EBG Studios · Development Atlas · DRAFT — For review & feedback
Chapter II · Plan & Commit
What should we build, and does it make sense?
Stage 4 · 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.
Arrange data halls, staff spaces, secure circulation, service yards, accessibility and expansion around the site and enterprise brief.
With: Eli (site & civil engineer); Noor (power & cooling engineer); Jo (operations lead).
Test usable IT capacity, resilience, capital cost, operating cost and delivery time together rather than optimizing only building area.
With: Morgan (project architect); Noor (power & cooling engineer); Sam (construction manager); Jo (operations lead).
Corporate finance evaluates the business case.
Resolve equipment clearances, drainage, structure, access routes and maintenance space while the concept is still inexpensive to change.
With: Eli (site & civil engineer); Noor (power & cooling engineer); Sam (construction manager).
Test power delays, cost escalation, workload growth and operating costs; adjust the scope or phase the investment when the plan lacks headroom.
With: Noor (power & cooling engineer); Sam (construction manager); Jo (operations lead).
What this milestone needs to produce
A coordinated concept, tested cost and schedule, and a feasibility decision with explicit assumptions.
Why this stage matters
Feasibility brings the physical plan and economic plan together. Buildable area, circulation, parking and user needs shape the rentable program. That program drives cost and income, which determine whether value supports the required investment. Treat each design as a hypothesis: a smaller cost number may hide weaker tenant utility, lower rent or less useful space.
The decision map
People & information
Translates user requirements into a workable concept.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Prices scope, quantities and uncertainty.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Compare cost, value and risk together.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overstated rentable area | 3 | 4 | 12 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
| Optimistic rent | 4 | 4 | 16 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
| Unpriced scope | 3 | 5 | 15 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
Choose a concept. Choose your depth.
What should we build, and does it make sense?
Overview · Understand · ApplyDoes a design saving improve the investment?
Overview · Understand · ApplyHave all uses of capital been identified?
Overview · Understand · ApplyWhat land price can the project support?
Optional practice
Try the enterprise data-center decision, then compare it with the logistics exercise below.
Juniper Ridge · make the call
Owner requirements, basis of design, internal capacity plan, concept estimate and a total cost of ownership model.
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 04
You are the project’s development lead. Change cost savings, area and tenant-income effects; compare both concepts. Use the fictional evidence below, make a choice and explain what you would verify.
100,000 rentable SF. $13.5M total development cost. $900K stabilized NOI.
Simplified configuration saves $400K. Hypothetical loading compromise reduces annual NOI by $60K.
| Metric | Concept A | Concept B |
|---|---|---|
| Total cost | $13,500,000 | $13,100,000 |
| NOI | $900,000 | $840,000 |
| Implied value | $15,000,000 | $14,000,000 |
| Value above cost | $1,500,000 | $900,000 |
The revised configuration changes value above cost by -$600,000. A $60,000 recurring NOI reduction lowers value by $1,000,000, while saving $400,000 in cost. This is a hypothetical tenant-income effect; geometry does not automatically determine rent.
