SKYLINE KUCHAI, Kuchai Lama, Kuala Lumpur (DBKL, WP Kuala Lumpur) — registered as RESIDENSI SKYLINE KUCHAI on TWO registrations, 30331-1 and 30331-2: 1,838 units over 59 and 56 storeys, and EVERY ONE of them is Jadual H — 80% built, ~99% sold, vacant possession October 2027 on a +20-month extension that the developer itself discloses

Why this page reads the way it does

Eight things decide the shape of this page. Three of them are credits to the developer, which is unusual on these pages and is said plainly where it is earned.

Unit types: five filed, four marketed, one of them filled in

The filed unit-type schedule exists and cannot be used. The readable 30331-2 advertisement carries a schedule whose column headers recover as five type codes — A, B, C, D, E — and whose numeric rows carry NO LABELS AT ALL. No built-up area is printed for any type in either filing: keluasan reads 0 labelled mps on both register records and no area column survives extraction. Mapping those unlabelled numbers to bedrooms, bathrooms or car parks would be guessing dressed as a filing, and this page refuses to do it. So the filed answer on built-up is simply ABSENT, and the only built-up figure on this page is the developer’s own single disclosed one.

Type A — 550 sq ft, 1+1 bedroom, 1 bathroom

Developer’s own type tab · the ONLY type it fills in · car park NOT STATED

550 sq ft1+1 bed1 bathdeveloper-publishedcar park not stated

This is the only unit type any source describes in full, and the source is the developer itself. 550 sq ft, 1+1 bedroom, 1 bathroom. The car-park allocation for this type is NOT STATED — the only car-park figure in existence is the filing’s project-wide Bilangan Pakir: 1, 2, 3 atau 4. The 550 sq ft floor agrees EXACTLY with the 550 – 1,470 sq ft range a portal markets, which is the one point where the developer and the portal corroborate each other on area. The filed schedule prints no built-up for Type A or for anything else, so this figure is the developer’s, not the filing’s, and the page labels it that way.

Ask for the full per-type built-up schedule in writing

Type A — unit position / block key plan

Developer-published plan · Type A context established by the tab serving it

block key plandeveloper-publishedno dimensions printed

The developer’s block key plan for Type A, showing where the type sits on the floor plate. A caption honesty note, because this page grades its own images: the published caption for this asset says only “Floor Plan”. That it is TYPE A comes from the filename and from the developer serving it inside its Type A tab — which is a split grade, and the page says so rather than quietly promoting it. No dimensions, no orientation and no floor range is printed on it by the developer, so none is read off it here.

Which floor and which stack is the unit on?

The developer publishes a four-tab type strip and fills in exactly ONE of them. Types B, C and D exist as tab labels with no built-up, no bedroom count, no bathroom count and no car-park allocation behind them. Nothing is published, so nothing is shown here.

Types B, C and D — tab labels only

Developer’s own type strip · built-up, bed, bath and car park ALL NOT STATED

tab label onlynothing publishedask Louis

Three of the developer’s own four type tabs are empty. No built-up area, no bedroom or bathroom count and no car-park allocation is published for Type B, Type C or Type D by the developer, by the filing or by any portal. What IS published, and it is genuinely useful: the register’s bilik field gives bedroom counts of 1, 2, 3 on 30331-1 and 1, 2, 3, 4 on 30331-2 — so the four-bedroom units exist in ONE registration only. Two government records, one field, a clean difference, and no marketing source publishes it. A portal’s marketed “1+1 to 4 bedrooms” corroborates it from the other direction: the four-bed exists, and the register is what locates it.

Send me the built-up and the layout for Types B, C and D

A FIFTH type exists in the statutory filing that the developer’s own website does not display. The filed schedule recovers five column headers, A to E; the website shows four tabs, A to D. Printed as a disagreement. Unresolved.

Type E — filed, and absent from the developer’s own website

In the statutory schedule · NOT shown on the developer’s type strip

filed typenot marketedunresolved

Five filed types against four marketed tabs. The filed schedule’s column headers recover as A, B, C, D and E, with no F or higher. The developer’s type strip shows only A to D. So a type exists in the statutory record that the developer’s own marketing does not show, and nothing published explains why. This page prints the disagreement and does not resolve it — and it does not guess what Type E is, because the filed rows that would say so are the unlabelled numbers described above.

