Writing For Municipal Projects

Want to know what a ‘work in progress’ drawing of a relatively large scheme of apartments looks like ? Like this.   Early testing of a scheme’s viability.   About a year ago we were approached by an organisation tasked with selling an old vacant church and their associated plots of land. Somewhere in Yorkshire. Quite a complicated land sale, it involves: -          Old church buildings. -          Ministers house. -          Separate garden space. -          Separate large undeveloped plot of land nearby. -          Graveyard.   We agreed that rather than selling on as it is, we should conduct some loose feasibility studies to find out what could be done with the land to increase its value, ready for a quick exit, without paying out for the full development costs and associated risks.   All plots of land are in a conservation area and some are in the green belt. The old church is a gorgeous Victorian stone building, it oozes character, is totally unique and is built to last. So, several challenges there straight away to overcome.   We agreed to phase the project into separate ‘bite size chunks’ to make the land sale easier to manage. Phase 1 = old church buildings and ministers house. Phase 2 = other parcels of land.   We then worked out the old church buildings could be converted and retrofitted and would probably generate about 16 apartments over three floors and the separate plot of land could generate 2 x new build apartments blocks of 9 units each, 18 total units. Overall total units = 34 apartments. All based on exceeding the Nationally Described Space Standards for dwelling sizes.   To test the viability of this we submitted a Pre-application Planning Enquiry to the Local Planning Authority. About 6 months later we received a 20 page pre-app report. Yep, you read that right, about 6 months later! This informed us the church building conversion was viable and probably a go-er, subject to some highways and landscaping issues that needed to be overcome. We also received some useful feedback about the Phase 2 developments too.   This wasn’t necessarily an exercise in establishing a final agreed scheme, but rather just testing early viability of the schemes to see what was possible and acceptable in principle. This has now enabled the Client to make firm decisions about what to do next and when.   If there any developers who are interesting in finding out more about these sites, please send me a message! Andrew Wootton-Jones MRICS Helen Williams Ryan Malee 🏗️ Property Developer Heather Smail + anyone else..?   #Property #Strategy #Collaboration

⭐𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜 𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 #𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀⭐ In the simplest terms, the cost of delivering a new dwelling, such as: • land • planning & design • construction • taxes, charges, contributions • marketing & sales • financing (and time) • holding costs • margin for risk, overheads & profit    Must be at or below what the market will pay for said dwellings. Simple, right? 🤷🏻Developers logically won't build housing projects if not feasible - why would they? The NSW Productivity Commission recently reported on housing supply challenges in which they picked up the "feasibility gap"(https://lnkd.in/gAQHKbVa). It found the cost of building a new apartment is much higher than the price the market will pay for said apartment. Ergo, far fewer new apartments will be built than needed. 👷🏻♂️The biggest impact on feasibility is construction cost which has grown 40-50% since 2020. What many don't appreciate is a 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 impact on dwellings with a higher construction cost base - i.e. mid-high rise - compared to other types such as detached houses or townhomes. Everywhere but Victoria, greenfield style development is about feasible, but nowhere in the country is 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲 apartments workable. House prices need to rise in circa 20-30% from already high bases for apartments to approach feasible again - if you can find builders to do it. In Victoria where house prices have lagged, a 10% increase will make greenfields work again, whereas scale apartments need a 30-40% growth in underlying housing prices for feasibility to return. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘢 𝘨𝘢𝘱. ⏲️How long that will take is anyone's guess. Prevailing market price is key in the feasibility equation; the depth of market also needs to be considered. For example, it may be feasible to sell a certain number of dwellings at a given price point, but that does not translate to selling an unlimited number of homes in that location. Meeting needs of most new home buyers is more closely linked to overall borrowing capacity and income than whether a certain area can deliver new stock based on prevailling prices. Right now, across the country, median income earners cannot afford to buy apartments at scale to meet their housing needs and capacity. 🤔That's why I keep reiterating that the only solution in the short-mid term is a focus on unlocking more feasible housing types at scale - #greenfields and middle-ring townhomes. Or we'll have more people living in the gaps between buildings. #housingsupply #familysizedapartments #housingaccord #housingstatement #economics   UDIA Victoria UDIA National UDIA NSW UDIA NT UDIA Queensland Urban Development Institute of Australia (WA) Property Council of Australia

