Modern Spaaces Sarjapur Road Masterplan

Every figure in the table below comes from the granted Terms of Reference for proposal SIA/KA/INFRA2/582779/2026.

One correction is worth flagging at the outset, because it changes the arithmetic on this page. Material in circulation puts the land at a smaller figure than the filing does. The filing records 3.0755 hectares, which is 7.60 acres. We publish the filed figure. Where a brief-sourced percentage appears later on this page, remember that it may have been worked out against the smaller number.

The Schedule 8(b) categorisation is itself informative. That is the townships and area-development bracket rather than the smaller building-construction bracket, and a B1 categorisation is what obliges the promoter to run a full environmental impact assessment — which is precisely what the Terms of Reference authorises. A ToR is permission to conduct the study, not clearance of the project. Nothing here is environmentally cleared.

This is the question every buyer asks about a high-rise scheme, and the honest answer is that the record does not contain it.

The filing records 826 residential units and a club house over two basements, ground and 45 upper floors. It does not state how many towers those are distributed across. Neither the granted ToR nor the pending EC application carries a block count, a tower count or a per-block unit split.

Material in circulation puts a tower count on the scheme. We do not publish it, and we do not publish any substitute number. Nor can arithmetic settle it. Spread evenly, 826 homes over 45 upper floors is 18.36 homes per floor across the whole scheme (826 ÷ 45 = 18.36) — and a 45-storey residential tower carrying three or four homes per floor is entirely ordinary in Bengaluru. The arithmetic is therefore compatible with a wide range of block counts and rules nothing in or out.

Until a sanctioned plan or a K-RERA registration is published, the number of towers is not knowable from any source we can stand behind.

The promoter submitted a KML file, "modern spaace realty llp_project site.kml", with the proposal. It is the only spatial description of the site that has been made public, and it is a rectangle, not a plot boundary.

Its extent runs from latitude 12.85072 to 12.85334 and from longitude 77.77317 to 77.77486. That box encloses about 5.33 hectares against a project land area of 3.0755 hectares — roughly 1.73 times the parcel. Up to about 42 per cent of what the box encloses is therefore not project land (5.33 − 3.0755 = 2.25 ha, or 42 per cent of 5.33).

We publish a site pin of 12.85203, 77.77402, the centre of that submitted extent. That is our own derivation, offered at medium-high confidence, and it is a point inside the submitted KML extent — deliberately not "inside the polygon", because the submitted geometry is not a polygon of the parcel.

For a reader studying the master plan the consequence is blunt: you cannot yet tell the shape of the plot, which edge fronts a road, where the access point falls, or how the site is oriented.

On access, the site sits about a kilometre off the Sarjapur Road (SH-35) alignment, reached by village roads. It does not front SH-35 and it has no direct arterial frontage. Sarjapura Bus Stand is 1.89 km by road. Where the internal entry road would meet the village network is not established by anything published.

The paragraphs below explain what each claim would signify if it turns out to be accurate. Every number carried forward inherits the unverified status of its input, and the arithmetic is ours.

33.05 per cent landscape. Applied to the filed 7.60 acres, that would be roughly 2.5 acres of the site left unbuilt at ground level (7.60 × 0.3305 = 2.51). On a scheme of this density that would be a meaningful figure — it would mean roughly a third of the plot given to soft landscape and open ground rather than to driveways, plinths and hardstanding. Applied instead to the smaller extent the brief itself states, it would be a correspondingly smaller area of ground. The brief does not say whether the percentage counts podium landscape, terrace gardens and setback strips, all of which are commonly included and none of which walks like a park.

915 car parking spaces. Against 826 homes that is 1.11 spaces per home (915 ÷ 826). In practice a ratio a shade above one means most homes get a single allotted space, second-car households compete, and visitor parking is thin. It also accounts for the two basement levels in the verified programme, since a count of that size cannot go at grade without eliminating the open ground the same brief claims. The brief does not break the count into resident, visitor and two-wheeler parking.

A 600 KLD sewage treatment plant with 571 KLD reuse. The reuse figure is about 95 per cent of plant capacity (571 ÷ 600), a high recycling ratio. For a resident it would imply dual plumbing throughout — treated water piped back for flushing, landscape irrigation and common-area washing, with only the balance discharged. SBR, as the brief uses it, refers to a sequencing batch reactor process. Where such a plant sits and how far it is from the nearest homes matters a great deal to daily life, and the brief says nothing about that.

63 rainwater recharge pits. Across 7.60 acres that is roughly eight pits per acre (63 ÷ 7.60 = 8.3). Recharge pits return roof and surface runoff to the ground rather than to the storm drain. On a site with two basement levels, where and how they are placed relative to the basement box is an engineering question the brief does not address.

A 150 cubic metre sump. That is 150,000 litres. Split evenly across 826 homes it is about 182 litres per home (150,000 ÷ 826). For a building of this size that is a modest buffer, which would imply the scheme leans on continuous mains supply or tanker deliveries rather than on stored reserve. Whether the figure refers to domestic storage alone, or includes fire-fighting reserve, is not stated — and those are ordinarily separate tanks.

6,138 KVA sanctioned power load. Divided across 826 homes that is about 7.4 KVA each (6,138 ÷ 826), but the sanctioned load for a scheme covers far more than homes: lifts in a 45-storey building, pressure-boosting pumps, the STP, common lighting, the club house and any standby infrastructure. The per-home sanctioned load available to a resident would be lower than 7.4 KVA, and the brief does not say by how much.

A buyer researching this project will meet a second one, and the two are easy to confuse. On the same day the Terms of Reference for this scheme was granted, 2 July 2026, a Standard ToR was also granted for a separate Modern Spaaces scheme in the same revenue village, filed by a different legal entity — Modern Spaace Developers LLP, under proposal SIA/KA/INFRA2/582342/2026 and state file SEIAA 217 CON 2026.

Our arithmetic on both sets of filed figures puts the other scheme at roughly 93 homes per acre (1,002 ÷ 10.77) against about 109 here. This is the smaller, denser and taller of the two.

The two filed extents do not adjoin, and the second scheme lies to the west. Nothing in either filing describes them as phases of a single masterplan, and we make no such claim. Nor do we claim any knowledge of who holds the land between them, since no land record was consulted. They are separate projects on non-contiguous parcels that happen to share a village, a developer brand and a filing date.