Build Different. Build Better.

Your Family Can Afford A Better Multiplex

Escape Cost Overruns

Unless you build differently from the way everyone else in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland is designing and building duplexes, multiplexes (SSMUH), and houses, you will pay through the nose for the same shockingly high costs of construction that everyone else is facing. I'll share below the five main shifts in thinking you and your builder must adopt in order to get your project costs under control.

By far, most of the people who want to take advantage of the new SSMUH rules to build a multiplex cannot afford the exorbitantly high costs of construction, or believe that they're unable to afford anything better than minimum required by the building code. If you own an eligible property, you may want to build a home that your parents and your children can live in, or maybe you want your adult children to be able to move back in and start their own families. The opportunity created by Bill 44 in British Columbia isn't of any use to you if the cost to build is more than you have available to spend. Building a multiplex for your extended family needs to be comfortable, to provide a healthy indoor environment, and to last much longer than typical construction.

How To Design Better

Design Parameters

I've written a lot about the typical design process and why it handicaps a project... and I will continue to do so. Everyone rushes into floor plans without taking detailed, adequate stock of what their needs and their resources are. Individuals and corporations alike are reluctant to commit to deciding what their needs are, and often they may not understand their options either. They believe that withholding information forces the architect to develop a greater variety of options - ones which are not restrained by the client's thoughts.

I believe it's because not seeing what a corresponding floor plan looks like, they're afraid of getting it wrong. They want the freedom to be able to change their mind later. Some clients also don't want to reveal their budget because they assume the architect will create a design that uses it all up. They want to see how much they can get, for how little.

The problem with leaving a number of decisions until later during design or even during construction is that adjusting the project design or the contractor's subcontracts takes time, compromises the quality of the overall building, and prolongs the project.

The solution is a comprehensive and methodical study that captures and records in black and white the needs and objectives. In my process, I begin with the RAD Study™. This is a fixed-price service and carries no obligation to continue to the design phase. The report does lay down the groundwork for subsequent design if you do choose to move forward.

Let Go Of The Design Steering Wheel

Some designers and architects are not great listeners. That may be part of why many clients hesitate to give up creative control. It is difficult to trust someone else with decisions that affect your home, your finances, and your long-term plans. However, an architect works most effectively when the objectives and constraints are clearly defined, and they have the freedom to explore solutions within those boundaries. That is the job. A capable architect will work toward a result that supports your goals, fits your life, and stays within your budget — not just one that photographs well.

Other clients take the opposite approach. Rather than holding back, they try to design the project themselves. It can feel like the best way to ensure the outcome matches their expectations. In most cases, though, this approach cuts off better options before they are even considered.

If you hand your architect a layout you created and ask them to proceed with it, you are forfeiting most of the value they can bring to the table. That can include more thoughtful arrangements, simpler structures, alternative layouts, fewer compliance issues, and solutions that reduce cost without reducing quality. Many self-made designs include baked-in code violations, coordination conflicts, undesirable outcomes, or assumptions that later force compromises you could have avoided.

You should feel confident allowing your architect to develop and propose solutions. If you do not, it may be a sign that you have hired someone who is not the right fit for your project.

Design Approach

A common but costly mistake in residential design especially with custom homes and small-scale multi-unit buildings is working the exterior composition and an abstract floor plan too early. A plan is sketched to establish the outline, the elevations are shaped, and windows are arranged. The problem is that these drawings, though visually resolved, are only superficially complete. They don’t reflect how a building actually works — or how it gets built.

When structure, HVAC, plumbing, and other spatial requirements aren’t fully integrated into the design from the start, they inevitably show up later — usually during construction — as constraints or compromises. Beams land in the middle of rooms, ceilings drop to make space for piping, walls thicken or shift to accommodate duct runs. These are not refinements; they are ad hoc corrections. They are the physical consequences of unresolved coordination, and they usually come with change orders, delays, and additional costs.

This isn’t a matter of luxury vs. economy. Even high-end homes fall into this trap. A well-rendered exterior and crisply composed elevations often create the illusion of a resolved design, but once construction begins, it becomes clear that spatial, structural, and mechanical decisions were never made. The result is a building that costs more to construct and delivers less in performance, comfort, and efficiency.