The Mayor published his draft London Plan yesterday and propviews will do a deeper dive next week. Within the suite of docs is the viability study that underpins the framework. For me it’s the central document. Here are five findings that every developer, housing association and planning professional needs to read: 🔴 35% affordable housing in inner London requires BOTH grant funding AND borough CIL relief to be viable. Remove either and it doesn’t pencil. The Mayor is proposing to restore 35% in Wandsworth, Southwark and Lambeth from 2028. Whether those conditions will be in place is not guaranteed. 🔴 Build to Rent is unviable in every single value band across London. Every one. The tenure the Mayor needs to diversify his pipeline doesn’t work under this policy framework. 🔴 Outer London (Value Band F) has no viable scenarios at any affordable housing level — 20%, 25% or 35%. None. 🔴 The study acknowledges demand-side measures are needed to support higher density viability. The draft Plan can offer none. 🔴 Construction cost inflation of 22% since 2020 — and forecast to keep rising at 3.5-4% per annum from 2027. The Mayor has published a plan his own evidence base says won’t deliver under the conditions he can control. PropViews will have the full analysis shortly. In the meantime the study is publicly available and worth reading in full. #LondonPlan #Housing #Planning #Viability #HousingCrisis #UKProperty #AffordableHousing

The real scandal in housing is not the price tag. It is the outdated process behind it. The data is already clear: • Modular / industrialized construction can reduce build time 20–50% and cut costs up to 20% when done at scale • Passive House–level buildings use 60–80% less energy for heating and cooling than conventional housing • Mass timber structures can reduce embodied carbon 20–50%+ compared to concrete and steel alternatives This isn’t theory. It’s already happening. Yet - we’re trying to solve a modern housing crisis in 2026 with 1950s construction logic. So here’s what could change outcomes… 10 innovations every affordable housing project should include. 1. Build homes like products, not one-off experiments Large parts of buildings are made in factories, then assembled on site. Outcome: faster timelines, predictable costs, better quality control. 2. Design the building envelope to do most of the work Thick insulation, airtight construction, high-performance windows. Outcome: lower energy bills forever, not just at move-in. 3. All-electric buildings with heat pumps One system for heating and cooling. No gas. Outcome: healthier air, lower operating risk, easier decarbonization. 4. Energy efficiency as a baseline, not a premium upgrade Good performance is baked in, not value-engineered out later. Outcome: people aren’t trapped by rising utility costs. 5. Neighbourhood-scale energy systems Shared solar, batteries, and smart controls across buildings. Outcome: resilience during outages and long-term cost stability. 6. Water systems designed for climate reality Rainwater capture, low-flow fixtures, flood-smart landscaping. Outcome: lower water bills and less pressure on city infrastructure. 7. Transportation costs designed down, not ignored Transit-first layouts, car-share, bike infrastructure, EV readiness. Outcome: households don’t need a second car just to function. 8. Lower-carbon materials where codes already allow them Mass timber, hybrid structures, smarter material choices. Outcome: big emissions cuts before the building is even occupied. 9. Simple building intelligence for operations Sensors that flag maintenance issues early. No fancy dashboards required. Outcome: fewer breakdowns, lower repair costs, better living conditions. 10. Permanent affordability by design Land ownership and resale rules that prevent price spirals. Outcome: homes stay affordable for the next family too. None of this is futuristic. None of this is experimental. The real innovation is treating affordable housing like critical infrastructure, not a budget compromise. If we can standardize these ideas, approvals get easier. If approvals get easier, housing gets built faster. If housing lasts longer and costs less to run, affordability actually sticks. That’s the system upgrade we need. #AffordableHousing #HousingInnovation #ModularConstruction #SustainableCities #Passivehouse #NetZeroBuildings #HousingCrisis

