Urbanrise Gattahalli

Everything else you may have read about this project is thinner than that, and this page is organised around keeping the two apart. Abhee Bellary Road keeps the wider Bengaluru context in view, especially when buyers are weighing format, commute patience, and how much certainty they need before shortlisting.

On the name. Urbanrise Gattahalli is the working title used on this site; Urbanrise has not announced a marketing name for the development. We have named the page after the revenue village on the filing, because that is the only name the record supports. A campaign-style phrase does circulate in the intake material handed to us, and we do not repeat it, for a specific reason rather than a cautious one: Urbanrise verifiably recycles campaign codenames between cities, and the consequence is already visible in the market. "Codename Gold Standard" is a Chennai project at Siruseri that aggregator sites have begun mis-attaching to Sarjapur Road in Bengaluru. Borrowing a campaign name would attach this page to a different project in a different state. There is a blunter point beside it: Urbanrise's own Bengaluru projects page does not list a Gattahalli project at all. The developer has not yet published this scheme. Any name, brochure, price or launch date presented to you as official therefore did not come from the developer.

On registration. Urbanrise Gattahalli holds no registration with the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, and no application is waiting in the queue — a search of the state registry returned zero rows for "Grandeur Homes" across all 9,907 records. Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 prohibits a promoter from advertising, marketing, booking, selling or offering to sell any apartment in a project of a registrable class until the Authority has granted registration. In plain terms: nobody can lawfully take a booking here today, no allotment can be made, and no money should change hands against this address. This microsite is an independent information and enquiry resource for a scheme at the approvals stage. It is not a booking channel, and it carries no price for exactly that reason. If someone shows you a RERA number for this project, it is not this project's number — ask which project it was issued to, and check it yourself on the K-RERA portal before the conversation goes any further.

There is no price for this project. Not a soft price, not a pre-launch price, not an indicative price. Urbanrise has published no per-square-foot rate, no configuration price list, no payment plan and no launch offer, because it has not published the project. The intake workbook we hold contains a pricing tab, and that tab is an unfilled template — the same blank tab that arrives on every intake sheet of this kind. We record that plainly rather than treat an empty template as withheld information.

The reason is not commercial reticence. It is that the scheme is not at a stage where a price can lawfully be quoted. Until registration is granted, a rate quoted to you for homes at Gattahalli — by anyone, in any form, however soft the framing — is not a lawful offer, and no amount paid against it is a booking the regulator recognises. Nor do any of the protections that attach to a registered project attach to something agreed now: no agreement for sale in the prescribed form, no statutory proportion of collections held in a separate project account, no declared completion date the promoter can be held to. A pre-registration discount, if one is ever offered, is compensation for giving those up. Price it that way.

The declared project cost on the filing is regularly misread as a price. It is a capital cost submitted for regulatory appraisal, the filing does not itemise what it covers, and dividing it by 368 does not produce the cost of a home. We do not do that division anywhere on this site.

The full evidence ladder, the Karnataka cost stack that sits on top of any quoted rate, and the documents to demand before any payment are on the price page.

The record behind it is a government record, not a brochure

Most pre-launch pages are built on a channel partner's PDF. This one is built on a filing that carries a proposal number, a filing date, a named promoter, a survey number, a land area to four decimal places of a hectare, a built-up area to two decimal places of a square metre, a unit count and a declared cost. Those figures were submitted by the promoter to a regulator, under its own name, with consequences for misstating them. They are not marketing. That does not make them permissions — appraisal can change any of them — but it makes them a far better starting point than a rendering.

The club house commitment is documented, and it sits against the density

The two facts that matter most about this scheme point in opposite directions, and both are on the same filing. Developers on parcels of 4.20 acres frequently fit amenities into a converted ground floor or a single podium level; a dedicated block with two basements and three floors above ground is a different order of thing. That is the counterweight to the density, and the two have to be read together. High density with a serious shared amenity building is a coherent product. High density without one is not.

The metro connection is real, and we describe it as the drive it is

This is where most pages about this corridor overreach, so it is worth being precise. Namma Metro's Yellow Line has been carrying passengers since 11 August 2025 — RV Road to Delta Electronics Bommasandra, 16 stations over 19.15 km — and that terminus is 7.96 km from this site by road. Trains running today, not an alignment on a plan, which distinguishes this location from a great deal of the surrounding belt. It is also, plainly, a car, an auto or a feeder bus at each end. This site is not metro-adjacent, and we publish no distance to any Metro Phase 3A station, because no alignment for one has been published and a station drawn from an unpublished alignment is worth nothing to a buyer.

The employment case is a spread, not a single anchor

There is no dominant employer at two kilometres. What there is instead is a long band of recognisable workplaces between about five and ten kilometres by road, most of them reached along the same westward roads. For a household with two earners working in different parks along that corridor, a spread is an advantage. For anyone hoping to walk or cycle to work, this is not that location. The routed figures are in the location snapshot below.

Amenities at Urbanrise Gattahalli: one filed fact, and no schedule

Exactly one amenity fact about this project rests on a government document: the filed scheme includes a club house built to two basements + ground + two upper floors, and the project is described on the file as a "Residential Apartment and Club House" project. That is a stronger position than a rendering, because the amenity building is part of the scheme as submitted.

