Why “tough” cities are not the enemy

Ask any architect or builder about the hardest place to get a permit and you will get a story.

The city with endless comments.

The inspector who knows every line of the handbook.

The jurisdiction everyone warns you about on your first day.

It is easy to put those places on a blacklist. “Too strict.” “Too slow.” “Impossible.”

Maor Greenberg, our co-founder and CEO, has a simple view: if you respect the process, the hardest cities should actually be the easiest ones to work in. The rules are clear. The expectations are clear. The reviewers care. That is not a bad combination when real families are going to live under the beams you are drawing.

At Spacial, we sit in the middle of that tension every day: teams trying to move faster, and cities whose job is to protect public safety. This piece is about how those “tough” jurisdictions can actually be your safest, most predictable partners when you treat them that way.

What “tough” usually means

Behind the horror stories, strict cities tend to have a few things in common:

• Reviewers actually read what you submit.

• Local amendments are enforced, not just posted on a website.

• Vague notes and half-drawn details come back with questions.

That can feel harsh if your set is loosely coordinated or light on documentation. It feels very different when you send in plans that are clear, consistent, and complete.

The city has a job: protect the people who will live in or walk through every structure they approve. You have a job: tell the truth on paper about how that structure works. The friction comes when those two missions drift apart.

Inspectors as “free project managers”

Maor often describes strict inspectors as “free project managers” for the public. They notice patterns, catch recurring mistakes, and remember what went wrong on previous jobs.

That perspective changes the tone of review:

• A long comment list is not punishment. It is a to-do list to make the project safer.

• A tough question is a chance to clarify something that might confuse crews later.

• A second cycle is sometimes the cost of discovering issues on paper instead of in the mud.

None of this means delays are fun or staffing gaps are acceptable. It simply acknowledges that when a city looks closely, it is often doing unpaid coordination work on behalf of everyone else.

Good drawings respect that effort instead of fighting it.

Three shifts that make strict cities easier to work with

From what we see across hundreds of permits, three habits change the dynamic dramatically.

1. Design with review in mind, not around it

Instead of treating plan check as a hurdle at the end, we assume a reviewer will read every critical note and trace every load path. That means:

• Structuring sheets in a way that matches how cities prefer to read them.

• Making code references explicit instead of implied.

• Showing how architectural intent, structure, and MEP all hang together.

When a set reads like a clear story instead of a puzzle, review moves faster, even in the strictest jurisdictions.

2. Bring local knowledge into the design room

Every city has unwritten habits: the detail they always ask for, the energy note they constantly flag, the way they prefer to see lateral systems drawn.

We treat those not as “annoying preferences,” but as real constraints. Inside Spacial, city-specific expectations feed into our internal libraries and checklists so they show up in the design phase, not as surprise comments weeks later.

The goal is not to game the system. It is to show up prepared.

3. Keep accountability very simple

The more teams and tools involved, the easier it is for responsibility to get blurry.

Our view is straightforward: AI should behave like spellcheck, not stamp. Agents can surface patterns, highlight conflicts, and remind us of local quirks. Licensed engineers still review, decide, and sign. There is one coordinated set and a clear owner of the outcome.

For cities that are serious about safety, that clarity matters more than any buzzword.

How Spacial works with “tough” jurisdictions

Spacial exists for the exact moment when plans move from design into public review.

Our engineers and AI agents work together on:

• Coordinating structural, MEP, and energy so conflicts are resolved before submittal.

• Baking local requirements into notes and details, instead of leaving them in someone’s bookmarks.

• Presenting documentation that a busy reviewer can actually follow without guesswork.

We do not control staffing levels at building departments. We do control whether the set in front of them is clean, honest, and complete.

When that is true, the strictest cities often become the easiest to work with. Comments make sense. Expectations are consistent. Approval feels less like rolling the dice and more like finishing a checklist.

The upside of “hard” cities

“Tough” jurisdictions are not going away. If anything, more places will move in that direction as codes tighten and public scrutiny grows.

You can fight that, or you can treat it as an invitation to raise your own bar.

At Spacial, we choose the second path. We design for the inspector who takes their job seriously and the family who will one day flick on the lights for the first time. If a city pushes us to be clearer and more careful, that is not an obstacle. That is alignment.

If you are working in a place everyone warns you about and want a partner who respects that level of scrutiny, we would love to talk.