“We’ll follow the architect’s drawings.” Every custom builder in the Lower Mainland says some version of it. What it actually means in practice, on site, when a detail is hard, when a substitution would save us money, when the trade has a faster way, is something different and worth being specific about.
This is how we think about it after forty years of working with architects in West Vancouver.
The drawings are the authority
When the construction documents are sealed and issued for construction, they are the agreement between the client and the design team. They are not a starting point. They are not a suggestion. They are the agreed design of the building, and the builder’s job is to construct what’s on the page.
This sounds obvious. It’s not, in practice. The pressures on a builder mid-project to deviate are constant, the trade has a different way to do it, a substituted material is more available, a detail looks hard, the margin is tight, a site condition makes the drawn detail awkward. Each of those is a pressure to change something on site. Each of those, on our jobs, becomes a conversation with the architect before anything changes, not after.
The four stages, and where we come in
Most clients understand the design stages in broad strokes. Where it matters for the builder relationship is which stage we get engaged at, and what that does to the project.
01
Schematic
Massing, siting, the broad design idea. Floor plans at low resolution.
02
DD
Design Development. Materials, systems, key details begin to resolve.
03
CD
Construction Documents. Full detail, sealed for permit and tender.
04
CA
Construction Administration. Architect on site through build, reviewing.
We prefer to engage at DD, design development. Schematic is too early; the design is still moving and our cost input would be premature. CD is too late; the details are sealed and our constructability input has to happen as RFIs against finished drawings. DD is the right phase, the architect has resolved enough of the design that we can price meaningfully, the details are still flexible enough that constructability concerns can be folded in before the CDs are drawn, and the trade selection conversations can begin in time to inform the documents.
This isn’t value engineering. It’s the opposite. It’s engaging the builder early enough that we don’t have to value-engineer mid-project, because the constructability conversations happened upstream, with the architect, before the design was locked.
When a detail is hard
On every custom home in West Vancouver there are details that are hard. A flush transition between two different floor materials, a sliding-door track that disappears into the floor plane, a structural cantilever that creates a tight thermal-bridge condition, a millwork piece that needs to thread between architectural features the architect wanted aligned.
When we hit one of these, the question on our jobs is not “how do we change this on site to make it easier.” The question is: does this need to go back to the architect. Usually, yes. The detail might be modifiable in a way the architect is comfortable with, a 3mm change in a reveal, a small shift in a sightline, or it might be exactly as drawn and the answer is that the trade needs to find the way to build it. Either way, the answer comes from the architect, not from us.
When we hit a hard detail, the question isn’t how to change it on site. The question is whether it needs to go back to the architect. Usually it does.
The RFI, the boring tool that does the work
Request for Information. When a question comes up on site that requires the architect’s input, a clarification, a confirmation, a change, it goes out as an RFI. The architect reviews, responds, and the response becomes the documented record of the decision. The trade then builds against the RFI response.
On our jobs the RFI log is open, current, and reviewed weekly with the design team. We’d rather raise twenty RFIs and have them all answered than make one assumption on site that turns out to be wrong. The RFI is the tool that lets the architect remain the author of the design through construction, and it’s the tool that protects everyone, the client, the architect, us, when something is in question.
When the substitution conversation comes up
It will come up. A specified product is on a long lead, a millwork shop has a slightly different way to detail a piece, a stone slab the size the architect drew isn’t available without a four-month wait. Substitution is a real and constant part of construction.
The rule on our jobs is straightforward: substitutions are proposed to the architect, not made on site. The architect reviews the alternate, confirms it meets the design intent (or doesn’t), and either approves it formally or asks us to find a different solution. The substitution becomes a documented decision in the project record, not an unrecorded change we made because it was easier.
This is the part that’s easy to say and harder to live. There are projects where the substitution conversation gets tense, the alternate is cheaper, faster, and the trade is pushing for it. Holding the line takes discipline. It’s the discipline that distinguishes a builder who follows the drawings from one who says they do.
What we won’t do
We won’t substitute spec mid-project to make a margin. We won’t change a detail on site without the architect’s sign-off. We won’t value-engineer a specified product after the documents are issued unless the architect and the client both agree. We won’t use a client’s mid-project frustration with a tight budget as cover for a unilateral spec change.
What we will do is bring our experience to the conversation early, in DD, before the documents are sealed, so that constructability and cost are part of how the design resolves. That’s the part where the builder adds value to the architect’s work. Not by replacing what was drawn after the fact.
The trust ladder
Every project we’ve done with a returning architect is built on the assumption that the previous project went the way we said it would. Same trades, same care, same answers to the same questions. That’s the only reason architects refer us to the next client, and it’s the only reason this works as a long-term business.
Most of our work in West Vancouver comes from architects we’ve built with multiple times. The list isn’t accidental. It’s the result of forty years of being the builder who builds what was drawn, and who brings the hard conversations back to the architect when they need to happen.
If you’re an architect with a project in West Vancouver and you want to know how we work in practice on a build, get in touch, happy to walk through a project we’ve done and the trades we work with.