What is the fifth filed type? Ask for it in writing

The filing gives a project-wide Bilangan Pakir: 1, 2, 3 atau 4 and no per-type allocation. The developer publishes nothing at all. So a buyer cannot learn how many bays a given type gets, and the total number of bays for 1,838 units is NOT PUBLISHED by anyone.

Car park — one project-wide field and nothing per type

Bilangan Pakir: 1, 2, 3 atau 4 · 30331-2 filing · total bays NOT PUBLISHED

1–4 bays per unitno per-type splitno total published

The only car-park figure in existence is a project-wide range on the 30331-2 filing: Bilangan Pakir: 1, 2, 3 atau 4. There is no per-type allocation in the filing and none from the developer, so nobody can be told how many bays Type A, B, C, D or E carries. And the total bay count for an 1,838-unit development — a number that decides whether a visitor can park — is published by nobody. The 30331-1 filing prints no car-park field at all, because it cannot be read.

How many bays does this unit get, and are they titled?

The schedule is present in the filing and structurally unreadable. The type codes recover; the numeric rows carry no labels; the adjacent Disediakan fixtures list is present but cannot be matched to any row. Nothing here may be published as a filed built-up.

The filed schedule itself — recorded, and declared unusable

30331-2 filed advertisement · type codes recovered, row labels lost

A–E recoveredrows unlabelledno area columnrefused

This panel exists so that the absence is on the record rather than implied. The readable filing’s unit-type schedule yields five type codes as column headers and then a block of numbers with no row labels — runs such as 1 1 1, 9 12 15 and 13 13 14 under Jenis A / B / C, and 1 2, 15 23 and 14 26 under Jenis D / E. Without labels, those numbers could be unit counts, bedroom counts, bathroom counts, car-park bays or floor ranges, and nothing in the document says which. The adjacent Disediakan fixtures list is present and cannot be matched to a row either. So this page publishes none of it. The house rule is that a built-up comes from a filing’s statutory schedule or not at all, and here it does not.

Ask for the filed schedule in a readable form

Everything on this page that looks like a layout fact has exactly one of three sources, and the panel says which: the KPKT register’s own fields (bilik, bilikAir, unit, tingkat); the readable 30331-2 filed advertisement; or the developer’s own project page. No square-metre figure is published by anyone, so no conversion appears here. No “dual key” claim is made by any source, so there is nothing to test. No “Studio Office” or SOHO type appears anywhere, which is consistent with the clean Jadual H finding. For a specific unit, the only real sources are the developer’s current price list and the sale and purchase agreement itself. Ask Louis and he will get them in writing.

Renders, the Level 11 facilities deck, the facilities plan and the locator

Eleven assets, every one of them developer-published, and every caption here says which grade it carries. The honest ceiling on this project is “caption-published”, not “confirmed”: the developer’s site is not WordPress and its asset host exposes no title field at all, so the CMS-title evidence a “confirmed” grade needs does not exist here. Nothing has been promoted beyond what the source supports. Eight further facility images with the cleanest subject captions on the whole project — Gym, Pristine Lawn, Floating Lounge, Co-working Space, Games Room, Karaoke Room, Yoga & Dance Studio and Sky Bridge — were DECLINED for being 746 by 890 pixels, under this site’s minimum width. Sixteen candidates were declined in all, each for a stated reason. No stock photograph appears anywhere on this page, and no image is captioned with a subject that could not be sourced.

Kuchai Lama, Kuala Lumpur — what is measured, by whom, and what is not measured at all

The developer publishes NOT ONE measured distance for this project. Every figure below comes from a single named publisher, which means these are not five independently corroborated numbers — they are five numbers from one source, and the independence test has not been passed. No travel time to anywhere is published by anybody. And the two claims the developer does make about transit are printed here beside the measurement that bears on them, and adopted by this page in neither language.

KPKT register and filed advertisements: Residensi Skyline Kuchai, 30331-1 and 30331-2

This is the block the licensed developer does not publish. Its own project page carries no licence number, no advertising and sales permit, no approving authority, no tenure, no unit count, no storey count, no completion date and no price — and the site has no statutory-particulars, disclaimer or terms page at all; those words sit beside its enquiry form as unlinked plain text. A third-party portal publishes more of this panel than the licensee does, and the portal’s version is LAPSED: it transcribes the permit 30331-1/01-2026/0047(A)-(S), which EXPIRED on 12 January 2026, and it attributes the whole 1,838-unit total to that one permit when the total spans TWO registrations with TWO separate permits. So nothing in the table below is borrowed from the portal. Every cell is a field on 30331-1 or 30331-2, or a line from the readable 30331-2 filed advertisement, read on 15 October 2026 and quoted with its own key.

