The masterplan for Embassy Riverine is filed rather than marketed: 217 villas in 25 clusters across 50.81 acres, under KIADB-approved plan DO3-KIADB-00078/26-27/BP dated 13 August 2026.
⚠️ The masterplan image on this page is indicative and deliberately soft. The registration record is a schedule of areas and counts, not a drawing, and the KIADB-approved plan sheet is not public. The image holds to what is filed - 25 clusters across 50.81 acres, two-floor villas at 4.27 to the acre, the 75.1 to 24.9 split between open and covered land - and blurs everything the record does not establish, which is where each cluster stands, how the internal roads run, where the amenities sit, and any villa or plot boundary whatsoever, since no plot dimension is filed. The numbers on this page are filed. The image is a sketch of those numbers. Ask the sales team for the approved plan sheet and check the plan number on it against DO3-KIADB-00078/26-27/BP.
How the land divides
| Component | Area | Share of site |
|---|---|---|
| Total land | 205,610 sq.m | 100% |
| Open area | 154,405 sq.m | 75.1% |
| Covered area (building footprint) | 51,205 sq.m | 24.9% |
Open and covered sum to 205,610 sq.m exactly - the filed total land area, to the square metre.
Plinth area is 51,205 sq.m, identical to covered area. That is exactly what you expect from a scheme filed with no basements and no stilts: the buildings meet the ground at their footprint and nothing extends below it.
Built-up area is 104,070 sq.m, which is 2.03 times the footprint - consistent with two-floor villas across the scheme.
The 25 clusters
| Item | As filed |
|---|---|
| Villas | 217 |
| Clusters | 25 |
| Average villas per cluster | 8.7, on our arithmetic |
| Floors per villa | 2 |
| Basements | 0 |
| Stilts | 0 |
| Height | 14.95 m |
The filing gives the cluster count and nothing else about the clusters - not their individual sizes, not their layout, not which configurations sit in which cluster. The 8.7 average is our own division and is not a filed figure; actual clusters will vary.
Any page telling you that a named cluster contains a particular configuration, or backs onto a particular feature, is filling in a mapping no filed document makes. Ask the sales team, and ask to see it on the approved plan.
Density, and the comparison that makes it meaningful
| Filed measure | Embassy Riverine | Embassy South Reserve |
|---|---|---|
| Land | 50.81 acres | 14.78 acres |
| Homes | 217 | 855 |
| Homes per acre | 4.27 | 57.9 |
| Land per home | 0.234 acres gross | 0.017 acres gross |
| Floors | 2 | 7 to 19 |
| Sanctioned FAR | 0.47 | 2.14 |
| Height | 14.95 m | up to 61.95 m |
Both projects share a promoter, a plan number, a sale deed, a launch date and a registration date. The 13.5-fold density difference between them is the clearest available demonstration that this is a genuinely low-density scheme rather than a marketed one.
⚠️ The open-area percentage runs the other way, and it is worth understanding why. The apartment tranche files 81.2 per cent open against this project's 75.1 per cent. Tall towers with underground parking cover very little ground; villas spread across theirs. Open-area percentage is a poor proxy for spaciousness. Homes per acre is the honest measure, and on that measure these two projects are not close.
Parks and landscaped area
Filed parks are 18,294.88 sq.m, being 4.52 acres - 8.9 per cent of the site, and roughly 84 sq.m of park per villa.
That is a large landscaped provision, and note that it is a distinct filed figure from the 75.1 per cent open area. Open area includes internal roads, driveways, setbacks and service land. Parks are the landscaped subset. Both are filed; they answer different questions.
Parking
| Type | Bays |
|---|---|
| Covered | 635 |
| Open | 412 |
| Garage | 0 |
| Total | 1,047 |
4.82 bays per villa, which is high - and note that garage is filed as zero. For a two-floor villa product with no basements, that implies covered parking is provided at ground level rather than in enclosed garages.
