Real estate developer Ryan J. Garland says a resilient real estate project is built on careful planning, grounded market research and the flexibility to adapt, not on trying to predict the next economic turn.
Real estate developers are constantly asked some version of the same question: Where is the market going next?
Will interest rates fall? Will construction costs ease? Will migration continue? Will buyers remain active?
Ryan J. Garland, a real estate developer with experience across multiple market cycles, believes those questions matter, but he does not think a development strategy should depend on getting all of them right.
His leadership philosophy is built around a different premise: the future will remain uncertain, so the planning has to account for that uncertainty from the very beginning.
Rather than counting on one ideal economic scenario, Garland asks how a project would hold up under several possible ones.
That mindset has shaped his work across markets including Arizona, Tennessee and Texas, where local conditions can differ significantly even when the broader economic environment is the same.
Lessons Shaped by Experience
Garland’s perspective was formed over multiple market cycles.
His experience during the 2008 financial crisis left a lasting impression. He saw how quickly circumstances could change for a property when credit tightened and the assumptions behind a project no longer held.
Over the course of his career, Garland has also worked through a number of distressed real estate situations.
Those situations showed him that even a fundamentally sound property can become vulnerable when the people behind it run out of time or options.
Today, he carries that lesson into how he leads, building enough room into every project so that a temporary disruption does not immediately force a difficult decision.
Starting With What Could Go Wrong
Garland’s experience has also influenced the order in which he evaluates a new project.
He prefers to start with the downside.
What happens if the project takes longer to build? What happens if customers arrive more slowly than expected? What happens if costs rise? What happens if borrowing becomes more expensive?
Only after those questions are answered does the best-case scenario become meaningful.
Garland does not view that approach as pessimistic. He sees it as a way to determine whether a project is resilient enough to be worth pursuing.
The distinction between intelligent and reckless risk is important to him.
Intelligent risk has a clear plan, supportable assumptions, aligned incentives and multiple paths to recovery.
Reckless risk depends on perfect timing, overly optimistic assumptions or another party eventually solving the problem.
Construction Costs Require More Than a Single Budget
Construction is an area where volatility can quickly change an otherwise sound development.
Material prices, labor costs, freight, tariffs, insurance, utilities and contractor availability can all affect how a project turns out.
Garland does not believe a development budget should be treated as a fixed number simply because it has been entered into a spreadsheet.
Under his leadership, project teams consider how a budget could change and what those changes would mean for the project as a whole.
That means examining contingencies, procurement timing, design complexity, material selection and the amount of flexibility available before an overrun begins affecting the entire development.
He also pushes architects, engineers, contractors and finance teams to coordinate early, so important cost decisions are not discovered after construction has already started.
This is one reason Garland places significant emphasis on information flow across the development process.
A design revision can affect material quantities. A material change can affect lead times. A delay can increase carrying costs. Higher carrying costs can change the outcome of the project.
For Garland, those variables cannot be evaluated in isolation.
Looking Beyond the Headlines on Growth
Population and migration data are often central to real estate decisions, particularly in high-growth markets.
Garland considers those indicators, but he cautions against treating population growth as proof that every type of development will succeed.
A market may be gaining residents while adding too much of one type of property. Households may be arriving, but their incomes may not support the pricing a particular project requires. Growth may also be concentrated in one part of a metropolitan area rather than spread evenly across the region.
That is why he looks beyond headline migration figures to household income, employment, traffic, local business activity, competing supply, permits, construction activity, recreational behavior and other indicators relevant to the specific customer a project is meant to serve.
In some markets, that means examining boat or RV ownership and the availability of large-format storage. In others, it may mean studying residential demand, wellness-oriented uses or commercial activity.
“We do not begin with a product and force it into a market,” Garland said. Instead, he starts by studying the market, the end user and what it will take to operate the project well.
For Garland, economic growth alone does not guarantee that a particular development belongs in a particular location.
Demand Has to Be Proven at the Product Level
Garland says he is more interested in proven demand than broad optimism.
A growing market may create a favorable backdrop, but he still wants evidence that customers exist for the exact product being proposed.
For large-format storage, that may include RV ownership, customer wait lists, residential restrictions, competing facilities and the distances owners currently travel to find suitable space.
For residential concepts, it may mean looking more closely at household formation, pricing, competing inventory and the lifestyle priorities of potential buyers.
The purpose of that work is to close the gap between national trends and what is actually happening on the ground.
A national economic report may suggest that a region is expanding, but Garland says what ultimately matters is whether enough people in the immediate area need and want what is being built.
Phasing Lets the Market Provide Feedback
One tool Garland uses to manage uncertainty is phasing.
Instead of building an entire development at once, certain projects can be structured so that later phases depend on how earlier ones perform.
The first phase can provide real information about demand, pricing, operating costs and customer behavior. Those results can then shape the timing and design of what comes next.
Phasing is not right for every project, but when it is available, Garland sees it as a way to rely less on long-range forecasts.
In effect, the market begins providing feedback before the entire project has been built.
For Garland, flexibility has real value.
Planning for Multiple Futures
Garland does not claim to know exactly where interest rates, construction costs or real estate demand will move next.
He believes trying to build a business around precise economic predictions can create a false sense of confidence.
Instead, his approach is to identify the variables that matter most and understand how much pressure a project can absorb.
Rates may change. Construction costs may rise or fall. Migration can accelerate or slow. Demand can shift.
A developer cannot control all of those forces.
What a developer can control is the price paid for the land, the quality of the team, the assumptions used in planning and the amount of flexibility built into the project.
That, Garland believes, is the more durable way to lead through volatility.
The goal is not to predict the market perfectly.
It is to avoid building a project that requires a perfect market in order to succeed.