Read on 15 October 2026 from the public KPKT register and from the filed advertisements themselves. The two filings were uploaded in ONE batch on 8 January 2026 with consecutive serials, and only ONE of them is readable — that asymmetry is a finding, not a technicality. 30331-2’s filing has a text layer and is the ONLY reason this page has a tenure, a lease expiry, a land restriction, an encumbrance status, an approving authority, a building-plan reference, a car-park field, an expected completion date and a company registration number at all. 30331-1’s filing is IMAGE-ONLY, with no extractable text whatsoever and no second route to it. So the correct form of words throughout this page is “filed but cannot be read” for 30331-1 — never “none filed”, which is a different claim about a different fact. They share one licence, one approving authority and one scheme name, so they are almost certainly identical on those fields. “Almost certainly” is not “filed”, and this page does not upgrade one to the other.

The two price bands above are the FILED STATUTORY Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum registered with KPKT, one band per registration, and for 30331-2 the filed advertisement and the register agree to the ringgit on both ends. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and they are not per unit and not per type. A rule tested and found inapplicable, recorded so the next reader does not re-run it: because the filing prints Baki Unit: 9 of 941, a remaining-stock splice was the obvious candidate for any filed-versus-register price gap. There is no gap. The filed band and the register band are identical on both ends. One band, two surfaces, perfect agreement — so the rule is recorded as tested and not needed. For the price of a specific unit, the only real sources are the developer’s current price list and the sale and purchase agreement itself. Ask Louis and he will get both in writing.

All 1,838 units are Jadual H — the strongest fact on this page, and it needs no hedging

Both registrations file pjb.jenis: Jadual H. Both file the component type as Pangsapuri Suite. There is no third registration on this licence — 30331-3 returns a client error and pemaju.bilanganProjek reads 2 — and no non-HDA office-suite, SOHO, retail or commercial component is named by the register, by the readable filing, by the developer or by any portal. So every one of the 1,838 units is HDA residential, and the whole statutory remedy set applies to all of them: Schedule H as the prescribed sale contract, the Housing Development Act liquidated-damages clause for late delivery, the section 7A housing development account, the statutory 24-month defect liability period running from vacant possession, and access to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Why this paragraph comes first, and why it is written as a flat statement rather than a hedge: this site has had to refuse or re-frame project after project because a page would have implied Schedule H protection that did not exist on the component being sold. Here the protection does exist, on every unit, on both registrations, and it can be stated as a fact. That is the single strongest reason this page exists, and it is the mirror image of the pages that had to hedge it. The developer’s own page mentions “some of the city’s best dining and retail” as SURROUNDINGS, not as part of the development — so there is no retail component to carve out of the protection, and no component of this scheme sits outside it. Check it yourself with the code, not the name: 30331-1 and 30331-2, licence 30331/01-2028/0008(A).

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh’s instruction about his own agency’s project materials is absolute, and this page keeps to it: no price-adjustment figure of any kind appears here — not in English, not in Chinese, not in the page body and not in its structured data. First, the one that had to be handled with care. The 30331-2 filed advertisement carries a field printed Diskaun … Bumiputera with a stated percentage in it. The field exists; its VALUE is withheld and is recorded nowhere on this page. And the clean negative that must travel with it, because the two benign shapes were checked rather than assumed: there is NO ethnic-allocation quota and NO lot-title classification of that kind anywhere in the readable filing. So the only thing in that field is a price concession, a price concession is squarely inside Louis’s rule, and it stays off this page. Second, a figure problem that is really an independence problem. One third-party portal carries TWO DIFFERENT “from” prices on a SINGLE page — one in that page’s summary and a different one in its body text — and BOTH sit BELOW the filed statutory minimum of RM455,800. Neither figure is reproduced here, and neither was recorded in the research behind this page. What IS published is this: the discrepancy exists; it is ONE publisher contradicting ITSELF across two surfaces of one page; and the independence test therefore FAILS, because one publisher is not corroboration. A figure below the filed statutory minimum does not get printed on this site at any time, and a figure that one publisher cannot keep consistent with itself would not survive the test even if the rule allowed it. Third, the plain list. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive and no commission figure appears anywhere on this page, in either language, and none was recorded in the research behind it. Fourth, and the honest reason matters. No yield, ROI, rental-return, gross-return, leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate appears here either — and the reason is not that one was found and suppressed. No such claim exists on the developer’s page or on the portal at all, so there was nothing to refuse. Saying which of those two it is, is the difference between a disclosure and a formula. What this page DOES publish on price, and nothing beyond it: the two filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands registered with KPKT — RM507,800 – RM1,324,800 on 30331-1 and RM455,800 – RM1,259,800 on 30331-2 — always labelled as filed statutory bands, always one band per registration rather than per unit, and always with the same caveat: this is not a price list, it is not a quotation, and it is not an offer. For the current price list, for the sale and purchase agreement itself, and for anything that attaches to one specific unit, speak to Louis Koh and he will get it in writing.

