This page is meant to explain what feasibility is, why it matters, what documents feed it, what gets analysed, and how the same numbers can lead to very different conclusions depending on assumptions and offer quality.
The page should teach visitors that feasibility is not a decorative report. It is the working basis for understanding whether redevelopment is physically, commercially, and practically worth pursuing in the first place.
What is redevelopment feasibility? It is a structured review of the plot, regulations, existing building status, member area position, development potential, and commercial assumptions that shape what a society or property owner can realistically expect.
Why is it necessary? Without feasibility, societies often compare developer promises without understanding whether the offer is backed by real plot capacity, workable loading assumptions, or sustainable commercial structure.
Who prepares it? Feasibility usually sits at the intersection of architecture, planning rules, survey clarity, member data, and commercial judgement. That is why it should be read as an advisory document, not only as an area statement.
The sample entries below are structural examples only, intended to show how AngelSetu can present feasibility and proposal observations more clearly.
Keep the base assumptions visible before discussing commercial promises or headline outputs.
| Field | Indicative review point |
|---|---|
| Plot Details | Total plot area: 1,606.95 sqm. After road-widening deductions, the net plot area considered in this example is 1,107.00 sqm. |
| Road / Setback Impact | Old road-widening area: 137.66 sqm. New road-widening area: 362.29 sqm. Balance plot area before the new deduction: 1,469.29 sqm. |
| FSI | Base FSI at 1.10 gives 1,217.70 sqm. Paid FSI at 0.50 adds 734.64 sqm. |
| TDR | TDR at 1.40 gives 2,057.00 sqm. Ancillary loading at 80% works out to 3,207.47 sqm. |
| Permissible BUA | Permissible built-up area in this example is 7,216.81 sqm. |
Present the commercial and member-facing output in a format that is easy to compare.
| Field | Indicative review point |
|---|---|
| Existing Member Area | Current member area should be verified from the occupied area schedule, member records, and existing plans before final comparison. |
| Proposed Carpet | Total proposed carpet area in this example is 42,884.31 sq ft, which is approximately 3,984.08 sqm. |
| Developer Offer | Proposed built-up area shown in this example is 6,123.89 sqm with a proposed building profile of B+G+12 floors. |
| Rent / Corpus / Parking | These commercial terms are not part of the area statement and should be checked separately in the developer offer sheet. |
| Conditions | Final feasibility still depends on title clarity, member area verification, authority approvals, and the exact offer conditions. |
This sample uses the area statement figures from the example and arranges them in one clear review table for committee-level discussion.
| Review Field | Sample Value | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Plot area | 1,606.95 sqm | Total plot area from the sample area statement. |
| Old road-widening area | 137.66 sqm | Existing road-widening deduction shown in the sample statement. |
| Balance plot area | 1,469.29 sqm | Balance area after the old road-widening deduction. |
| New road-widening area | 362.29 sqm | Further deduction applied before arriving at the net plot area. |
| Net plot area | 1,107.00 sqm | Net plot area used for the FSI and development calculations. |
| Base FSI | 1.10 = 1,217.70 sqm | Base FSI component from the area statement. |
| Paid FSI | 0.50 = 734.64 sqm | Additional paid FSI shown in the same example. |
| TDR | 1.40 = 2,057.00 sqm | TDR loading considered in the sample feasibility statement. |
| Ancillary | 80% = 3,207.47 sqm | Ancillary loading shown in the same example. |
| Permissible built-up area | 7,216.81 sqm | Total permissible built-up area in the area statement. |
| Proposed built-up area | 6,123.89 sqm | Proposed built-up area shown for the redevelopment building. |
| Total carpet area | 42,884.31 sq ft | Equivalent to approximately 3,984.08 sqm of carpet area. |
| Proposed building | B+G+12 floors | Building profile mentioned in the sample statement. |
| Appreciation on existing BU | To be calculated after existing area audit | This example gives the proposed area figures, but the current member area must be mapped first for a true appreciation comparison. |
This is where the page starts behaving like a knowledge resource. It shows visitors that feasibility is not one number but a collection of interdependent checks.
Total plot area, road widening, setbacks, and net usable land all change the redevelopment base before commercial promises are even discussed.
These assumptions drive the permissible development envelope and are often the most misunderstood part of redevelopment discussions.
Existing member area, carpet verification, and rehab commitments affect how much of the development is available for members versus sale component.
Corpus, rent, parking, amenity promises, and developer profitability all need to be examined together rather than as separate headlines.
An attractive offer on paper may still be weak if timelines, exclusions, escalation points, or approval dependencies are poorly structured.
Feasibility quality always depends on title clarity, member records, approved plans, and whether the inputs are complete enough to trust the output.
Even when sensitive values are blurred, showing report structure, tables, assumptions, and observation format helps visitors understand that feasibility is a real working document, not a slogan.
This is where the page becomes distinctly advisory, rather than just descriptive.
Feasibility output can shift materially if FSI, TDR, reservations, access conditions, or approval assumptions change.
Headline promises can appear similar while practical value differs because of hidden conditions, timelines, or exclusions.
Missing or unclear records can reduce confidence in comparison and slow the quality of further review.