the township it is named after. The page prints both and lets you decide what to call it. Every distance below is the DEVELOPER’S own published figure. Not one was estimated here, and not one was borrowed from a neighbouring page on this site.

KPKT register: Residensi Taman Hilir, register codes 14035-4 and 14035-5

This project has the full set of statutory surfaces, which is why this table can be read three ways at once: the register, the two KPKT-filed advertisements, and the developer’s own website. Everything that can be cross-checked between them agrees — the unit counts, the block split, the internal areas and all six price endpoints — and the four places they do NOT agree are printed below as disagreements rather than resolved into one tidy number. Each cell quotes its own source. A filed value says “filed”; a register value quotes its own key; a developer value says so.

Read 15 October 2026 from the public KPKT register and from the two KPKT-filed advertisements for 14035-4 and 14035-5, both read in full. Fields that do NOT exist on these register records: pihakBerkuasa, noKelulusanPelan, pegangan, sekatan, bebanan and keluasanTanah — every one of which the FILED advertisements supply instead, which is the opposite of the usual position on this site and is why this table is as full as it is. A missing register key and an empty register value are different things, and this page distinguishes them.

The three price bands above are the FILED statutory Unit Selling Price bands from the KPKT-filed advertisements, and they are identical to the KPKT TEDUH public registry bands to the sen. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. They are per block, not per unit, and no price per unit type is filed by anybody. The only price a purchase actually turns on is the one in the current price list and in your own sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery — ask for it in writing.

Why there are TWO registrations for one development

14035-4 carries Blok A and Blok C; 14035-5 carries Blok B. That is a phasing decision, not two projects. The proof is the plan approval: BOTH filed advertisements name the same DBKL.JKB.BP S1 OSC 2024 0591 (25), and maklumatPembangunan reads Berfasa — phased — on both records. What follows from it matters to a buyer: each registration has its OWN advertising permit, its OWN first-SPA date, its OWN approved extension and therefore its OWN statutory vacant-possession date, and its OWN filed price band. So “when does River Park finish?” has two correct answers depending on which tower you are buying in, and the gap between them is two months. The register’s own two component rows on 14035-4 are not labelled by block; the filed per-block price lines are what resolve them, and that resolution is this page’s, credited to the filing.

The permit position, stated plainly

Both registrations hold a CURRENT advertising and sales permit, and the permit history on each is continuous. On 14035-4 the cover runs 25 Feb 2022 → 24 Feb 2024 → 24 Feb 2025 → 24 Feb 2026 → 24 Feb 2027: five years with no unpermitted interval inside the selling period. On 14035-5 it runs 10 May 2023 → 9 May 2026 → 9 May 2027, also continuous. Neither permit number is a placeholder, so lapse-versus-current could actually be assessed here — and the answer is CURRENT on both. The one caution, and it is a real one: BOTH filed advertisements are a generation behind. Every particular quoted from them comes from a document whose own permit has since lapsed. Everything in them that can be cross-checked against the register agrees exactly, so the particulars are sound — but the permit number a buyer should be quoted is the register’s current one, and the filed unsold counts are not today’s. A register convention worth knowing rather than worrying about: the permit history carries twinned entries with different suffixes on identical date ranges — (A) with (R) on 14035-4 and (A) with (N) on 14035-5. Only one of each pair should ever be published, and this page publishes the number the register names as current.

A licence printed two ways by the same licensee — and this one is new

The developer licence is 14035/02-2029/0042, valid 25 February 2024 to 24 February 2029. The suffix is where four surfaces split two ways. The KPKT register prints (A) on both project records. The filed advertisement for 14035-4 prints (A). The filed advertisement for 14035-6 — the same licence, the adjoining affordable block — prints (R). The developer’s own website prints (R) for both towers. So the disagreement is not between a portal and a register, which this site has recorded before: it runs THROUGH the licensee’s own two KPKT-FILED documents. That is the first time one developer’s own filed advertisements have disagreed with each other about the suffix of a single licence on any page on this site. This page prints the register’s (A) and leaves the disagreement standing. Nothing about the licence’s validity turns on it — the number and the dates are identical on all four surfaces — but if a bank or a solicitor queries the suffix, this is why, and the certificate itself is the document that settles it.