The licensee, the brand, and the three schemes that begin Residensi Skyline

The licensed developer is L & T REALTY SDN. BHD., company number 283227-T, KPKT developer code 30331, holding exactly two registered schemes. Every consumer-facing surface says “TSLAW Land” or “TSLAW Group” instead: the developer’s own footer, its enquiry form, and a portal whose developer field prints the brand and NO Sdn Bhd entity at all. A buyer signing an SPA will be contracting with L & T Realty Sdn. Bhd., so this page prints the legal name. And a KPKT developer search for TSLAW returns ZERO developers and ZERO projects: no licensed developer in Malaysia has TSLAW in its name, so a brand search cannot find this project. The way in was the registered word, SKYLINE, then the locality word, KUCHAI, then the registered-office fingerprint. A positive control was run first and passed, so every zero reported on this page is a real zero and not a dead endpoint. Then the trap, and it is the worst same-brand cluster this series has recorded. THREE separate KPKT schemes carry registered names beginning Residensi Skyline, all three Jadual H, and TWO of them share a registered office with this licensee character-for-character. LTS SKYLINE SDN. BHD., developer code 20209, holds a scheme registered simply Residensi Skyline — two registrations, 1,109 units, 40 and 37 storeys, ALREADY COMPLETE with a CCC of 02 January 2026 — and its registered office is character-for-character identical to this licensee’s while its business address is off Jalan Kuchai Lama. So it carries the brand word SKYLINE, a registered scheme name of Residensi Skyline, AND a Kuchai Lama address — three legs — and it is still NOT this project. SKYLINE EMBASSY SDN. BHD., developer code 19760, holds Residensi Skyline Duta Ampang — 864 units, 64 storeys, Pangsapuri Servis, Jadual H, 100% complete with a CCC of 07 July 2026 — and its business address is Menara TSLaw Level 45, the same tower as this licensee’s. It is a different company, a different project, about 8 km away. Five further developer names containing SKYLINE were returned by the same search and refused by name, in Johor, on Jalan Sultan Ismail, in Segamat, in Sri Hartamas and in Melaka; and two more licensees containing KUCHAI were refused the same way. The ONLY reliable discriminators in this cluster are the licence code and the register coordinate. A client who searches KPKT for “Skyline” WILL land on a wrong record, and one of the wrong records is 100% complete, which makes it look like reassuring news about the wrong building. So: the code is 30331. The registrations are 30331-1 and 30331-2. The scheme name is Residensi Skyline Kuchai, with the word Kuchai in it. Never pick a Skyline record by name. No joint venture is published. No partner, no share split and no landowner entity is named by any source; the register prints one licensee. Whether there is a landowner arrangement behind L & T Realty is NOT PUBLISHED, and this page does not speculate.

The extension, and why it is written up as a credit

The register records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya on both registrations, with tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan and tempohPembinaanBaharu: 56 Bulan, moving vacant possession from February 2026 to 04 October 2027 on 30331-1 and 02 October 2027 on 30331-2. On most pages in this series, that paragraph would be followed by the observation that the extension appears nowhere in the marketing. Not here. The developer’s OWN filed advertisement prints Tarikh Dijangka Siap: October 2027, and the portal prints the construction period as 36 months plus a 20-month extension. The register, the developer’s filing and the third-party portal all disclose the same thing, and this is the first project in this series where every reachable surface does. That is a real credit and the page gives it in its own voice. What a buyer still has to do, because disclosure is not the same as the governing date. “October 2027” is a month; 04 October 2027 and 02 October 2027 are the register’s dates, and the date that governs is the one in the purchaser’s own SPA, computed from that purchaser’s own agreement rather than from the first SPA on the registration. Ask for it in writing. And the one question the published record does not answer: whether the +20-month extension was disclosed to buyers who had already signed BEFORE it was approved. Nothing published says, and that is the kind of gap only the SPA addendum or the KPKT extension approval letter closes. This page records it as an open question rather than assuming either answer. Two more things read in the developer’s favour, because they are earned. Permit cover is continuous: not one day uncovered on either registration across nearly four years of selling, where this series has repeatedly found gaps DURING the selling period. And the chronology check passes: the first permits took effect 13 and 16 January 2023 and the first SPAs were dated 04 and 02 February 2023 — about three weeks later, in the right order. The counterweight, stated plainly: the status field reads Lancar, which means on schedule against the EXTENDED date, not against the date the first purchasers signed for. Both halves are true and this page prints both.

