The decision before the design
Before paying for more detail, decide what would make you advance, resize or walk away from a site. A good review turns the biggest unknowns into specific questions, with an owner and a next action for each.
Start with the operation you want to build.
“A data centre on this land” leaves a lot open. A small proof of concept, a growing cloud operation and a large campus can need very different connections, layouts and schedules. Describe the first phase and the intended expansion separately. A site that works for one may not work for the other.
Write down the IT load, expected total facility demand, target opening date, cooling approach and connectivity requirement. State whether each number is a requirement, a working assumption or a choice still to be made. Atlas’s micro, small and large profiles are starting points for that conversation; they do not establish what a site can support.
Draw the land you are considering, including likely access and service corridors. Keep the source of that boundary alongside it. A hand-drawn analysis area is useful for screening, but it does not establish title, ownership or a surveyed boundary.
Related: How the project profiles change the site questions.
Ask a person to challenge the first screen.
A promising first screen is useful only if the evidence behind it fits the project. Look at the records that drove the result, how old they are and where coverage stops. A nearby utility line can justify an enquiry; it cannot answer the enquiry. A blank municipal layer should leave a question open.
The human review should concentrate on the few assumptions that could change the decision. For a time-sensitive project, the connection schedule may matter more than a shorter fibre route. For a constrained parcel, access, equipment space or a service corridor may decide whether any concept is worth developing.
| Evidence in the screen | Question for the next conversation |
|---|---|
| Power infrastructure nearby | Can the utility serve the proposed facility load at this site, on the required schedule? What studies, works and commercial steps would be needed? |
| Fibre or broadband coverage | Which carrier can quote service to the property? Can it explain the physical route, delivery date and any shared route risks? |
| A water feature or mapped main | Does the proposed cooling design need water service? Who can confirm supply, discharge conditions and seasonal constraints for that use? |
| An apparently usable parcel | What do the owner’s records, planning authority and project advisers say about the intended use, access and buildable area? |
Record replies with their date, source and limits. “Discussed with the operator” and “an agreed connection offer for this load” are different evidence. The report should make that difference easy to see.
Go beyond the public map.
The free automated screen uses public data. A separate commissioned review can bring authorized private and paid data sources, where available, into the same decision: licensed property or utility data and authorized utility or carrier responses, along with surveys, title and easement records where relevant.
Check the source and date of each record, the site or boundary it covers and the project scope it addresses. Reconcile it with the public screen. A letter about an earlier load or a plan for a neighbouring parcel should not become evidence for the current proposal. Document what is confirmed, on what conditions, and what remains unresolved before carrying the findings into concepts and next steps.
Before work begins, agree record availability, permissions, permitted sharing and any third-party fees. An Atlas account or paid engagement does not automatically unlock ICI Society, province-wide BC Assessment or commercial listing data.
Underground infrastructure needs particular care. A screening map does not clear construction work. BC 1 Call explains that a locate request notifies participating owners; some services on private property may require separate investigation. A locate ticket itself is not clearance to dig. Read BC 1 Call’s contractor guidance.
Use concept work to test choices.
A useful concept makes trade-offs visible. It might compare a smaller first phase with later expansion, explore where electrical and cooling equipment could sit, or identify the corridors that need a direct conversation with an owner or operator. The concept should show which inputs are confirmed and which remain assumptions.
Keep the questions close to the drawing. If a layout depends on an unconfirmed service entrance, mark it. If an option uses land outside the area under discussion, identify the dependency. An attractive plan that hides those conditions can create more work later.
Decide what the concept needs to resolve before the work begins. For one site, the useful output could be a comparison of two servicing approaches. For another, it could be a clear reason to stop before commissioning detailed design.
What the Atlas engagement is for.
The Site Feasibility & Concept Design engagement is offered at $7,500 CAD. It includes a human-reviewed report and 25 hours of Driftwood design consultation and concept work, additional to report preparation. It is intended to move a serious candidate from an automated screen into a reviewed project brief and a useful concept conversation.
Before purchase, agree the site, project brief, available records, review questions, deliverables and use of those consultation hours. That agreement should say which evidence will be checked, what concept work fits the scope and what still needs specialist or operator input. Authorized private and paid data sources, where available, can be considered when access and reuse rights allow.
The engagement does not itself confirm utility capacity or secure a service connection, land rights or development approval. Surveys, utility studies, third-party charges, permitting and detailed engineering need their own agreed scope where required. A decision to proceed to design or construction is a later conversation.
“Reviewed” should describe actual work done. The finished report should identify the evidence checked, unresolved questions and assumptions carried into a concept—so the next team can use it without guessing.
Give the next team a brief it can use.
As a project advances, carry forward the chosen concept, dated evidence, open questions and dependencies. Each open item needs an owner and a decision point. That makes it easier to ask for a defined piece of design or construction work, and to understand what a quotation includes.
Driftwood’s published services include telecommunications planning and design, project management, civil engineering, and aerial and underground network construction. The relevant team and scope depend on the project; a data centre can also need other specialist disciplines. Explore Driftwood’s services.
Bring these to the first discussion
- The location and analysis boundary, plus any surveyed or owner-supplied plan.
- Your relationship to the property and what access or permissions you have.
- First-phase and expansion requirements, with the target date and flexible assumptions marked.
- Existing reports, service records and operator correspondence, with sharing permissions.
- The decision you need to make next—and the evidence that would change it.
You do not need every answer to start. Knowing which answers are missing is what makes the first discussion productive.
Bring a site. Leave with better questions.
Explore a candidate in Atlas, then use the evidence to decide whether a scoped human review and concept discussion would help.
This guide describes a practical project workflow. The required investigations, approvals, consultants and deliverables depend on the site and the agreed engagement. Public-data screening supports those decisions; it does not replace them.