The filing records that configuration and nothing else. It does not state the club house's floor area, what occupies any level, whether the two basement levels are amenity space or parking or plant, whether it is one block or more, or when it is delivered relative to the residential floors.

We publish no amenity list for this project. The list circulating in early material is a generic string that also appears, almost word for word, against an unrelated Bengaluru project with a single item removed. It is boilerplate, not research into this scheme, and reproducing it would look like information while functioning as a guess. The amenities page sets out what the record supports and where it stops.

Where Urbanrise Gattahalli sits, in routed road distances

The parcel is Sy. No. 50, Gattahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk — the Sarjapur–Attibele belt south-east of the city, between the Sarjapur Road corridor and Electronic City. The village name appears two ways in the government's own record: the filing's free text reads "Gattahalli Village" while the structured entry on the identical plot carries village code 613187, GHATTIHALLI. These are one village with two spellings, not two places. We use Gattahalli throughout, because that is the spelling on the filing.

Every figure below is road distance on the driving network, measured from the derived site coordinate. None of it is straight-line.

We publish kilometres and not minutes, deliberately. The same eight kilometres in this corridor is one thing on a Sunday morning and something else entirely on a weekday at nine, and a single confident drive-time number would be wrong most of the time. We would rather give you a road distance you can trust and let you judge the traffic.

There is a genuine finding buried in that table, and it is not a technicality. The road distance from this site is consistently far longer than the map distance. Every one of the ten transit destinations we routed has a road distance more than 1.3 times its straight-line separation, and five exceed 1.7 times. Electronic City is the sharpest: the drive is 1.88 times the map separation, very nearly double. Carmelaram station is 1.78 times. Gattahalli Lake, which sounds like a walk, is 1.15 km on the map and 3.13 km by road — 2.71 times. The cause is structural: the site sits off the arterial grid on a village road, with lakes, tank bunds and unconnected layout roads between it and the corridor to the west. Any distance you have seen quoted for this project that looks noticeably shorter than the figures above was almost certainly measured in a straight line.

One warning about pins. A coordinate circulating in intake material for this project is wrong by more than a kilometre and lands over towards Rayasandra. Every proximity figure computed from it is distorted, including a badly overstated closeness to the TVS Emerald development at Rayasandra — from the corrected centre that separation is about 1.52 km straight-line, given here only as a bearing. If you have been sent a pin, check it against the survey number before you drive out.

The full routed tables, the jurisdiction analysis and the access-road questions to put to the developer are on the location page.

The honest position on corridor pricing is that the best evidence available is weaker than a buyer would like, and we would rather show its weakness than dress it up.

The strongest evidence that exists is another developer's own published rate table. Modern Spaaces maps rates for its Sarjapur-corridor apartment projects on its own website: Onyx Rs 6,473–6,502, Neon Rs 6,494–7,276, Green Storeys Rs 7,023–7,265, Engrace Vista Rs 8,459–8,500 and Serene Heights 1 Rs 9,212–9,241 per sq ft, read on 27 August 2026. Read the caveats before the numbers. These are a different developer's projects, every one of them 5 to 10 km away, which in this part of Bengaluru means a different micro-market with different access, different jurisdiction and different infrastructure. They are corridor context, not comparables for an Urbanrise product.

The spread inside one developer's own table is the most instructive thing about it. INFERRED, our arithmetic: 9,241 − 6,473 = 2,768, and 9,241 ÷ 6,473 = 1.43. One developer, one corridor, and the premium product is priced at roughly 1.43 times the entry product. Anyone quoting you a single "Sarjapur Road rate" is averaging across a spread that wide.

INFERRED — a corridor reference band, and it is an estimate about the belt rather than a price for this project. Pooling the three lower-tier products, the minimum is Onyx at Rs 6,473 and the maximum is Neon at Rs 7,276, giving a band of Rs 6,473 to Rs 7,276 per sq ft, midpoint Rs 6,875. We exclude Engrace Vista and Serene Heights 1 deliberately: carrying the band up to Rs 9,241 would import a premium positioning this project has given no indication of taking.

We stop there, and the reason is specific rather than defensive. Urbanrise operates as a volume developer and carries a reputation for aggressive pricing; the comparables above belong to a smaller, design-led builder. A volume developer's product in this corridor would reasonably be expected to sit at or below that lower cluster rather than inside it — but "below by how much" is a number nothing in our sources supports, and manufacturing one would be precisely the failure this site exists to avoid. On sourced evidence there is no basis for expecting this project to be priced above the Rs 7,276 top of the lower cluster, and no sourced basis for naming a specific rate below it.

Three site facts should move any eventual number. The density is a legitimate reason for a rate to sit lower than for a lower-density scheme on comparable land. The five-level club house is a genuine cost the developer is carrying, and it is likely to appear as a separate charge on the cost sheet. And the jurisdiction point is price-relevant rather than merely administrative: khata classification affects the cess and surcharge slab, the annual property tax, and — critically — which lenders will fund the purchase.