Foreign buyers — the Federal Territory floor, the straddle, and the restriction on top of it

This is a DBKL project in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. The district derivation is named before the threshold, as the house rule requires: the No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan on the 30331-2 filing is DBKL/KB.BP S1 OSC 2022 2314 (23), whose BP S1 prefix is a Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur building-plan reference — corroborated by the authority printed in words, by daerah: Kuala Lumpur and negeri: Wp Kuala Lumpur, and by Kuchai Lama sitting in the Seputeh parliamentary constituency. The threshold is therefore RM1,000,000 — Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah, effective 13 July 2022, consent through the EPU, National Land Code section 433B — for strata and landed alike. No Selangor zone figure applies to a DBKL project, and this page quotes none. And the answer is a STRADDLE on both registrations, not a pass. 30331-1 runs RM507,800 – RM1,324,800, whose lowest figure is 0.51× the floor; 30331-2 runs RM455,800 – RM1,259,800, whose lowest figure is 0.46× the floor. Neither band clears the floor at entry. Only the upper portion of each does, and the cheapest unit in the development sits at LESS THAN HALF the foreign-buyer floor. HOW MANY of the 1,838 units clear RM1,000,000 CANNOT BE COMPUTED, and this page will not estimate it. Neither registration files a per-type price table: the register gives one band per component row, and the readable filing gives only a project-level minimum and maximum. So the count is unknowable from the published record, and an estimate would be a guess dressed as a filing. Two caveats must travel with the number. First, the live Sekatan Tanah: the land may not be transferred, leased or charged without the prior approval of the Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. So clearing the RM1,000,000 price floor is NECESSARY and MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT — and that restriction is confirmed on the 30331-2 filing only, because the 30331-1 filing cannot be read. Second, the RM1,000,000 floor is documented for RESIDENTIAL property, which is exactly what this is (Jadual H, Pangsapuri Suite) — so the figure applies, and it is quoted for the residential product only. The practical instruction: before committing, get written confirmation of the specific unit’s SPA price, and get Malaysian legal advice on BOTH the Federal Territory consent route and that land restriction. Louis will arrange the first and refer you for the second.

No affordable component, and no decoy borrowed — checked on four legs

Kuchai Lama is exactly the kind of DBKL locality that carries an affordable allocation, so this was checked properly rather than assumed. There is none. One: the words are absent — no RUMAWIP, no Residensi Wilayah, no Rumah Mampu Milik anywhere in the readable 30331-2 filing. Two: one band per component row, not two — each registration carries ONE row with ONE band, and an affordable allocation shows up as a second, much lower band on a second row. There isn’t one. Three: no -RMM, -AH, -NPT or -OMU code pair, and no built-up duplicated at two prices. The filed types run A to E under a single project-level band. Four: the lowest filed figure, RM455,800, is 1.52× the RM300,000 affordable ceiling. Every unit in this development is priced above that ceiling. The corroboration, with its limit stated honestly: the Federal Territory affordable-housing register was read and no row names Kuchai, Skyline, this licensee or the brand, and every row on the page sampled is priced at the ceiling. But that register’s search box is INERT — it carries the term into its own pagination and returns the identical default page — so a zero from it is never a negative, and only one of its ten pages was sampled. Legs one to three carry this finding; the listing is corroboration only, and the page says which is which. And one decoy refused by name, because it is the dangerous shape: a separate affordable scheme in this same corridor is filed under the location label “Seputeh” at a ceiling price by a different developer. It matches this project on LOCALITY and on nothing else. Refused, and named here so nobody mistakes it for a component of this development.