The filing does not allocate bays per villa or per configuration, so whether a 5 BHK carries more than a 4 BHK is not established. Ask.
Amenity areas within the plan
| Amenity | Sanctioned area | Approx. sq ft |
|---|---|---|
| Parks | 18,294.88 sq.m | 196,924 |
| Clubhouse | 3,900 sq.m | 41,979 |
| Outdoor sports facility | 1,200 sq.m | 12,917 |
| Gym | 292.19 sq.m | 3,145 |
| Swimming pool | 250 sq.m | 2,691 |
| Indoor sports facility | 200 sq.m | 2,153 |
| Water and sanitation | 339.08 sq.m | - |
| Electricity | 250 sq.m | - |
| Power backup | 100 sq.m | - |
| CCTV surveillance | 7.5 sq.m | - |
Also filed under key features: rainwater harvesting and water conservation, an STP, storm-water drains, and street lighting.
This project's 3,900 sq.m clubhouse is its own. The apartment tranche files a separate one at 3,626 sq.m - 81,009 sq ft between them. No filing describes a sharing arrangement.
FAR - the one figure that does not reconcile
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| FAR sanctioned | 0.47 |
| Land area | 205,610 sq.m |
| Floor area permitted at 0.47 | 96,637 sq.m |
| Built-up area filed | 104,070 sq.m |
| Computed ratio | 0.506 |
⚠️ Filed built-up divided by filed land gives 0.506, above the 0.47 sanctioned. Villa built-up commonly excludes some ancillary area from the FAR computation, so this is most likely a definitional gap rather than an overbuild - the two figures may simply be measuring different things.
But it does not close cleanly the way the apartment tranche does, where stripping basement and covered parking out of the built-up figure lands the project inside sanction with room to spare. We publish no FAR-derived figure for this project, and if FAR matters to you, ask the developer to reconcile those two numbers in writing.
Every other reconciliation on this filing closes exactly: units, carpet by configuration, land from guntas, open plus covered against total land, covered against plinth, and parking.
What is not in the plan
Filed explicitly as not provided: community hall, smart home automation, piped gas, air conditioning.
The record also does not contain individual plot sizes. It gives carpet area per villa. A villa's land parcel and its carpet area are different things, and only the second is filed.
Enquire About the Embassy Riverine Masterplan
The filing gives the cluster count and nothing else about the clusters. Ask the sales team for the approved plan sheet and check the number on it against DO3-KIADB-00078/26-27/BP.
Talk to a Sales ConsultantFrequently Asked Questions
Master Plan - Embassy Riverine FAQs
KIADB, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, under plan number DO3-KIADB-00078/26-27/BP dated 13 August 2026. Sanctioned FAR is 0.47 with no TDR applied.
Because it does not, and hiding that would be worse than explaining it. Filed built-up area is 104,070 sq.m against 205,610 sq.m of land, which computes to 0.506 - above the 0.47 sanctioned. Villa built-up commonly excludes some ancillary area from the FAR computation, so this is most likely a definitional difference rather than an overbuild. But it does not close the way the apartment tranche's does, so we publish no FAR-derived figure for this project. Ask the developer to reconcile the two numbers in writing.
Filed parks are 18,294.88 sq.m, being 4.52 acres - 8.9 per cent of the site, and roughly 84 sq.m per villa. That is about twelve times the per-home park provision the apartment tranche files. Note this is distinct from the 75.1 per cent open area, which includes roads, driveways, setbacks and service land.
Because open-area percentage measures what is not building footprint, and tall towers with underground parking cover very little ground. The apartments file 81.2 per cent open against this project's 75.1 per cent - but at 57.9 homes per acre against 4.27. Open-area percentage is a poor proxy for spaciousness; homes per acre is the honest measure.
Garage is filed as zero. The project files 635 covered and 412 open parking bays - 1,047 in total, or 4.82 per villa - but no garages, and no basements or stilts anywhere in the scheme. That implies covered parking at ground level rather than enclosed garages. If you expect a garage, the filing does not describe one.