I see a younger version of myself in those rooms. I spent time with a UW Master’s in Real Estate team underwriting an infill townhome project. I went to UW. I’ve tried to stay close over the years, mentoring, coaching, answering the questions I wish I had asked earlier. They wanted to understand what actually drives timeline, cost, and risk in Seattle infill development. I thought others might benefit from the same answers. So here they are. They wanted to know where projects actually get delayed. → What truly drives cost. → What kills a deal in Seattle. Here’s what I told them. Timeline Design and permitting typically take 6–12 months depending on size and complexity. From breaking ground, expect 7–9 months to deliver the first building with the model unit, plus a few more months to complete construction. Frontage improvements and utility triggers must be understood early. The Street Improvement Permit (SIP) needs 60% approval before building permit submittal. If you don’t prioritize it early, you will delay yourself. Power has become a major variable. Applications need to start early, design timelines are long. Underground service is now required where overhead used to be common. We had a project where power costs moved from roughly $20K historically to nearly $340K under updated requirements. That kind of policy shift changes feasibility and has sparked a larger conversation with SCL on pricing transparency. Water meter applications must also be coordinated early. And the new SPU impact fee, about $5,700 per unit, needs to be underwritten from day one. Design & Cost Discipline The largest cost drivers are often invisible at first glance: → Site utilities and stormwater infrastructure → Shoring → Frontage improvements and full road panel replacements → Energy code compliance Stormwater alone has multiple compliant paths, each with very different cost implications. Choosing the wrong system has an outsized impact. What Buyers Actually Value Not price per square foot. Garages command a premium. I’ve seen smaller homes with garages sell for the same as larger homes without. Storage matters. Parking matters. Buyers consistently prioritize: → A strong primary suite → Kitchen + living + dining that feels intentional → Natural light → Privacy and sound separation → Private outdoor space, rooftop decks resonate → Work from home capability Most are dual-income households, often working in tech, frequently working from home. The product has to reflect how they actually live. What Kills Deals → Overpaying for land. → Underestimating utilities. → Assuming pricing will bail you out. Infill development rewards discipline. It’s less about maximizing upside and more about respecting complexity, utilities, frontage, code, trees, stormwater, and making deliberate decisions early. Cities improve when projects are led that way. That’s the lesson I hope they carry forward.

Governments often ask: “Why aren’t more Indigenous housing projects shovel-ready?” Here is the truth many Nations live with every day: They are not underprepared. They are underfunded. We cannot expect shovel-ready outcomes when we do not fund the steps required to get there. Predevelopment is not optional. It is foundational. Before a shovel touches the ground, Nations must invest in: • Community housing needs assessments •Governance alignment and policy development • Land use planning and servicing feasibility • Environmental and geotechnical studies • Asset management system development • Long-term operating and maintenance modeling • Capacity development and staff training • Strategic housing plans tied to population growth • Funding strategy development and proposal writing These steps take time. They take expertise. They take resources. Yet most funding programs are structured to support construction not the strategic planning that makes construction sustainable. Without funded predevelopment: • Projects stall at concept stage • Staff burn out chasing fragmented grants • Consultants are brought in temporarily without building local capacity • Nations are forced into reactive decision-making • Transformational ideas never leave the drawing board If governments truly want shovel-ready projects, then we must fund “readiness-ready” Nations. That means dedicated funding streams for: • Strategic housing and infrastructure plans • Asset management systems • Governance strengthening • Capacity building and technical training • Multi-year predevelopment funding windows • Indigenous-led feasibility and design processes Predevelopment funding is not overhead. It is nation-building infrastructure. Game-changing ideas do not appear overnight. They are built through planning, consultation, data collection, and community visioning. If we want sustainable housing outcomes, we must invest in the groundwork before the groundbreaking. I call on federal, provincial, and territorial governments to: • Establish consistent predevelopment funding programs • Remove barriers that prevent Nations from accessing planning dollars • Align funding cycles with community capacity realities • Recognize strategic planning as essential infrastructure Shovel-ready projects begin with strategy-ready Nations. Let’s stop measuring readiness by how quickly dirt moves. Let’s start measuring it by how strong the foundation is beneath it. #IndigenousHousing #InfrastructureFunding #Predevelopment #NationBuilding #CapacityBuilding #SelfDetermination

The #1 mistake I see new landowners make? They skip the feasibility phase… and jump straight into design. Here’s what that looks like: You spend $40K on an architect before you know if the zoning even allows what you want. You sign a construction loan… only to find out the soil can’t support your foundation plan. You assume a unit mix based on “vibes,” not real market comps and end up with rentals no one wants. These aren’t rookie errors. They’re expensive ones. $100K to $1M+ expensive. We’ve had deals where the feasibility study saved the project by killing it early. At GIS, we use a 7-step process to pressure test every site: Back-of-napkin → is this worth our time? Site study → what's buildable under code? Market check → will people pay for this? Financial model → does the pro forma pencil? Expert review → did we miss anything? Risk map → what could blow this up? Go/No-Go → do we really want to do this? It’s slow. Methodical. Not sexy. But it’s how you avoid becoming a LinkedIn cautionary tale about “the deal that could’ve worked.” If you’re sitting on land and wondering what it could be let’s talk. We’ll run it through the process together. Because sometimes the smartest move… is to not build at all.

