River Park Template: A Property Site With a Buyer Portal

River Park template: a residential development site with a buyer portal

River Park is a ready-made site for a residential scheme, one of the 25 templates in the Zugo gallery. The public side runs from the hero through layouts, amenities and construction progress to a viewing request. Behind the sign-in sits a buyer portal with saved plans and a mortgage calculator. Cloning it costs no credits.

What follows is a section-by-section teardown: what the template contains, which parts are genuinely wired up, and the sequence of edits that turns it into a site for your own development.

What is inside the River Park template?

The template follows the structure almost every new-build site arrives at eventually, then adds the piece most of them lack: a private area for the buyer. Usually that portal lives somewhere else entirely, in a different system, and half the enquiries fall through the gap between the two.

The callback form appears twice, on the public page and inside the portal. That repetition is deliberate. Nobody buys an apartment alone or in a single visit, so being able to ask for a call at any point matters more here than a confident buy button.

The progress section is the one people are tempted to delete, and it is the one that answers the buyer's real fear: that the building slips or never completes. Keep it, and keep it current. A stale date there does more damage than no section at all.

What genuinely works, and what is only an interface?

The public side is fully working. Navigation, anchor scrolling, the layout cards, the forms and the phone behaviour all respond as you would expect. You can watch it behave in the gallery preview before you clone anything, which is worth two minutes of your time.

The buyer portal works as an interface rather than as a product. Screens switch, the mortgage calculator does arithmetic, forms accept what you type. But there are no real accounts behind the sign-in, and nothing survives a reload, because no database sits underneath the template.

Forms are the detail that catches people out. By default a callback request goes nowhere, and publishing in that state means losing enquiries in silence. Email delivery comes from the Resend connector, and the enquiries themselves can land in a table through Supabase.

Test that before launch, not after. Send yourself a request and confirm it reaches a human. It is a five-minute check that pays for itself with the first enquiry that arrives instead of vanishing.

Who is this template the right start for?

It fits a developer, a sales agency working one scheme, or an investor marketing a single building: apartments, townhouses, a small resort, commercial units. The sequence of building, layouts, amenities, progress and viewing carries across all of them without rearranging.

It also adapts to rental if you swap purchase for booking. The card grid and the calculator survive that change intact. Only the labels and the payment maths move, which is one edit rather than a rebuild.

It is the wrong start for a resale agency. Hundreds of listings with filters by district, price and floor area is a different product, closer to a searchable catalogue, and it is better described from scratch than carved out of this frame. The broader version of that decision is covered in the guide on how to build a real estate site with AI.

One in-between case works nicely: a separate site per phase or per building in a larger masterplan. Spinning up a second project is faster than making one site serve both, and each phase gets its own address.

Is it cheaper to clone the template or describe the site from scratch?

The arithmetic is simple. A build from a written description costs 6 credits and gives you exactly the page your text described, including everything you forgot to mention. A clone costs nothing, and you only pay for the differences from a frame you already watched working.

For a new-build scheme the template usually wins. The section list for these sites is settled, and what varies is the content, not the structure. Describing seven linked blocks from an empty prompt costs more because each one has to be spelled out.

The blank prompt wins in one situation: when the asset sells differently. Coworking billed monthly, storage units, parking spaces. There the floor plans and the mortgage block get in the way, and you would spend edits removing them.

Decide the page count early, because it drives the budget. If every layout needs its own address, that is a multi-page platform: 12 credits for the first three pages and 3 credits for each page after. The difference between that and a single page is explained in can AI make a multi-page site.

How do you turn it into your own development?

Meaning first, appearance second. Each edit costs 3 credits, and reworking the same block twice is the main way people waste them, so this order runs from most valuable down.

1. Replace the name and the promise. One edit changes the scheme name everywhere and rewrites the hero.
2. Swap in your layouts. Images, floor areas, room counts, availability. This is the part buyers actually read.
3. Rewrite the four arguments. Your materials, your courtyard, your energy standard. The same edit can change how many arguments there are.
4. Update the progress block. Real stage, real completion window, or the section works against you.
5. Wire the forms. A request has to reach a person, not disappear into the page.
6. Publish. The project lives at an address like yourname.zugo.run, with your own domain layered on top.

The mortgage calculator deserves its own decision. It runs a formula, not any particular lender's rates. Either set your parameters with an edit, or label it plainly as an indicative estimate that is not an offer.

What does it cost to get it published?

The clone is free, so the meter starts with your first edit. Replacing demo content with real content usually takes five to eight edits, depending on how many layouts you have and how precisely you describe each change.

Free gives you 5 credits. Pro is $25 a month for 200 credits, which works out to roughly 16 platforms, 33 builds or 66 edits. Business is $99 a month for 800 credits. Every build runs in a sandbox first, and anything that fails to open is never handed to you.

The free tier has one quirk worth knowing. Five credits will not cover a build from scratch, since that costs 6, but the template route fits: the clone is free and the first edit sits inside the starting balance. You can see your own scheme name on a working page without paying anything.

Which edits do people ask for most?

Requests that land on the first try name a specific block and a specific change. A vague wish costs the same 3 credits and gives you something unpredictable that is harder to check.

"Make it six layouts instead of four, and put the floor area and bedroom count in the card heading." "Add a filter for the layouts by number of bedrooms." "Replace the facade block with one about parking." "Add a photo gallery to the progress section with the date each shot was taken."

Trust requests are common and sensible: "add a block with the developer's registration details and a link to the project documentation." Do that before launch rather than after the first buyer asks.

Phone requests come up constantly too: "on mobile, show layouts in a single column and pin the viewing button to the bottom of the screen." Most enquiries from property sites arrive from a phone, so this is not a cosmetic edit.

Where does the template stop?

A portal without a database is a demonstration. It shows how the experience will feel, but it forgets saved plans and reservations the moment the page reloads. A working version needs real sign-in and storage, which is a separate stage to plan for, not a single line in chat.

A catalogue of hundreds of listings is a different job. This frame is built around one scheme with a handful of layouts. Search across a large stock behaves differently and should start from a description of that behaviour.

The legal wording is yours. Project documentation, reservation terms, company details: the builder will not invent them, and it should not. In property that is a regulatory duty carried by the developer, not by the tool that assembled the page. On a genuinely complex product Zugo does not replace a development team, and you can always take the source out through the GitHub export, so nothing you build here is locked in.

A simple build takes about a minute, so the practical first step is short: open the gallery at zugo.dev, clone River Park, and put your own layouts in place of the demo ones. After that you will know within an hour whether this frame fits your scheme.