Which block leh?

I get 5% rebate but last day is tomorrow, monday onward will be 4% only according to SA
I get lower floor type D1, before discount $602k, price should ok right for market now

Block A

Block C....are they selling yet and any status of sale?

Block C accept booking now, need pay cheque $10k

Ground breaking ceremony this coming Tuesday, 10.30am-1pm. Huat ah!!!

Breaking ground also can make u huat?

Yeah .....i saw the banner too ..
Who will come and launch the Ground breaking ceremony ar ?

I am kambeng...

Huh? Since when ground breaking of a condo project is exciting enuf to attend?
Got free food kar?

Ecosky..anything goes. Launch...meet the bankers...feng shui with joey yap...concert with jacky cheung...meet the bankers again...sign spa....food aplenty.

Kipark has some CNY dinner tonight.....and right after the opening by the chairman, the smell came out of no where causing a total embarassing moment as there are also guests from else where. This time really huat la.....from where the venue is, its approx 200 to 300 m from ecosky location. Leys hope the gush of smell is also experienced during majlis pecah tanah and ppl will take this more seriously...

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Community/2...in-Taman-Wahyu/

The RM1bil EcoSky, an integrated development by Eco World Development Sdn Bhd, has reached a milestone with its recent groundbreaking that was officiated by Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor.

Also present at the ceremony as guest of honour was Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Seri Ahmad Phesal Talib.

EcoSky is Eco World’s maiden project, located on a 3.9ha freehold plot along Jalan Ipoh in Taman Wahyu.

EcoSky has received positive response from the market with its first two residential towers, Aurora and Basalta, that launched last December, selling fast.

The third tower, Clarita, will be launched soon.

Set in an urban resort-style environment, the development includes modern office space and over 100 retail outlets for shopping, dining and entertainment.

The project is expected to be completed by mid-2018.

In his speech, Tengku Adnan encouraged developers to look outside the central business district and hoped EcoSky would be a template for future integrated developments.

“Today, about 65% of our population live in the city. So there is a need to ensure affordable housing for city dwellers and at the same time, provide good infrastructure and amenities for them.

“With private developers like Eco World, I am sure this can be achieved,” he said.

Eco World chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Manaf noted that the 360 degrees living concept introduced in EcoSky is also a testament of the developer’s commitment to sustainable development.

EcoSky is pursuing certification by Malaysia’s Green Building Index, Singapore Building Construction Authority’s Green Mark and the US Green Building Council’s LEED.

Eco World will also spend about RM3mil to help upgrade facilities in the surrounding area, including building a new covered walkway to connect EcoSky to the Taman Wahyu KTM station and rejuvenating the landscape of a 1.1ha neighbouring public green space belonging to DBKL.

Eco World chief executive officer Datuk Chang Khim Wah said, the EcoSky once fully occupied would have a staying population of about 5,000 people.

“This development will certainly boost property prices in the vicinity,” he added.

Units in Aurora and Basalta range from 800sq ft (74.3sq m) to 1,900 sq ft (176.5sq m ) and priced at RM650,000 to RM1.5mil or an average of RM650psf.

Chang said the average price for Clarita will be RM750psf.

Eco World will continue to be on the lookout for more landbank.

It currently has a total of 1,214ha of land worth RM30bil under development in the Klang Valley, Johor and Penang.

Its other projects include the RM3bil EcoBotanic, a premier township development in Iskandar Malaysia.

More projects are expected to take off within the next two years including business parks and new townships in the Klang Valley, Iskandar Malaysia and Penang.

Extracted from The MalayMail http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you...r-ong-kian-ming

Read up on the Malaysian EIA guidelines ― Ong Kian Ming

MARCH 7 ― I was shocked when I read Minister for Urban-Well Being, Housing and Local Government, Abdul Rahman Dahlan, asked me to ‘google’ information on incinerators in Japan to find out more about safe Waste to Energy (WtE) plants. As a minister, he should be more responsible with his words and actions rather than being so dismissive of the genuine concerns of residents and voters.

But since he asked me to use the ‘google’ approach, I decided to take his advice just to humour him. I googled “Japan Incinerator” and these were among the entries I found in the first page.

For the fourth entry, from the website of the US Department of Veteran Affairs :

“Waste Incinerator in Atsugi, Japan - From 1985 to 2001, personnel at Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi in Atsugi, Japan may have been exposed to environmental contaminants from off-base waste incinerators. The Shinkampo Incinerator Complex (SIC) was a combustion waste disposal equipped with incinerators that burned up to 90 tons of industrial and medical waste daily. Emissions included chemicals and other particulate matter. A private Japanese company owned and operated the business. The US Navy found a potential for increased health risks and worked with the Japanese government to close the SIC. The incinerator was shut down in May 2001. If you are concerned about exposures at Atsugi, talk to your health care provider or local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.”

