Why do complex development projects slip when the fundamentals looked right on paper? Rarely because of one dramatic failure. More often, they drift. Assumptions aren’t challenged early enough. Decisions get made that look small at the time. Projects move forward with unresolved issues that compound.
Across years leading development on both the public and private sides, through entitlements, financing, and delivery, I’ve seen the same patterns show up again and again.
Public and private measure success differently
One of the biggest differences between the two sides is how each defines a successful project, and the timeframe over which success is measured.
On the private side, a project needs to make financial sense. That means evaluating the cost of acquiring and preparing a site, risks uncovered during due diligence, capital required, expected return, and time to execute. Even with broader community benefits, the project has to be financially viable.
On the public side, objectives are broader. A project might be evaluated on its ability to create jobs, expand the tax base, revitalize an underutilized property, or generate activity in a neighborhood that has struggled to attract investment. Those outcomes can justify a longer view, but public resources come with a responsibility to demonstrate the investment serves the public interest.
These priorities can complement each other. They can also create friction. A municipality may see the long-term value in a project but struggle to accommodate the pace a private developer needs. A project that makes financial sense for a developer may not fully address the community’s priorities.
The key is establishing early what each party needs to achieve, what each is willing to contribute, and where there is room to negotiate. Public-private partnerships work best when those expectations are understood from the start, not when disagreements emerge later.
Projects rarely break for one reason
Projects rarely go off the rails because of one major issue. More often, it’s a combination of smaller problems that compound. An assumption that proves wrong. A decision that gets pushed back. An issue that isn’t fully resolved before the project moves forward.
Each one is manageable on its own. But when they build on one another, they have a significant impact on budget, schedule, and overall feasibility.
Many of these issues originate in the early stages of development. Site conditions, utility capacity, construction costs, and permitting requirements all influence what can realistically be built and at what cost. If those factors aren’t fully understood upfront, the team ends up revisiting earlier decisions or making adjustments that could have been avoided.
Problems also arise as a project moves from planning and design into execution. Decisions made early have downstream consequences, and unresolved issues don’t go away when a project advances. They become more expensive and difficult to address. When multiple parties are involved, it’s important to be clear about who is responsible for making decisions and resolving outstanding issues.
Successful project delivery comes down to identifying problems early, being realistic about risks, and addressing issues before they compound. You can’t anticipate everything, but getting the fundamentals right from the start puts you in a far better position.
The site tells you what the project really is
A critical early decision is understanding whether a site can realistically accommodate the proposed project, and what it will take to get it there.
A property may look attractive based on its location and purchase price, but environmental contamination, poor soil conditions, wetlands, threatened or endangered species, and infrastructure limitations can all affect the development approach, cost, and timeline. These are important considerations when evaluating industrial properties or larger development sites, and they often require an investment of time and money to assess properly.
The goal isn’t to eliminate every unknown before moving forward. It’s to understand the major constraints well enough to make informed decisions about the site’s potential. That may mean adjusting the site layout, budgeting for additional work, or accounting for a longer approval process.
The more clearly these issues are understood early, the better positioned the team is to develop a realistic plan and avoid surprises that could have a significant impact later.
Diagnosing a project that’s drifted
If I were handed a project six months in and struggling, I’d start by figuring out where it stands today compared with where it was expected to be, and why there’s a gap.
First, I’d revisit the original assumptions and the project’s financial position. Have construction costs changed? Have site conditions or utility requirements created unexpected expenses? Does the project still make financial sense based on what we know today?
Second, I’d look at what’s holding things up. Which decisions, approvals, design issues, or outstanding items are preventing progress? Which ones need immediate attention?
Third, I’d look at the people involved and how decisions are being made. Are the right parties engaged? Is it clear who has authority to make decisions and who is responsible for resolving outstanding issues? Sometimes the problem isn’t a lack of effort but a lack of clarity around what needs to happen next or who needs to make it happen.
From there, I’d focus on establishing a realistic path forward, prioritizing the issues that matter most, and making sure everyone understands their responsibilities and the decisions needed to get the project moving again.
Development isn’t a formula
Development is often made to look straightforward: identify an opportunity, secure the capital, get the necessary approvals, and build.
In reality, many factors determine whether a project actually comes together. A project may look financially viable on paper, but the costs and challenges of execution can change the equation. In other cases, a project that wouldn’t otherwise pencil out may become feasible with public investment or economic incentives.
Every project has its own set of circumstances, and what works for one may not work for another. There isn’t a standard formula for getting a project across the finish line.
That gets lost in how development is often discussed publicly, where the focus tends to be on the investment amount, the announcement, or the finished product. Those milestones are important. But they don’t tell the full story of what it took to make the project happen.
The real work happens earlier, and it rarely makes headlines.
Cody Brooks is Chief Program Officer at Swearingen Development Partners, a complex development leader across public and private sectors focused on entitlements/permitting, development finance, and delivery. His expertise includes development underwriting and pro forma analysis, capital/portfolio financial analysis, AE and stakeholder coordination, and navigating public-sector permitting processes. Learn more about Swearingen’s services here.
