Most clients come to us having already formed a mental picture of what an architect does. They imagine someone at a drafting table, or a computer, producing the drawings that a contractor will eventually follow. That picture isn’t wrong, exactly, but it is profoundly incomplete. The drawings are one output of a process that begins months before a pencil touches paper and doesn’t end until a building is fully occupied, every punchlist item is resolved, and every permit is closed. Understanding that full arc is the difference between hiring an architect and actually partnering with one.
We want to walk you through what that arc looks like, not as an abstract organizational chart, but as the lived sequence of decisions, conversations, and technical work that shapes every project we take on. If you are a pastor planning a new sanctuary, a nonprofit director managing a capital campaign, a developer evaluating a site, or a business owner about to undertake your first significant construction project, this matters to you directly. The more clearly you understand what we are doing and why, the better the outcome for both of us.
It Starts Before the Design
The first thing we do on any project isn’t design. It’s listen, evaluate, and ask hard questions. Before a single concept sketch exists, we are already doing serious work: analyzing the site, reviewing zoning ordinances, and understanding what can legally be built on a given parcel and under what conditions. This phase, sometimes called programming or pre-design, is where the foundation of a successful project is actually laid. A church that wants to build in a residentially zoned area may need a conditional use permit before construction can begin. A developer eyeing a particular commercial lot may not realize that setback requirements, parking minimums, or height restrictions will fundamentally constrain what’s possible. We identify those constraints early, before anyone has fallen in love with a design that can’t be approved, because catching a fundamental mismatch between vision and zoning reality at the pre-design stage costs almost nothing compared to discovering it after months of design work.
Site evaluation goes well beyond zoning. We are looking at topography, drainage, utility access, soil conditions, and orientation, all the physical realities that will affect how a building performs and what it will cost to build. A site that looks affordable on paper can become expensive quickly if it requires significant earthwork, retaining structures, or utility extensions that weren’t accounted for in the initial budget. Discovering these factors before a purchase is made, or before the design is developed, protects our clients from decisions they would regret. We have seen this kind of early analysis save clients from six-figure surprises that would have been invisible to anyone not trained to look for them. That is the kind of work that saves money you never knew you were about to spend, and it is the reason we treat the pre-design phase as seriously as any other part of the process.
The Design Phases: More Than Aesthetic Decisions
Once programming is complete and a site is confirmed, design begins, and it happens in deliberate stages for a reason. The schematic design phase is where we establish the broad strokes: the building’s footprint, massing, general layout, and character. This is where the vision takes shape and where clients rightly have the most visible input. But even at this early stage, we are making decisions that carry technical weight. How a building is oriented affects daylighting and energy performance across its entire lifespan. How circulation is organized affects code compliance, occupancy classifications, and cost. What looks like a purely aesthetic choice is often a structural or regulatory decision wearing a design hat, and part of our job is making that transparent so you understand what you are actually deciding, not just what it looks like on a sketch.
Design development deepens those early decisions into something more specific and coordinated. We are now working with structural engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers, civil engineers, and often specialty consultants, coordinating their work so that a duct doesn’t run where a beam needs to go, so that a fire suppression system is properly accounted for in ceiling heights, so that the mechanical room is located somewhere that actually functions for the building’s long-term operation. By the time we reach construction documents, the full set of drawings and specifications that a contractor will bid and build from, hundreds of coordination decisions have already been made and resolved through careful back-and-forth among the project team. The drawings look like the product. The coordination behind them is the real work, and it is what separates a set of documents that builds cleanly from one that generates confusion and change orders throughout construction.
Navigating the Municipality
Before a contractor can break ground, those drawings need to be reviewed and approved by the local building authority, and often by multiple agencies depending on the project type. Permit submission is not a simple form-filing exercise. It requires understanding what each reviewing body is looking for, how to present the documentation clearly, and how to respond to review comments efficiently when they come back. Delays at the permit stage are real and costly: a project sitting in plan review longer than necessary is a project that costs more to hold, may miss a favorable construction season, and can push completion dates that matter enormously to a congregation that has already told its members when they will be moving into the new building.
For certain project types, this phase involves considerably more than the building department. Churches and assembly buildings face specific occupancy requirements that trigger additional code analysis. Projects near flood zones require coordination with applicable regulatory frameworks. Historic properties trigger review by preservation boards with their own standards and timelines. Commercial projects in municipalities with active planning and zoning commissions may require public hearings where the design is presented and questioned by board members and neighbors alike. We have been through these processes enough times to know how to prepare for them, how to present effectively, and how to anticipate the objections that tend to arise before they derail a hearing. That experience is not a minor convenience. It is a material asset to the project timeline and budget, and it is one of the reasons that working with a firm that has genuine depth in this area is worth considerably more than the fee difference might suggest.
