PRE-LAUNCH · PUBLIC RELEASE COMING SOON

Enter a site address.

Get a planning-grade data center feasibility report.

01Candidate Site Screening
02Zoning, Building & Fire Code Feasibility
03Power & Utility Feasibility
04Cooling, Water, Noise & Environmental Feasibility
05Parcel Capacity & Site-Fit Model
06Structure, Envelope & Constructability
07Cost, Schedule, Risk & Decision Record

No target MW required

Don’t know the MW? Start with land-based scenario arithmetic.

Provide the site location and acreage you have. DCFR can calculate a land-based IT-load scenario from submitted acreage and explicit planning allowances when those inputs are sufficient. The arithmetic does not establish buildable, permitted, or utility-supported capacity; parcel conflicts can withhold the scenario.

Calculate a land-based scenario

Illustrative IT-load scenario in MW
Based on submitted acreage and assumptions
Clear assumptions behind the arithmetic

Estimate space needs

Building, equipment, and cooling areas
Access, stormwater, and expansion allowances
Survey and physical layout still to confirm

Identify the next checks

Missing parcel information
Unconfirmed power service
Utility confirmation of deliverable MW

U.S. Site Discovery · Coming soon

Find available land. Understand its data center potential.

We are preparing a U.S. pilot connecting properties for sale or lease to real parcel evidence and preliminary screening. Live listing search is not available yet.

Explore the upcoming feature

What you receive

What your report includes

One coordinated review—from site screening through cost, schedule, and next steps. Findings distinguish source-backed evidence, planning estimates, stated assumptions, and questions still to confirm.

View sample report

Module	What you receive
Module 01Candidate Site Screening	Compare up to 20 candidate sites using submitted acreage and IT demand Retain candidate-specific evidence, missing inputs, and unresolved risks Export saved comparison findings and identify the next diligence checks
Module 02Zoning, Building & Fire Code Feasibility	Record available jurisdiction, district-map evidence, and official source routes Organize zoning, adopted-code, fire-access, and approval questions Keep permitted use, setbacks, overlays, and authority confirmation explicit
Module 03Power & Utility Feasibility	Calculate facility demand and annual energy from stated load and PUE assumptions Record available power evidence and the utility inquiry basis Keep serving provider, deliverable capacity, upgrades, and energization unconfirmed until supported
Module 04Cooling, Water, Noise & Environmental Feasibility	Compare annual energy and onsite-water scenarios when PUE and WUE are supplied Retain available environmental-source findings and retrieval gaps Identify peak cooling, water/sewer, discharge, and acoustic studies still required
Module 05Parcel Capacity & Site-Fit Model	Estimate an area-based IT-capacity range when no target MW is supplied Show building, support-yard, circulation, stormwater, and expansion allowances Record parcel and assemblage conflicts; physical layout and buildability require confirmation
Module 06Structure, Envelope & Constructability	Frame single-story and multistory planning assumptions Identify structural loads, ground conditions, delivery, and replacement-route questions List the vendor, architect, civil, and structural inputs needed for a physical option
Module 07Cost, Schedule, Risk & Decision Record	Calculate scoped costs from dated quantity and rate inputs; flag unpriced scope Calculate dependency durations, float, and critical tasks when durations are supplied Retain sources, assumptions, open risks, and next-step actions

Site · Energy · Carbon · Economics

Understand the land. Examine the energy. Make the economics visible.

Four connected questions guide the development strategy. Seven coordinated modules organize the evidence, assumptions, and next actions.

Site

What could this site support?

Compare candidate locations, capacity assumptions, land budgets, and permitting questions.

Screening + planning estimates

Energy

What infrastructure would it need?

Estimate facility demand and annual energy. Identify power, cooling, and utility dependencies.

Demand scenarios + confirmation path

Carbon

Where could environmental impact fall?

Frame cooling, materials, and heat-reuse questions for project-specific evaluation.

Strategy direction · quantification in development

Economics

What drives cost and delivery risk?

Review capital-cost sensitivity when rates are supplied, schedule dependencies, and open risks.

Input-based cost scenarios + risk register

See calculation scope and evidence standards

Who This Is For

Developers & Owners

Assess site capacity, energy demand, and delivery constraints to decide what to investigate next.

Land & Data Center Brokers

Explain a site's potential and unresolved constraints with evidence buyers can review.

