EBG Studios · Development Atlas · DRAFT — For review & feedback
Chapter I · Discover
Is there demand, and where should we develop?
Stage 2 · Questions, problems & people
Each lead brings the answer together with the people named below. Maya represents the developer and enterprise owner; specialists and public reviewers retain their own responsibilities.
Verify electrical service and timing, peak cooling-water flow and pressure, sustainable supply and separate fiber routes. Nearby infrastructure alone is not a commitment.
With: Eli (site & civil engineer); Maya (development lead).
Pat represents electric coordination; Sage represents water service; fiber providers confirm their routes.
Compare access, workforce, neighboring uses, physical constraints and enterprise latency needs across candidate sites.
With: Maya (development lead); Morgan (project architect); Jo (operations lead).
Bring off-site upgrades, easements, utility timing and connection costs into the comparison before ranking the parcels.
With: Eli (site & civil engineer); Noor (power & cooling engineer).
Utility and fiber providers supply service evidence.
Compare cooling concepts with peak and seasonal source capacity, water quality, rights, treatment and discharge limits. Resolve the supply gap or reconsider the concept or site before committing.
With: Eli (site & civil engineer); Jo (operations lead); Maya (development lead).
Sage and the actual source owner provide service evidence; specialists investigate well yield or surface-water rights where applicable.
What this milestone needs to produce
A ranked site shortlist with utility, access and community constraints made visible.
Why this stage matters
A market study connects people who need space with places that can serve them. Compare competing supply, achievable rents, vacancy and the pace of new leasing. Then test sites against the product: access, utilities, topography, zoning and total delivered cost. A low land price cannot compensate for a site that users cannot reach or that cannot support the intended use.
The decision map
People & information
Tests demand, supply and comparable evidence.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Connects user requirements to available sites.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Screens access, drainage and utilities.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Parallel work, shared decisions
Illustrative relative activity, not a duration schedule. A stage can loop back as evidence changes. Select another discipline to see where it contributes.
| Workstream | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market & Tenancy | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Land & Approvals | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Design & Engineering | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Finance & Investment | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Construction & Procurement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Delivery & Operations | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Stakeholder | 1 · Opportunity & vision | 2 · Market & site | 3 · Diligence & control | 4 · Planning & feasibility | 5 · Approvals & commitment | 6 · Design & procurement | 7 · Construction & delivery | 8 · Commissioning & handover | 9 · Tenancy & stabilization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer | Set the thesis | Choose the search criteria | Own the acquisition decision | Integrate design and economics | Align approval and capital | Approve scope and contracts | Authorize verified changes | Accept documented handover | Review performance and strategy |
| Investor & lender | Set risk and capital limits | Challenge demand assumptions | Review acquisition risks | Test equity need and returns | Define conditions precedent | Review the committed budget | Review eligible draw evidence | Confirm completion conditions | Monitor coverage and evaluate exit |
| Design & engineering | Explore user requirements | Screen site constraints | Investigate physical conditions | Develop and compare concepts | Address authority conditions | Coordinate detailed packages | Resolve technical field questions | Verify systems and as-built records | Review feedback from operation |
| Contractor & suppliers | Offer early feasibility insight | Advise on site access | Identify construction uncertainty | Estimate scope and sequencing | Test schedule feasibility | Price packages and lead times | Execute work and record quality | Complete tests and defects | Respond to warranty obligations |
| Users & community | Explain unmet needs | Test location and access | Identify local impacts | Review functional usefulness | Participate in applicable review | Confirm use requirements | Coordinate tenant interfaces | Receive usable and safe space | Report performance and changing needs |
| Operator & asset manager | Define operating objectives | Assess serviceability | Identify inherited liabilities | Estimate operating burden | Plan the operating transition | Review maintainability | Prepare asset and service records | Receive manuals and training | Manage leasing, costs and capital plans |
Roles may overlap within one organization. The project’s contracts and local requirements determine actual authority and responsibility.
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Priority score | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competing supply | 3 | 4 | 12 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
| Insufficient utilities | 3 | 5 | 15 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
| Restricted truck access | 2 | 5 | 10 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
Choose a concept. Choose your depth.
Is there demand, and where should we develop?
Overview · Understand · ApplyHow much of the potential rent becomes collectible revenue?
Overview · Understand · ApplyHow much useful space can this site support?
Optional practice
Try the enterprise data-center decision, then compare it with the logistics exercise below.
Juniper Ridge · make the call
Utility studies and written milestones, diverse fiber-route investigation, application latency requirements and a site comparison.
Apply the same development principles to Riverton Logistics Center. This supporting case uses its own warehouse assumptions and preserves your recorded logistics decisions.
Decision studio · Stage 02
You are the project’s development lead. Weight demand, access, zoning and cost to compare three sites. Use the fictional evidence below, make a choice and explain what you would verify.
Demand 8/10; access 9/10; zoning fit 8/10; affordability 5/10. $2M land.
Demand 6/10; access 5/10; zoning fit 9/10; affordability 9/10. $1.5M land; $700K potential utility extension.
Demand 9/10; access 8/10; zoning fit 3/10; affordability 6/10. $1.8M land; discretionary use approval.
| Site | Weighted score | Land + utility allowance |
|---|---|---|
| Riverside | 8.00 | $2,000,000 |
| Junction | 7.20 | $1,800,000 |
| Northfield | 6.60 | $2,200,000 |
Riverside has the highest weighted score. Your selected site, Riverside, has $2,000,000 land cost. A high score does not replace utility, access and title verification. Cost scores are qualitative; they do not already include the utility allowance.