Construction Administration: The Phase Most Clients Don’t Expect
Here is where a great deal of the misunderstanding lives. Many clients assume that once the drawings are complete and the permit is issued, the architect’s work is essentially finished. The contractor takes over, the building goes up, and the architect’s role becomes peripheral. This assumption is one of the most costly mistakes a building owner can make. Construction administration, the architect’s active involvement during the construction phase itself, is where the design is either faithfully executed or quietly compromised, and the difference between those two outcomes often comes down to whether an experienced set of eyes is watching closely enough to catch problems before they become permanent features of the building.
During construction, the contractor and their subcontractors encounter conditions that drawings cannot fully anticipate. A concrete pour reveals a soil condition that wasn’t reflected in the geotechnical report. A window manufacturer’s shop drawing differs subtly but meaningfully from what was specified. A structural member needs to be repositioned because of a coordination issue discovered in the field. Each of these situations generates a Request for Information, commonly called an RFI, that comes to us for resolution. How we respond determines whether the project stays true to its design intent, its budget, and its code compliance. A contractor making independent decisions without architectural review is a contractor guessing, and the building owner absorbs the consequences of those guesses long after the contractor has moved on to the next job. The numbers on this are sobering: according to a KPMG global construction survey, only 31% of projects over a three-year period came in within 10% of their original budget. Inadequate oversight during construction is a leading contributor. The math on staying engaged is not complicated.
We also review and approve submittals throughout construction: the detailed drawings, product data sheets, and material samples that contractors submit before installation. A roofing submittal that deviates from the specified system may void a manufacturer’s warranty that the building owner is counting on. A structural steel submittal with incorrect connections may require expensive rework if it reaches the field before anyone catches it. Catching these issues at the submittal stage, before material is ordered or work is performed, is significantly cheaper and far less disruptive than discovering the problem after installation is complete. We treat every submittal review as a genuine responsibility, not an administrative formality, because that is exactly what it is.
Observation, Not Inspection, and Why the Distinction Matters
One nuance worth naming clearly: the architect’s site visits during construction are professional observations, not continuous inspections. We are not the contractor’s supervisor, and the contractor bears primary responsibility for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction. What we are doing during site visits is observing whether the work, as visible at that moment, generally conforms to the contract documents. When we see something that doesn’t conform, whether that’s work deviating from drawings, materials that weren’t approved through the submittal process, or conditions that raise a technical question, we document it and work with the contractor to address it. This is not adversarial oversight. It is the ongoing maintenance of the integrity of what the building owner paid to have built.
For our church and nonprofit clients in particular, this matters in a way that goes well beyond the technical. A congregation raises money over years to build a facility that reflects their values and their vision. The renderings shown to donors during a capital campaign represent a promise made to the people who gave sacrificially to make the building possible. Construction administration is how that promise is kept. When we are actively present during construction, reviewing submittals, responding to RFIs, and conducting regular site observations, we are protecting that investment. That feels like a serious responsibility, because it is, and we carry it that way on every project regardless of size or budget.
Closeout and the Work That Comes After
Construction ends, but the architect’s work doesn’t stop at the ribbon cutting. Project closeout involves verifying that all punchlist items, the final list of incomplete or incorrect work that must be resolved before the contractor is paid in full, are properly addressed and documented. It involves collecting and transmitting warranties, maintenance manuals, and as-built documentation to the building owner in a form they can actually use. It involves coordinating the final inspections required for the certificate of occupancy. None of this is glamorous, but all of it matters practically. A building owner who doesn’t receive proper warranties and maintenance documentation is a building owner who will face avoidable problems in the years ahead, and they will face them without the information they would need to resolve them efficiently.
Beyond the administrative closeout, we consider our relationship with a client to extend well past the construction of any single project. Buildings have lives. They get used in ways that weren’t fully anticipated. Congregations grow and need expansion. Businesses evolve and their facilities need to evolve with them. The knowledge we accumulate about a building during its design and construction, the decisions made, the alternatives considered, the conditions encountered and documented, is genuinely valuable when that building needs attention years later. We believe in being that long-term resource not because it is good for business, though it is, but because it is the right way to take care of the clients and communities we serve. The projects we are most proud of are the ones where the relationship outlasted the construction contract by a decade or more.
At UNITE, our work across more than a thousand projects has taught us that the full-service architect relationship, one that runs from pre-design through long-term stewardship, is not just a service model. It is the only approach that consistently produces buildings that work as intended, stay within budget, and serve their communities well for the long term. If you are in the early stages of a construction or renovation project, whether it’s a new church facility, a commercial building, a hotel renovation, or an expansion of your existing space, we would welcome a conversation about what that kind of partnership looks like for your specific situation. Reach out and tell us where you are in your thinking. We are happy to start there.
