ViiA 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

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.

Twelve 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

688 sq ft · 64 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 16–21 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 688 sq ftlevels 16–21one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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

710 sq ft · 66 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 23A–38 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 710 sq ftlevels 23A–38one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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

699 sq ft · 65 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 39 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 699 sq ftlevels 39one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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.

Ask for this type’s as-built schedule

Type A4 — A4

678 sq ft · 63 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 23A–33 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 678 sq ftlevels 23A–33one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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 schedule

Type A5 — A5

635 sq ft · 59 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 23A–33 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 635 sq ftlevels 23A–33one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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.

Ask for this type’s as-built schedule

Type A6 — A6

678 sq ft · 63 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 23A–33 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 678 sq ftlevels 23A–33one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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

775 sq ft · 72 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 3A–21 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 775 sq ftlevels 3A–21one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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

785 sq ft · 73 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 23A–33 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 785 sq ftlevels 23A–33one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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

807 sq ft · 75 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 3A–21 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 807 sq ftlevels 3A–21one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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

807 sq ft · 75 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 23A–33 · one water closet (specification table)

built-up 807 sq ftlevels 23A–33one water closetbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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

947 sq ft · 88 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 33A–38 · two water closets (specification table)

built-up 947 sq ftlevels 33A–38two water closetsbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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 schedule

Type D2 — D2

1,259 sq ft · 117 m² (the developer’s own figure) · levels 33A–38 · two water closets (specification table)

built-up 1,259 sq ftlevels 33A–38two water closetsbedrooms NOT publishedcar park NOT published

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.

Ask for this type’s as-built schedule

NO PLAN EXISTS for these four codes in the developer’s own media library, and the type schedule does not list them at all. They appear only in the sanitary-fittings specification table on the same page. No plan is shown here, and no built-up is invented for them.

Types C1, C2, C4 and D1 — the four codes with no plan

Built-up: NOT PUBLISHED · levels: NOT PUBLISHED · two water closets (specification table)

in the specification table onlyno plan in the CMSno built-up publishedno level published

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.

Ask Louis to get the as-built schedule

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

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.

KL 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.

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.

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.

ViiA Residences, KL Eco City — the answers, each from a named document

Other register-first pages in this quadrant of Kuala Lumpur

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