Xpect Unforeseen Construction Issues Really there is no such thing as an unforeseen construction issue. It should be foreseen that there will be plenty of things that are unforeseen — if that makes sense. It is simply impossible to know every cost that will occur on a project due to every problem it will encounter, in advance. Therefore, in every feasibility, there should be a line item called ‘contingency’. Usually expressed as a percentage of construction, the contingency allowance covers the unforeseen issues that crop up during construction. Contingency should be a risk adjusted percentage based on the type of project, the stage you are at and the development team experience. That is, earlier in the project, and the more difficult the project -where you do not know or have not tested many of your assumptions- the contingency should be higher. Perhaps as high as 10% of project cost. When you pass the experience test and your assumptions have been worked through -typically when you are about to start construction- then contingency may reduce to say 4 or 5% of construction costs. If you know one element of construction has its own significant risk then you might choose to adjust contingency to specifically allow for it. For example, in a house and land development you may choose 5% of the house build budget and 10% of the civil works budget (to allow the higher risk of encountering problematic in-ground conditions). Or you might know that getting electricity to the site 'could' require a transformer and undergrounding lines. Rather than leave this to contingency, it should be an additional line item - say $500,000. The path to failure can start when contingency is not used appropriately, for example: ·   If there is no contingency in the budget, then more than likely everyone is in dreamland. ·   If the contingency is very low, then this is either an extremely simple development project, a project where the developer has extensive experience in similar conditions or more than likely it suggests some questionable and over-optimistic assumptions have been made. ·  When line items in the budget have been made artificially low (possibly to finance the project) with the hope that when additional costs are incurred, contingency will soak them up. ·  Obvious budget line items are missing, relying on contingency to absorb that cost during construction. ·  Contingency is regarded as a profit line item to be lost, rather than a cost likely to be incurred. Contingency exists to cushion the project failing from unforeseen construction (and design and consenting) issues. It is when contingency is exhausted that every additional cost hits the project’s bottom line. If there are enough unforeseen costs, then project failure results. It doesn’t take much to blow out a construction budget. On the flip side, too much contingency can kill a good project before you start...especially contingency on contingency... https://lnkd.in/gsQvsVWZ

A single parcel can support multiple strategies. The ability to study those strategies quickly, at a high level, is often what shapes the investment narrative before committing serious time or capital. Here is a recent example. I looked at a site for sale in Wynwood that is being marketed as commercial space. Whatever the ultimate plan turns out to be, the property will need work. The part that caught my attention was a courtyard-like space wrapped by a thin layer of retail, totaling roughly 4,100 square feet. The first question is simple: What are my options? For this site, I saw five potential paths: 1. Renovate the existing building into retail or commercial space 2. Keep the existing retail and build condo units in the courtyard 3. Demolish and build new retail 4. Demolish and build new mixed-use multifamily 5. Demolish and build new mixed-use condos The next step is quickly understanding the return on cost for each scenario. That is what allows me to eliminate most paths with confidence instead of getting lost in hypotheticals. When I ran the first-pass numbers, two options stood out. Renovating the existing retail looked like roughly a $6M project cost. Building new condos looked closer to $21M. The long-term goal seems to point toward a mixed-use condo project, but the timing depends on two major factors: capital availability and market saturation. So the real questions become: - Do we renovate now and build condos later? - Do we have the capital to create condos today? - Should we wait until current inventory is absorbed, or assume Wynwood will continue attracting new development for years to come? These are not easy questions, and I do not pretend to have all the answers. But one thing has become clear to me: The speed and clarity of the early analysis matter almost as much as the final decision. The faster I can model scenarios side by side, the sharper the investment narrative becomes. #RealEstateDevelopment #Wynwood #CommercialRealEstate #FeasibilityAnalysis #MixedUse

Feasibility is where we protect the investment before we even start designing it. Every great project starts long before the first line is drawn. For us, the real beginning is the feasibility study, the phase where we stop guessing and start understanding what the site, the numbers, and the market will actually allow. This is the moment where a project becomes real. Just because we have real clarity of the situation. A proper feasibility study looks at everything: zoning, setbacks, FAR, height limits, parking requirements, environmental constraints, utilities, flood zones, market comps, construction costs, absorption, and resale value. It’s where we identify opportunities, expose risks, and define the smartest path forward. Most people think feasibility is paperwork. But if you take advantage of this stage, it's pure, clear strategy and long-term investment. It’s the phase that tells you whether the project you want is the project you should build. And it’s where we align design ambition with financial intelligence, so every decision that comes after is grounded, intentional, and profitable.