Commercial construction delays are often blamed on slow city review processes, but according to Mike Marden, a registered architect and licensed general contractor at WDS Architecture in Phoenix, the most damaging delays occur before a single permit document is filed. Marden identifies two key pre-submission problems: relying on informal city conversations and following a sequential project model that treats permitting as a gate before any construction activity.
Marden says clients frequently call the city for guidance, receive generic answers, and then plan their schedules around that advice. “They often say, ‘We already spoke with someone at the city. They said we just turn in this form and this is roughly the time,’” Marden notes. But these conversations are not documented, and city employees often provide generic checklists that may not apply to the specific project. This can lead to unexpected requirements surfacing later, costing months.
Beyond misinformation, Marden points to a structural flaw in how projects are sequenced. The conventional approach—complete design, submit for permits, wait for approval, then start construction—means nothing else happens during the review period. “The client’s lease clock is running. The contractor is standing by,” he says. Additionally, clients often delay contractor selection until after drawings are complete, adding weeks or months before permits are even submitted.
Marden emphasizes that professionals who meet their timelines compress the process rather than simply moving faster. They engage the city early with preliminary questions, understand specific inspector requirements, and begin non-permitted construction activities while review is underway. This parallel approach is only possible when the architect and contractor are integrated from the start. Marden explains that at WDS, “We can start building the project as we’re turning in for a permit,” because the same team handles both design and construction, allowing work to proceed up to the first inspection.
WDS Architecture’s dual credentials as both an architecture firm and general contractor enable this strategy. By mobilizing for staging, layout, scoping, and other non-permit activities during review, they compress timelines without cutting corners. The firm also uses ongoing relationships with local jurisdictions to anticipate realistic requirements, and they advise clients on permitting during site selection. Marden notes that a cheaper location may carry hidden permitting complexity, while a more expensive clean site could lead to a faster opening.
For business owners planning a commercial build-out in Phoenix, the implication is clear: the expected permitting timeline often understates reality, and the gap often originates in pre-submission decisions, not city processing speed. Engaging a team that understands local requirements and can work in parallel may be key to avoiding costly delays.