This design-first (or design-only) approach also leaves the client in a vulnerable position. Changes made during construction are rarely in the client's interest. They’re often fast, reactive, and more expensive than they would have been had the building been planned properly. Worse still, clients don’t always see these compromises until after they've moved in — when ceiling heights vary inexplicably from room to room, or when a mechanical room grows and consumes some of what was planned as livable space.

These oversights compound over time. A home with uncoordinated systems is more difficult to service, less efficient, and harder to renovate. The lack of internal logic ages poorly, both in how the building performs and in how it feels to live in — something owners tend to notice only once they’ve been in the space for a few seasons.

By contrast, designing three-dimensionally from the outset with volume, structure, and systems fully integrated into the architectural process avoids these late-stage compromises. It requires more rigour early on, but it yields a home that is easier to build, less expensive to modify, and more satisfying to live in. It also respects the owner’s budget and expectations — something a set of pretty elevations, on its own, cannot guarantee.

Complete Consultant Team

Beginning a design without the full team of consultants - architect, structural and mechanical engineers, landscape architect, and other specialists - is a strategic error. Every one of these professionals carries requirements that will eventually shape the building, whether they’re included early or not. If their input arrives after the conceptual design has taken form, then the design must absorb that input through compromise. What once may have been efficient and invisible to the design becomes convoluted - mechanical systems pushed into leftover space, awkward jogs to handle structural loads, junctions becoming overly complicated and expensive. These late changes are rarely neutral; they almost always introduce added cost, coordination delays, and diluted performance. For clients investing in high-performance construction, this isn't just inconvenient. The late stage adjustments are an erosion of value. Starting with the right team from day one avoids this trap. A complete team from the beginning allows the design to integrate all technical demands cleanly, invisibly, and with intention, resulting in a home that performs better, costs less to build, and reflects a unified vision..

Pre-Construction Builder Involvement

Builders bring a reality check to the design. While architects craft the vision, it’s the builder who translates that vision into physical form, and he understands often better than anyone what it will take to actually build the project. The builder's insights into sequencing, material sourcing, labour flow, and seasonal constraints are invaluable. Without that input early on, even the most beautiful design can run into trouble during construction.

Involving a builder during design also helps strip away unnecessary complexity. A builder’s perspective allows the design to be refined toward simplicity, which directly translates into better craftsmanship, fewer on-site problems or errors, and smoother execution without sacrificing intent. For Net Zero and ultra high-performance homes, this alignment is essential rather than optional. These buildings demand rigorous precision, from airtight detailing to mechanical systems integration. A builder who’s been part of the design conversation understands not just what to do, but why the Passive House or Net Zero design features matter. That understanding is key to building homes that meet the high standards they were designed for.

This early collaboration is also your best defense against budget surprises. Too often, projects are designed in isolation from construction realities, only to collide with cost constraints later. When builders are involved from the outset, they can flag high cost items in real time and help keep the design in step with the budget to avoid the gut-wrenching compromises of late-stage value engineering.

Equally important is the tone the project sets. When builders are brought in only after the drawings are done, it creates a transactional, sometimes adversarial dynamic. They have had no hand in developing the design, but the expectation of successful execution is nonetheless placed entirely on them. When they’re included from the beginning, they become co-authors of the project. That shared authorship leads to deeper accountability, smoother communication, and a design process more aligned with the construction process.

Often, you aren't required to hire the same builder as you have during the pre-construction phase. However, using the same builder means that they construction managers are already familiar with the project and often have scheduled their resources and subcontractors to be available for when they're needed.

An additional benefit of engaging a builder to act as a consultant during design is being able to see what it's like working with that company. How attentive are they? How knowledgeable are their personnel? Do you get the impression that they have your best interests at heart?

I'm a technically-oriented architect, so these details of workflow and of construction which have very tangible consequences for the owner are at the forefront of my design process. If you'd like to book a free, 30-minute consultation with me to discuss how to move your development plans from the rough idea stage into the solid research phase, click the button below.

Book DIAGNOSTIC SESSION

---

DISCLAIMER:

The information included in this article is to an extent generic and intended for educational and informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal or professional advice. Thorough efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of the article, but having read this article, you understand and agree that Daniel Clarke Architect Inc. disclaims any legal liability for actions that may arise from reliance on the information provided in this article. I am an architect in BC, but readers are recommended to consult with their own architect on their specific situations before making any decisions or exercising judgement base on information in the article.

---