Three answers to “when is it finished?”, and the one that carries the consequence

FIVE delivery dates are in circulation across three surfaces, and this page prints all of them. The filed advertisements both say Tarikh Dijangka Siap: September 2026. That date is already past, with progress at 90.75% and 88.75% and both ccc and vp still reading -. The developer’s own current website no longer carries it, and a page that reprinted it from the filed PDF as a completion date would mislead, so this page does not. The developer’s own website says December 2027 for Blok A and C and October 2027 for Blok B. The register’s revised statutory dates are 1 January 2028 and 30 October 2027. For Blok B the developer and the register effectively AGREE. For Blok A and C they are one month apart, and it is the register’s date that carries the Schedule H liquidated-damages consequence. And the sentence that matters more than any of the five: the date that governs YOUR purchase is YOUR OWN SPA date plus the delivery period, not any advertised month. The register’s 1 January 2028 and 30 October 2027 are computed from the FIRST sale and purchase agreement on each registration, so a buyer signing today has a later date than either. NOT PUBLISHED: the reason the 31-month extension on 14035-4 was granted, the date it was granted, and whether any purchaser on that registration was compensated. No source says, and this page does not speculate.

Foreign buyers: the Federal Territory floor AND a live restriction in interest

The threshold first. This is the FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, established three ways — the filed plan prefix DBKL.JKB.BP S1 OSC 2024 0591 (25), the authority named in words as Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) in both advertisements, and daerah: Kuala Lumpur / negeri: Wp Kuala Lumpur on both register records. The prevailing policy floor for a foreign buyer in the Federal Territory is RM1,000,000 per unit, with consent, under the Ministry of Economy’s acquisition guidelines effective 13 July 2022 and section 433B of the National Land Code; because Kuala Lumpur is a federal territory, consent runs through the federal economic planning route rather than a State authority. Selangor’s zone thresholds do not apply here. That policy position was NOT re-verified from primary sources for this page, so treat it as the prevailing threshold and have it confirmed before you act. Against that floor: every one of the three filed block minima — RM720,000, RM744,000 and RM783,600 — sits BELOW RM1,000,000, and every one of the three filed maxima — RM1,226,400, RM1,246,800 and RM1,291,200 — sits ABOVE it. (That comparison is our arithmetic; the figures are the filing’s and the register’s.) HOW MANY units fall on each side of the floor is NOT PUBLISHED and is NOT INFERABLE: the filed schedule gives internal areas and unit counts per type but no price per type, only one minimum and one maximum per block. The 224 Jenis B units are the likeliest home of the maxima, but no filed document says so, so no count is implied here. And the part that matters more than the price: a LIVE Sekatan Kepentingan is filed on both registrations — the land may not be transferred, leased or charged without committee consent. So clearing the price floor is NOT sufficient. A foreign buyer must clear BOTH, and the restriction is a question for the developer’s solicitor and your own, not one a web page can answer. See Sekatan Kepentingan and strata title.

What 90.75% and 88.75% do and do not tell you

Those two figures are the register’s own peratus bands for 14035-4 and 14035-5, quoted here and never computed from. They tell you the development is substantially built and that status.keseluruhan reads Lancar — on schedule — on both registrations. They do NOT tell you a completion month, and no completion month is derived from them anywhere on this page. Two register fields are still empty and they are the ones that matter at the end: ccc reads - and vp reads - on both registrations. No CCC has been issued and no vacant possession has been given. Until the CCC exists, a progress percentage is not an occupation date.

Three dormant 2015 registrations on the same licence — printed as an open question

The same licence carries 14035-1, 14035-2 and 14035-3, all three registered under the company’s OWN name rather than a scheme name: 400, 296 and 444 units — 1,140 in total — at 46 to 49 storeys, all Jadual H, all Belum Mula with peratus 0.00, each with a permit that ran 11 June 2015 to 10 June 2017 and has been dead for over nine years. Each has koordinat: null, brochure: null and iklan: [] — no coordinates and no filed document of any kind. ARE THEY AN EARLIER SCHEME FOR THE SAME LAND? NOT PUBLISHED. No source answers it, and this page asks it rather than answering it. The circumstantial case is real: the same licensee, the same district, the same contract schedule, the same building type, three blocks then and three blocks now, with the storey count dropping from 46–49 to 37–38. The disproof is equally real: those records carry no coordinates at all, so they cannot be placed on any map, and there is no filed document for any of them to read. So: this licence carries three dormant 2015-vintage registrations whose relationship to River Park is not published. No re-plan is asserted, and their own price bands are NOT quoted anywhere on this page — they belong to a scheme that was never built.

