Sebelas Apartments

The operating track record is visible, but it is not uniformly flattering. Guests report stays as early as the latter part of 2025. Reviews praise the walkable location and well-equipped rooms, while some describe weak hot-water pressure, service or maintenance issues, a power interruption and difficulties finding the entrance. Guest commentary is anecdotal, not a building survey or audited performance history. It can nevertheless point a buyer toward the right physical checks: electrical backup, water systems, access for pickups and luggage, the condition of shared areas and the cost of keeping everything in reliable working order. For a hospitality property, these details affect reviews and repeat demand.

Central Ubud is a major part of the proposition. Booking platforms place the operating property at Jl. Hanoman No. 10, within walking distance of Ubud Palace, cafés and local shops. The position is useful for guests who do not want a vehicle for every meal or errand. It is also a place where traffic, narrow approaches and loading arrangements can materially affect service. Location evidence is not perfectly consistent: a property-sales portal places Sebelas on Jl. Goutama Selatan, while EVDEkimi's copy refers to the Alchemy area. The names may be describing the same centrally located hospitality complex imprecisely, but the sale should not proceed on that assumption alone. The physical entrance, mapped pin, survey and contractual plot description should lead to the same asset.

The layout is relatively compact. Marketing and hospitality listings describe two three-storey buildings around a shared courtyard with an outdoor pool, a lounge area and a café or poolside bar. EVDEkimi quotes 530 square metres for the complex. That number needs to be read alongside the original architectural drawings rather than treated as fully lettable floor space. It is also separate from the land measurement. One agency describes a 488-square-metre site, while the developer page contains the markedly different notation '4,88 acres'. No title plan or measured survey was available to resolve that discrepancy. For an acquisition covering both blocks and their shared facilities, the exact boundaries matter.

Accommodation listings reveal a more interesting unit mix than the developer's short sales copy suggests. EVDEkimi publishes individual layouts for apartments 1 through 8 and apartment 10, with areas between 35.41 and 41.78 square metres. Each drawing combines sleeping and living space, with a separate kitchen and bathroom. Sales material reproduced by an agency identifies apartment 9 as a two-bedroom unit of 60.7 square metres and apartment 11 as a three-bedroom unit of 116 square metres. Rental listings independently confirm that two- and three-bedroom accommodation is offered under the Sebelas name. Still, a complete, signed schedule of all 11 units has not been seen, and the sales brochure's claim that every apartment has one bedroom does not fit the operating inventory.

That variation matters commercially. The smaller units offer the practical convenience of an equipped kitchen without the footprint of a full family apartment. The larger accommodation can serve groups who want to stay together in central Ubud. Public guest listings mention air-conditioning, washing machines, refrigerators, cooking equipment, Wi-Fi and housekeeping; the common pool and café add a social element. None of these amenities should be assumed identical in every apartment. A property inspection would need a separate inventory, condition record and maintenance assessment for each space, especially if the business has been operating through multiple booking channels.

EVDEkimi's project page retains a May 2025 completion date and the label 'Redevelopment'. Neither should be mistaken for a live construction programme. A booking site identifies 2025 as the opening year, and dated reviews support occupation by that time. The buildings therefore appear to be in use rather than merely proposed. Yet an operating accommodation listing is not an occupancy certificate, and successful reservations do not establish that every part of a redevelopment received the necessary approvals. The condition and approval history of the two blocks deserve separate attention, particularly if alterations were carried out to accommodate the current layout.

The brand also advertises a property-management service and projected investment returns. EVDEkimi's website makes a first-year contractual-return claim, but the underlying agreement and financial statements for Sebelas were not available. Guest-facing reviews and Airbnb hosting information, meanwhile, name Farsight Management. That may simply reflect outsourced day-to-day operations; it is not evidence of a dispute. For the buyer it is a practical contractual question: who controls the listings, receives guest payments, employs staff, handles complaints, purchases supplies and holds the reporting data? Historical occupancy and income only become useful when reconciled with booking commissions, payroll, taxes, utilities, repairs and the expenses of the shared pool and café.

The headline transaction is a USD 2.5 million offer for the whole complex on EVDEkimi's public website. It does not come with an itemised price for each apartment. An unrelated sales portal advertises entry prices from USD 165,000 for Sebelas units, creating uncertainty over whether single-apartment sales were ever genuinely available, are still marketed, or refer to an older sales structure. A brokerage quotes a rupiah amount using its own fixed conversion of a foreign-currency price list; that should not be treated as a separate developer-approved local-currency offer. The current inventory, the parties to the sale and the precise property bundle require written confirmation before using any of these figures as a transaction budget.

There is also a payment detail worth holding at arm's length. A brokerage page referring to the seller's presentation mentions 30% upfront and 70% after an agreement. Without the reservation contract, stakeholder details, conditions precedent and deposit-refund provisions, those percentages tell little about payment protection. They also leave unanswered who can legitimately receive the funds. The legal entity associated with the EVDEkimi brand has not been established as the party entitled to sell this specific property; similarly named Indonesian companies appear in third-party corporate directories, but a corporate name match is not a substitute for the land records and seller's authority.

An independent agency describes the rights on offer as a 25-year lease covering the land and both buildings. That is potentially a straightforward contractual arrangement, but the published number is not enough to value it. There is no reviewed lease showing its start date, the unexpired term at transfer, assignment rights, restrictions on alterations or the price and mechanism of any renewal. Under Indonesian land law, a foreign individual cannot simply register Hak Milik land title in their own name; other land rights and contractual interests operate differently. The buyer needs to understand whether the transaction is an assignment of an existing lease, a new agreement with the landowner or something more elaborate, and precisely what happens when the term ends.

Permission to host paying guests is another separate asset question. The Indonesian framework distinguishes building approval, generally described as PBG, from the SLF certificate addressing a building's fitness for use. Commercial short-stay operations additionally depend on appropriate spatial use, business registration and activity-specific licensing. None of the Sebelas-specific land-use extracts, building certificates or operating permits were available for independent review. This is not evidence they do not exist. It is the gap between observing a business trade today and establishing that its owner can lawfully transfer, continue and possibly change that business tomorrow. The café, if included, needs to be accounted for in that review rather than assumed to pass automatically with the apartments.

The investment case is ultimately defined by buying one managed property rather than 11 freely tradable apartments. Unified ownership could allow consistent pricing, service standards and maintenance across the buildings. The trade-off is a narrower resale market and a large capital commitment whose value depends on the lease years remaining and the quality of the operating accounts. Individual resale cannot be assumed simply because the floor plans carry apartment numbers. Sebelas is worth analysing as an existing Ubud hospitality asset, but its attraction should be judged from documented rights, actual business performance and the condition of the property—not a promoted yield or an apparent discount to the sum of advertised unit prices.