Architectural Feasibility Starts with Site Evidence

    Atlasly helps assemble the available site context for an early feasibility review. Use it to frame planning and design questions, record assumptions, compare options and identify the further work needed before a decision.

    What the first feasibility review should establish

    Start with four questions: what is the site and study boundary, what constraints may affect the proposal, what design assumptions need testing, and what information is still missing? Keep a source and a next action alongside each finding. This produces a brief the project team can review without mistaking an initial screen for a determination of permission or development capacity.

    Review the evidence available for the site

    • Planning context: identify relevant policy sources, their jurisdiction and the edition or adoption date.
    • Constraints: inspect available flood, heritage and environmental information, including coverage gaps.
    • Physical context: check the boundary, terrain and surrounding buildings against the needs of your study.
    • Movement and access: review available transport and walkability context with its geographic and methodological limits.
    • Options: distinguish a design assumption about height, access or capacity from an entitlement established by the authority.
    • Handover: review the sources, maps and available exports before sharing a brief with the team.

    From site analysis to an option

    An architectural site analysis provides context for testing an option. Begin with the observations that could change the design, such as a boundary assumption or an environmental constraint. Record what each option assumes and what further evidence would confirm or change it. Compare options against the same sources and study area so their differences are meaningful.

    A practical first review

    1. Confirm the address, study boundary and project question.
    2. Review returned sources and identify missing or uncertain information.
    3. List the issues that could change the brief, programme or design approach.
    4. Prepare an option with explicit assumptions and checks still required.
    5. Assign the next investigation, site visit, authority discussion or specialist review.

    The time required depends on the site, the information available and the decision being made. A preliminary evidence pack does not replace a measured survey, title review, cost appraisal or specialist assessment. Read the methodology and limits guide when deciding which findings can support the next step.

    Prepare the design handover

    Choose an export supported by the available workflow and your plan. Open a sample in the receiving application and check its coordinates, units, layer structure, geometry and level of detail. Import or conversion steps can differ between AutoCAD, Revit and SketchUp. The name of an application is not a promise of a native file format.

    Check current plans and export access before choosing the handover. Teams integrating the results into their own application can use the integration publication guide to review hosted MCP access and the separate REST contract’s pending verification. A plan allowance does not establish an available production REST operation.

    Use cases

    • Initial client discussion: establish the questions the brief must answer
    • Preparation of a site brief with sources and open issues
    • Comparison of options using consistent study assumptions
    • Preparation for an authority or specialist discussion
    • Assembly of context for a competition or concept study
    • Identification of further due diligence for a developer client

    Related solutions