The affordable block on the adjoining parcel — real, and NOT this building

This is the single sharpest trap on this project, so it is stated with its label attached every time. The same licence carries 14035-6 Residensi Kerinchi Ria, marketed as Ria Bangsar South: 336 units, Rumah Pangsa/Kondo, Jadual H, at a government-controlled Residensi Wilayah price of RM300,000 — which is THAT BLOCK’S price and is not, and has never been, River Park’s price. It sits on the ADJOINING parcel about 190 m away (our arithmetic from the two filed coordinate pairs), and it is a separate development on four independent legs: a different DBKL plan approval, a different registered name, a different advertising permit (14035-6/04-2028/0303(A)-(S)), and a completely different restriction in interest — a ten-year bar on transfer from the first buyer’s SPA, against River Park’s committee-consent restriction. Its 51.73% progress, its October 2028 expected completion, its 802 sq ft layout, its one bay per unit and its application dates are its own too, and none of them appears anywhere on this page as River Park’s. Why name it at all? Because it is a material neighbourhood fact: it is what will be built beside you, by the same developer, and an honest page says so rather than leaving a buyer to discover it from a hoarding. It is also the figure most likely to reach a buyer out of context — so if you have seen RM300,000 attached to the words “Bangsar South”, this is the building it belongs to. Inside River Park itself there is NO affordable component, no Residensi Wilayah row and no controlled price: 14035-4 and 14035-5 carry none.

GreenRE: inconclusive, which is not the same as negative

The developer states a GreenRE certification in the Residential category at BRONZE, and describes it as PROVISIONAL. Its badge assets were published in October 2023. The public GreenRE Bronze tier table was read twice, at two offsets, and no row matches this project, this licensee, this registered name or this locality — BUT both readings span 30 March 2026 back to 4 April 2024 and truncate at the older end, so the readable window does NOT reach October 2023. And the register’s Provisional listing returned no project rows at all, with the page itself stating that the GreenRE platform was temporarily unavailable; it was tried twice on 15 October 2026. So the verdict is UNVERIFIED AND NOT REFUTED. This page can neither confirm nor refute the claim, and it will not convert an unreachable register into a negative finding. Two things it will not do either: it will not write “GreenRE certified” where the developer itself says PROVISIONAL — provisional is not final — and it will not borrow a rating from any neighbouring project. A FINAL Bronze certification does exist one kilometre away under a different licensee in the same tier table, and a PROVISIONAL Residential rating exists for a similarly named project by a similarly named developer within three kilometres. Neither is River Park’s and neither is reproduced here. The Green Building Index register was not reached for this page at all, and no GBI claim is made either way.

No third-party cross-check was possible, and that is said rather than hidden

Seven consumer property portals and publishers were tried on 15 October 2026 and every one of them was unreachable, server-erroring or blocked to automated reading — including one that failed even on its own positive control, which is a closed door rather than an absence of records. So NOTHING on this page is portal-corroborated, and the page does not imply otherwise. The spine comes from the public KPKT register and from the developer’s own KPKT-FILED documents, with the developer’s own website as a third surface — which is a stronger spine than a portal consensus, because a filed advertisement is a statutory document and a portal listing is not. What is genuinely missing because of it: no independent check on the storey counts, no independent check on the 300 m walkway claim, and no independent check on any entry-price figure. Those three gaps belong to this page and are listed here rather than left for you to notice.

