How to fast track a residential project: the benefits and trade-offs

Most clients want two things from a building project: to achieve the home they have imagined, and to move in as quickly as possible. For many, speed is their number one priority. Whether it is driven by upcoming school years, funding timelines, or simply the desire to stop renting and settle in, we are often asked: How fast can we realistically get this done?

The answer depends entirely on how the project is structured. There are ways to significantly shorten the timeline, but they come with trade offs. This post explores what it takes to fast track a residential project, what the risks are, and when it might be the right choice.

The traditional route: methodical, low risk with cost certainty

The RIBA Stages of work are recommended

Most high end residential projects follow a carefully sequenced process, aligned with the RIBA stages. This approach is structured to minimise risk, allow thoughtful decision making, and ensure strong cost control. It is the route we recommend for most clients, especially where design quality, budget management and planning outcomes are critical.

The typical sequence includes:

• Stage 0 to 1: Initial studies and brief

• Stage 2: Concept design

• Stage 3: Developed design for planning

• Stage 4: Technical design for construction and tender

• Stage 5: On site works

Each stage informs the next. Time is built in for coordination, statutory approvals, and pricing certainty before construction begins. While it may take longer than clients initially expect, it reflects the reality of permissions, procurement and high quality design. Most importantly, it gives clients cost confidence and protects the integrity of the project.

A faster model: running stages in parallel

Project management can help with understanding the how to stage your project

There are alternative routes one can follow. They are not recommended by RIBA, but they can dramatically reduce the time it takes to complete a residential project. These routes involve overlapping the key stages of design, procurement and construction rather than following them sequentially.

• Begin technical design before planning permission is granted

• Prepare tender packages while refining drawings and coordinating consultants

• Appoint a contractor for early stage enabling works before the full design is complete

• Begin on site with strip out, demolition and first fix while final decisions on finishes and joinery are still in progress

• Start procuring long lead items before the project is fully priced

This approach can be effective, with some clients moving in six to twelve months earlier than the traditional route would allow.

But as with anything there will be compromises and trade-offs to be made with this approach which we detail below.

A project on site nearing completion in a Georgian home

What this approach demands

1 . A client who understands how speed changes the process

Fast track projects rely on overlapping drawing sets, evolving packages and ongoing design development. In this environment, it is not always possible to preempt every coordination issue in advance. That is not a sign of negligence — it is the natural trade off that comes with moving quickly.

When a project runs sequentially, each package is developed in a calm, ordered way. Lighting, joinery, finishes and structural design can all be reviewed together before any decisions are finalised. That clarity protects the client from surprises later on.

In a fast track model, however, the design team may be developing a new joinery package while lighting is already being installed, or selecting bathroom fittings while finishes are being ordered. This means that even with an experienced and diligent design team, there is a greater risk of occasional misalignment. For example, a lighting layout may no longer suit a dressing room once the joinery is redesigned. A wall finish may be affected by a late change to a door detail. These are not major failures, but rather typical outcomes of a live, parallel process.

Clients also need to understand that architects still have a legal and professional responsibility to coordinate the design and ensure compliance. That cannot be compromised. If a late decision introduces structural, safety or regulatory complexity, the project must pause while the team resolves it. This may slow progress temporarily, but it protects the project from larger problems later on.

The reality is that pace does not mean everything keeps moving at all times. It means the project progresses faster overall, but with more live decisions, more moving parts, and occasional moments when the programme has to adjust to maintain design integrity.

2. Acceptance of reduced cost certainty

Because parts of the design are still evolving as works begin, some pricing will be provisional. You may need to authorise expenditure on items or packages before the full picture is confirmed, which introduces the risk of changes and variations. This is not the model for clients who need a fully locked down cost before proceeding.

In many cases, a traditional lump sum contract cannot be agreed until the design and specification are frozen. If early site works need to begin before that point, a cost plus contract may be used instead. This allows the builder to proceed on a transparent basis, with costs tracked as they arise, and a percentage added to cover overhead and profit. It can be an effective way to keep momentum without compromising on quality — but it does mean the total construction cost will remain flexible until the full scope is defined.

3.Tolerance for design risk

If you begin technical drawings before planning permission is secured, or start work on site before all packages are coordinated, you must be comfortable with the possibility of abortive work or redesign. While we use our expertise to minimise this, the risk cannot be eliminated entirely.

4. A flexible fee structure

Because this approach does not follow a neat, sequential path, there is often no clear way to define the full scope of work at the outset. Design and coordination work may need to be revisited or adjusted as decisions unfold in real time. For this reason, architectural and interior design fees are more likely to be charged on an hourly basis. This allows the team to remain responsive and involved throughout the process, without trying to second guess outcomes that are still evolving.

5. An exceptional contractor with the right structure in place

This approach only works if the builder is highly organised, well resourced and used to live coordination. That means:

• A dedicated and experienced in house project manager leading the programme

• A large internal team of trades, not a loose network of subcontractors

• Daily site presence and issue resolution as standard

• Familiarity with running a project where details evolve during construction

The contractor must be able to respond quickly and maintain momentum. Small firms who assemble teams trade by trade, or rely on reactive scheduling, will struggle with this model. It requires full time project management, joined up thinking and regular coordination with the design team.

What are the benefits?

The main advantage, of course, is time. You may move into your home six to twelve months earlier than if the project were delivered sequentially. That is six to twelve months of:

• Not paying rent or living in temporary accommodation

• Not carrying bridging finance or incurring interest on delays

• Not losing time on the use and enjoyment of your home

It can also create momentum. Some clients find that the pressure to decide actually helps, removing the temptation to agonise over small details or revisit decisions repeatedly.

And in some cases, it is necessary. This model to get families moved in before a new baby is due or if a particular tax law is due to change.

Where this model comes from: how developers move quickly

This is not new in the wider industry. Property developers have worked this way for decades, compressing timelines by running planning, design, procurement and site activity concurrently.

They accept risk and budget for changes, because time saved is often worth more than the cost of rework. They also use well established contractor partnerships, where builder and design team are in sync from day one. These builders have strong internal project management, consistent on site presence, and well coordinated trade teams.

While private clients do not always have the same risk appetite, the model works just as well, as long as expectations are set from the outset and the right team is in place.

When this approach is not right

It is not for everyone. This model is not suitable if:

• You are unsure of your design direction or want to explore lots of options

• You want every cost confirmed before you spend

• You need time between decisions to reflect or seek feedback

• You are planning to work with a contractor based on lowest price

• Your project is in a highly sensitive conservation area with unpredictable planning constraints

It is best suited to clients who are time conscious, decisive and financially ready to proceed, and who understand that some degree of rework or design change is a natural part of working at pace.

Final thoughts

Fast tracking a residential project is entirely possible, and in the right circumstances it can be the most rewarding route. But it only works when everyone understands the model, accepts the risks, and is set up to deliver with clarity and discipline.

As architects, our role is to be honest about those risks, structure the process to reduce them, and work with consultants and contractors who are comfortable building in this way.

If you are facing tight deadlines and want to explore how a faster model might work for your project, we would be happy to discuss whether it is the right fit.