Choosing the Designer
The choice of architectural designer has a decisive impact on the success or failure of the entire development project. It can be judged and managed across several core dimensions:
1. Professional ability and experience Structural design is, first, technical work demanding solid expertise and accumulated experience, including but not limited to:
- A deep understanding of structural systems (timber, steel, concrete, etc.)
- Practical experience with loads, seismic design, and foundations (especially Richmond’s soft soils)
- The ability to produce reasonable, cost-conscious designs without compromising safety
- Design that is sensible, buildable, and not over-engineered
2. Understanding of local policy and approval logic In the Vancouver/Richmond market, design ability is only the baseline. More important is:
- Familiarity with core planning metrics — zoning, FAR, setback, height
- An understanding of the municipal approval process (the coordinated logic of Planning / Building / Engineering)
- Proven success on comparable projects (duplex, fourplex, SSMUH)
- In essence, a strong designer does not passively follow the rules but helps secure a better outcome within what policy allows
- The underlying logic of development is “maximizing within the rules,” not mechanically obeying them
- This requires a designer who understands the boundaries — and is willing to work right up to the edge
3. Communication efficiency and responsiveness The design phase is often a process of repeated revision and continuous optimization, so:
- Are responses timely?
- Is the designer willing to accommodate multiple rounds of adjustment?
- Can they quickly grasp and translate our requirements?
- These directly affect project pace.
- In practice, a “slow but professional” designer is often worth less than one who is “professional enough and efficient.”
4. Understanding development logic, not just design logic A strong designer should have a degree of development thinking:
- Do they understand cost and profit structure?
- Can their design balance construction feasibility with cost control?
- Can they accommodate future sales (unit mix, function, circulation, etc.)?
- Otherwise you risk a design that “looks great but isn’t profitable or sellable.”
5. A practical way to screen designers You can screen quickly by:
- Reviewing past projects (especially local ones with similar zoning)
- Communicating directly once or twice to test their comprehension and responsiveness
- Asking specific questions (e.g. “What is the maximized four-unit scheme for this lot? Where can it be optimized?”)
6. Potential problems The designers we encounter may have two main issues:
- Insufficient understanding of Richmond’s SSMUH policy. Some designers have baseline design ability but lack a deep understanding of the latest local policy (especially SSMUH) and real project experience.
The risk with these designers:
- They cannot offer effective direction at the early stage
- The design process is prone to repeated revision, even complete redos
- They cannot help secure policy headroom at key points
Conclusion: A designer who does not adequately understand policy should not be used, even if their design ability is acceptable.
- Fees that do not match value. Maintaining high fees despite weak policy understanding is, in essence, “a premium without core value.”
What we need is not merely “design services,” but design capability that can participate in project optimization and profit improvement.
Core principle for the Application Phase Once you enter the application phase, the focus shifts from “design” to “driving it forward.” You must:
- Follow up continuously (Planning / Building)
- Communicate proactively rather than wait passively
- Identify issues early and adjust ahead of time
Because in the current environment: approval time is itself a cost. Securing approval one month earlier is equivalent to directly adding to project profit.