For the sixth entry, from a Hong Kong based website :

Burning rubbish can immediately and drastically reduce waste volume by 90 per cent. This seems to be a very convenient and easy solution. However, incineration cannot solve the long-term waste problem of Hong Kong at root. The proposed Integrated Waste Management Facilities can only handle 3,000 tonnes of solid waste daily, and municipal solid waste disposed of at landfills currently reaches 9,000 tonnes each day. Though the facilities may be large-scale, they still cannot meet the demands of local waste. If one incinerator cannot meet our demand, are we to build a second one? When the amount of rubbish increases, do we need yet another incinerator? In this case, we will only build more and more incinerators in future.

For the seventh entry, from the chemicals branch of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP):

On average, Japan’s air contains nearly 10 times the amount of dioxin found in other industrialized countries. This statistic is largely attributed to the country’s penchant for waste incineration—the alleged source of roughly 90 per cent of the estimated 5 kilogrammes or more of the toxic chemical released every year.

Taking the Minister’s own advice, I do not find overwhelming evidence from google that incinerators in Japan have a very good track record.

Since the Minister likes to dispense advice, I will take this opportunity to also offer him some of my own. Please read the “Environmental Impact Assessment - Guidelines for Solid Waste Incineration Plant” prepared by the Department of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia, November 2012. This is the latest document prepared by the DOE which, unfortunately is NOT available online and therefore not accessible via google or the DOE website. I actually read the through the hard copy and I suggest that the Ministry flip through this document when he has some free time available. I would recommend that he turn to page 44, which says the following:

“In general, the minimum buffer distance adopted in Malaysia for solid waste incineration plant is 500metre radius (measured from the boundary of plant). This distance follows the general guideline adopted for heavy industry under DOE’s Guidelines for Siting and Zoning of Industries. However, it should be noted that with the advancement in technology, the potential impacts could be minimised by applying best available techniques (BATs). Hence, the minimum buffer distance for SWI from any environmentally-sensitive areas (ESAs) such as residential areas of ecologically-sensitive areas should be provided at 500metre (measured from the boundary of the plant) unless it could be proven that the distance could be minimised via scientific data, technology selection e.g. BAT i.e. modelling results for air pollutants dispersion etc.

In cases whereby the appropriate buffer distances could not be met and the project is critically required to be sited at the specific location, additional engineering and / or operational controls might be considered acceptable to reduce the zone of impact of potential pollution arising from the project. The reduction in zone of impact enabling the reduction of buffer distance shall be clearly demonstrated in the DEIA study in the form of findings backed up by sound technical judgement. However, this shall be referred to on a case-by-case basis and the onus shall be on the Project Proponent to select a suitable site prior to resorting to a site with insufficient buffer distance”

The need for a buffer zone is clearly stated in the DOE guidelines. Just because there happen to be incinerators in Japan (or any other place in the word) which are situated next door to schools or hospitals do not mean that this should be accepted or is in accordance with the guidelines in Malaysia. Indeed, the selection of the site in Taman Beringin, Kepong, with an insufficient buffer distance already shows the willingness of the Ministry and the Minister to ride roughshod over DOE processes and guidelines.

The Minister was also reported to have said that the UTM site suitability study ‘may be outdated’ and that “The government cannot operate based on rumours and unfounded allegations, otherwise we can't run the country.”

The Minister should be aware that the UTM site study was conducted in February 2013 and was given to the potential bidders for the Waste to Energy Plant in Taman Beringin. The identified site (Option B in the site study) has not been changed which means that the buzzer zone for the proposed WtE plant has not changed. This part of the site study, as far as I am aware, is not ‘outdated’.

Furthermore, the insufficient buffer zone was highlighted by the UTM site study, not based on rumours and unfounded allegations. In addition, the huge fire at the Tuas incinerator plant in Singapore in November 2013 and the huge explosion at a state of the art incinerator plant in Shanghai in December 2013 where one person was killed , actually happened and not based on rumours (I’ve included the link below so that the Minister doesn’t have to google it). This is why the buffer zone is in the guidelines – so that in the event of these accidents, injury and death to innocent residents can be avoided. The Minister should refer to these guidelines rather than taking the irresponsible and flippant approach in asking concerned residents and voters to use ‘google.’
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you...h.8PGxJY8J.dpuf[

Richmum, check this out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpict...-ski-slope.html

http://www.wired.com/design/2013/11/mttrashmore/

Ski destination for incinerator.
Maybe Malaysia building a garbage theme park there. Kekekeke.

Nice

Let's check out my signature and render some help,....

Eco World chief executive officer Datuk Chang Khim Wah said, the EcoSky once fully occupied would have a staying population of about 5,000 people.

Do they have 5000 car parks? Otherwise cars will be everywhere at night

No of people does not equate no of cars or carparks lah.
You don't expect children living with their parents also own a car each, right?

Photo of site after the ground breaking ceremony.



Attached thumbnail(s)

Expected the same feat for the upcoming Eco Majestic. Probably a bigger one since this is the major township in KV.