Not published, therefore not on this page

Every item here was looked for and is genuinely not published by any source read. Louis will go and ask the developer for any of them in writing. THE LAND AREA, and therefore the density. Keluasan Tanah is not in either filed advertisement, the register has no land-area field, neither developer website publishes an acreage, and no portal was reachable. Units per acre CANNOT be computed and no estimate appears here. Six candidate denominators were considered and refused by name: the project’s own ground-floor facility called “Central Park” (a facility, with no published area); the adjoining affordable parcel (a different registration); UOA’s Bangsar South township (about a kilometre away, a different developer); Taman Rimba Kerinchi (a public park the developer places at 3.3 km); Mid Valley City; and the 1,140 dormant units, which have no coordinates and no filed document. RIVER PARK’S OWN LOT, PT, MUKIM, SEKSYEN, STREET ADDRESS AND POSTCODE. None is filed or published. The adjoining affordable block’s lot and street ARE published in the federal register, and this page deliberately does not attribute them to River Park. A neighbour’s title particulars are not this project’s, and the difference is the whole point. ALSO NOT PUBLISHED: the storey count in either filed advertisement (the register’s 37 and 38 stand alone); the GDV; the total car-park bay count, as against the filed 2–3 per unit; the maintenance charge and the sinking fund; the level of 29 of the 32 facilities; the number, location and allocation of the EV charging bays; which block is nearest the rail walkway, the park or the river; the per-floor unit mix and which block each type sits in; balcony area separately from the built-up; ceiling height; furnishing; the main contractor, the consultants and the quantity surveyor; Malton Berhad’s shareholding percentage in the licensee — which is why this page says “a Malton Berhad company” and never “wholly-owned”; whether any joint venture or land vendor exists, since none is disclosed by any source read and there is no audited corporate chart behind that negative; any award, accolade or QLASSIC score, none of which is claimed by anybody and none of which has been borrowed from another project by this group; and the river the project is named after, which no document names.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction, applied here without exception: nothing from his agency’s project materials that adjusts a price may appear on a public page. So this page carries no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion or campaign figure, no freebie or incentive, no commission, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, and no yield, return-on-investment or rental-return figure, in either language and in the page’s structured data as well as in its text. What it DOES carry is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band for each block and the identical KPKT public registry band, each labelled as what it is, and always with this sentence attached: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Three specific withholdings on this project, each named by kind rather than hinted at. ONE: the developer’s own website advertises an entry figure that sits BELOW its own filed statutory minimum of RM720,000. That figure is withheld here. What is published is that the discrepancy exists and that the single publisher carrying it is the developer itself — the most serious form of this pattern on any page on this site, because on every earlier instance the sub-minimum figure sat on a portal while the developer published correctly. The same site also serves four named seasonal campaign creatives, which makes that headline most likely conditional, and conditional entry figures are exactly what this page exists not to repeat. Ask for the current filed band in writing instead. TWO: a Diskaun Bumiputera item EXISTS in the filed 14035-4 advertisement. Its value is withheld. The existence of the field is the finding, and naming its kind precisely matters: it is a price concession, NOT an allocation requirement and NOT a lot-title class. No ethnic-allocation quota figure — the Kuota field — is printed in any of the three filed documents on this licence at all, and the adjoining block’s advertisement carries no such field either. That is a clean negative and it is worth stating. THREE: eight campaign creatives sit in the developer’s own image library. None is used on this page, none is described, and their content is not recorded anywhere in the research behind it. And one honest non-finding rather than a clean negative: whether the developer publishes a rental-return figure was never established, because every read of that host carried an instruction to exclude such figures. It makes no difference to this page, which may publish none either way — but “not established” and “does not exist” are different claims and this page does not blur them.

River Park — frequently asked questions

Other Kuala Lumpur pages built the same way — and nothing crosses between them

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 · registers and filed documents read 15 October 2026. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register developer record for code 14035 and the project records 14035-1 to 14035-7, walked serial by serial to a 404 on the seventh, with nine developer-search strings run against a same-session positive control; the THREE KPKT-filed statutory advertisements on this licence, all read in full; the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register, including the adjoining block’s project record; the GreenRE Bronze tier table at two offsets and its Provisional listing, which was unavailable; the developer’s own project website and its parent’s corporate site; and UOA’s own 59-property sitemap, development index and site search, used as the elimination. NOT REACHED, and named rather than hidden: every consumer property portal and publisher tried — seven of them, one failing even its own positive control — so NOTHING on this page is portal-corroborated; Malton Berhad’s audited annual report and corporate-structure chart; and the Green Building Index register. No figure, acreage, distance, rating, award or image on this page comes from any other development, any other licensee, any other project by this group, or any neighbouring page on this site. · All six images are the developer’s own; the three site-progress images share one caption and are deliberately neither numbered nor dated; one image’s subject is declined in words because its source does not state it; and no plan, floor plan or site plan appears anywhere, because every plan asset published is too small to read. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the register, the filed advertisement, the title and a current valuation before you commit.