Green certification and awards — nothing claimed, and the registers read in full

The developer’s Skyline Kuchai page makes NO green-certification claim and NO award claim of any kind, and neither does the portal. Credit that. This series has repeatedly caught a certification logo with no rating behind it, a “certified” where the registry says provisional, and a sibling project’s certificate borrowed across. There is nothing to refuse here because nothing is asserted. The GreenRE register was still read in full at all four tiers, because an absent claim is not the same as an absent record. Platinum: the tier table read complete and untruncated — no match, a clean negative. Gold: 199 certification entries spanning 05 March 2014 to 27 March 2026 — no match, a clean negative. Silver: 191 entries spanning 10 October 2014 to 17 March 2026 — no match, a clean negative. Bronze is the one that must be reported as INCONCLUSIVE, and dating the claim is what decides it. This project’s design and launch window is 2022 to early 2023 — first permits January 2023, first SPAs February 2023 — which is exactly when a PROVISIONAL rating would normally be issued. The Gold and Silver entry lists both span 2014 to 2026 and therefore fully cover that window, so those two are genuine clean negatives. The Bronze entry list begins 04 April 2024, so a Bronze provisional issued in 2022 or 2023 would be HIDDEN from it. So: no GreenRE Gold, Silver or Platinum, confirmed; Bronze inconclusive for the pre-April-2024 period. That is written exactly that far and no further. GBI was not checked on this pass — its certified-buildings page is a standing failure in this series and is INCONCLUSIVE, never a negative. BCA Green Mark and LEED: the developer publishes no certificate library and makes no claim, so there is nothing to check against — an absence of any claim, not a negative finding. Four decoys were refused by name while reading those registers, and one of them deserves spelling out because it matches on the locality word Seputeh, is residential, is Platinum and provisional, and is adjacent to live work on this very site. Its licensee is a different company entirely. REFUSED. Nothing on this page borrows a rating from it, from a project whose name merely contains Sky, or from a GreenRE TOOLS column code that happens to begin with the same two letters as this developer’s brand — a tool code is not a licensee. NO AWARD and NO QLASSIC SCORE is published by anyone. The QLASSIC absence is worth naming: on a project 80% built with a CCC expected inside roughly a year, QLASSIC is the one assessment a construction-stage project may genuinely hold, and it is NOT PUBLISHED.

Not published, therefore not on this page

This is the list Louis will go and ask the developer for. It is an honesty block, not filler, and nothing in it has been quietly filled in from a plausible neighbour. Land and title. The parcel’s land area or acreage — nowhere, by anyone, so DENSITY IS UNKNOWABLE and is not estimated here. The site address, lot or PT number — no source prints a site address at all; the developer gives only a sales gallery, the filing prints only the developer’s office, and the portal says only “Kuchai Lama”. mukim, not printed on either register record. Tenure, lease expiry, chargee and land restriction FOR 30331-1 — confirmed only for 30331-2, because the other filing cannot be read. The lease commencement date, inferable from the 16 November 2121 expiry and not published. Product. Built-up areas for Types B, C, D and E — and for Type A only the developer’s 550 sq ft, never a filed figure. Bedrooms, bathrooms and car park PER TYPE. Which type sits in which tower, and which tower is 30331-1 and which is 30331-2. The fifth filed type, E, that the developer’s own website does not show. Total car-park bays for 1,838 units. Maintenance charge per square foot, sinking fund and strata share units — all three live in the SPA and its Schedule H. The level of the “rooftop pool”, and the facilities on every level except 11. Whether the two towers share the Level 11 deck. The Sky Bridge’s level and span. Delivery and commercial. GDV. The main contractor and the contract sum. Any joint venture or landowner arrangement behind L & T Realty Sdn. Bhd. — the group appears to be privately held, so this may simply be a closed door rather than an omission. QLASSIC score. Construction progress beyond the register’s 80.00 band. Whether the +20-month extension was disclosed to buyers who signed before it was approved. And the gaps this page owes to its own research conditions rather than to the developer, because a page that hides its method is worth less than one that states it. This page was built without a working search engine: every figure on it comes from direct reads of the KPKT register and document store, the filed advertisements, the developer’s own site, the Federal Territory affordable-housing register, the GreenRE register, an encyclopaedia entry and ONE third-party portal reached by URL pattern. So there is NO second-portal cross-check: the five distances on this page rest on one publisher and could not be independence-tested, and no news coverage, launch report, land-acquisition report or construction milestone was read at all. Those are limitations of this page’s research pass, not findings about the project, and they are printed here rather than left for a reader to discover.

Skyline Kuchai: frequently asked questions

Nearby Federal Territory projects Louis covers

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 · KPKT register, filed advertisements, the developer’s own project page, the Federal Territory affordable-housing register and the GreenRE register all read 15 October 2026. Marketing information, not an offer.