Physical-condition feedback is mixed. One resident reported “noise isolation between apartments” and said “4 slow lifts are not enough”; a separate 2026 review concerning Future Tower 3 reported a tile failure affecting more than 20 apartments that was allegedly not fixed. Positive comments describe the building as new and spacious, but no independent engineering inspection or formal systems assessment was found.

Residents praise “24 hour professional security,” gym and pool access, cleaning, and the convenience of a Viva supermarket below the building. The negative operational feedback includes a resident saying management “can not help” with noise isolation, while another found the gym and pool too small and parking difficult or expensive.

Structural feedback is mixed: one two-year resident said “Built quality is good compared to general market,” while also reporting rain leaking through the windows despite repeated maintenance. Another review reports “constant issues with the air conditioning,” and a separate review criticizes the layouts for lacking closets and storage; these are individual reports rather than a published engineering assessment.

Residents praise the waterfront setting, views, pool and gym: one reviewer called it “a vacation spot” and another said the reception team was “extremely helpful and friendly.” The negative operational feedback includes jet-ski and loud-car noise, recurring fire-alarm disturbance, and one later review alleging rude staff, cockroaches and poorly maintained outdoor areas.

The published resident feedback contains a specific infrastructure complaint: “water leakage remains unresolved,” alongside a broader statement that maintenance “generally isnt good.” The available material does not publish independent engineering or fabric scores for the buildings, so no broader structural conclusion is warranted.

Residents praise the area as “Lively, Convenient, and Family-Friendly,” citing schools, shops, restaurants, safety and community feel, while another says the area is good but “rushy” at school times. The main operational criticism is unresolved leakage and “Very very bad maintenance team”; traffic is also repeatedly described as heavy.

Resident feedback describes a generally clean, well-maintained building, but reports repeated systems problems. One reviewer said the lifts require a minimum five-minute wait, while another reported the AC stayed at 24°C despite repeated complaints.

Daily-life feedback is divided. Residents praise a clean and well-maintained tower, clean pool and gym, and staff who are doing a great job, but other reviews describe management as unhelpful and maintenance as non-responsive.

Residents report persistent lift-capacity and reliability problems in the 39-floor building, including waits of 10–20 minutes and one lift allegedly remaining out of service for 2–3 weeks. Other reported physical-system concerns include “poor wiring and electricity,” sparking outlets, repeated false fire alarms, and a separate complaint that air-conditioning “does not work”; these are resident reports, not an engineering inspection.

Day-to-day feedback is split. Positive reviewers describe “staff... very nice and friendly,” a clean environment, a large pool and professional management, while negative reviews cite slow facilities management, playground and security issues, and parking-gate delays; the Property Finder page also publishes a 4.3/5 resident rating but only three reviews.