Site Selection & Acquisition Teams

Compare up to 20 candidate sites and prioritize power, permitting, and land-use confirmations.

Investors & Infrastructure Teams

Review cost assumptions, infrastructure dependencies, and unresolved risks before the next capital decision.

For the four teams above

How each team uses DCFR

Select your team to see its starting question, what DCFR does, and what you receive.

Decide which site deserves development investment.

Starting point

You have candidate land, but usable capacity, site constraints, and utility needs are not yet clear.

With DCFR

DCFR compares the parcels, calculates land-based capacity scenarios, and makes the assumptions and risks visible.

What moves forward

A shortlist and a defined scope for the next design, utility, and civil studies.

Measure the value

Time and cost spent before selecting a site for deeper diligence.

Estimate with your own numbers

Coordinated early feasibility

From site input to a preliminary planning report.

DCFR brings candidate screening, planning calculations, public-source observations, and open risks into one workflow. Processing runs in the background; timing varies with the number of sites, submitted inputs, and external source availability.

Traditional workflow

Separate workstreams

Multiple consultant handoffs
Separate site, utility, and risk reviews
Findings assembled in sequence
Timing varies by team and scope

DCFR

One decision-ready view

One coordinated workflow
Site fit, infrastructure, and risks together
Assumptions and next checks clearly listed
Follow processing in your workspace

Track progressSee where your report stands.

QueuedRunningCompleted

From $499/monthPaid plan required for real-project analysis

Order Report

How it works

From site evidence to development decisions.

Submit up to 20 candidate sites and your project assumptions. DCFR compares area budgets, checks available public-source data, and records what needs further confirmation.

Organize

Organize submitted site addresses, acreage, IT demand, and project assumptions.

Estimate Area

Calculate building, equipment-yard, and site-reserve budgets from stated planning assumptions.

Record Evidence

Record available location, flood-zone, and point-elevation observations, source dates, and data gaps.

Compare

Compare candidate-site area budgets using the same stated planning assumptions.

Plan Checks

Identify missing evidence and the utility, AHJ, survey, and design confirmations required.

Decide

Use preliminary estimates and unresolved risks to guide deeper professional diligence.

Interactive sample

Explore a site. Inspect the reasoning.

Choose a sample parcel, explore seven modules, and inspect the assumptions behind each finding.

Fictional sample data and prepared assumptions. No live parcel lookup or customer analysis. No account required.

DCFR · Sample projectInteractive executive summary

Decision layer · not the full report

Concise findings here. The full report organizes the available analysis and open confirmations.

Use this dashboard to compare sites and navigate executive findings. Each customer finding is organized with the available analysis, source evidence, calculations, planning exhibits, risks, dependencies, and recommended actions. Missing or unconfirmed evidence remains explicit.

7 analytical modulesEvidence registerPlanning exhibitsRisk + action record

01 · Select a sample site

02 · Compare planning assumptions

Target IT load · assumed40 MW

Allocated / parcel area39 / 42 ac

Area remaining3 ac

Utility service capacityUnconfirmed

Module 02 · Sample Site A · Baseline

Zoning, Building & Fire Code Feasibility

Jurisdiction review required

Executive finding

Carry the permitted-use, access, equipment-separation, and fire-water questions into the next diligence brief.

The full module records the available supporting evidence, assumptions, constraints, and required verification actions.

Illustrative land budget Area accounting only · not a site plan

Initial building: 6 ac
Electrical + generator yards: 7 ac
Cooling + water allowance: 4 ac
Access, loading + parking: 6 ac
Stormwater allowance: 5 ac
Buffers + setbacks: 4 ac
Protected future phase / reserve: 7 ac

Decision input	Sample value	Basis
Permitted use	To confirm	Local zoning authority
Adopted code + amendments	Not assigned	Building / fire authority
Fire access + separation	To verify	Project-specific layout

Behind this findingIncluded in the full module

AnalysisConstraints, calculations, assumptions, and methodology

EvidenceSources, agencies, dates, links, and confidence status

ExhibitsMaps, diagrams, capacity studies, and comparisons

Action recordRisks, dependencies, next steps, and responsible parties

This executive finding is the decision summary. The full module provides the traceable record behind it.

View comprehensive sample Review the methodology

Open decision gate: Utility service and flood exposure. A positive area balance does not confirm a buildable layout, utility service, or permission to develop.

View Sample Report Explore the full sample workspace

Illustrative study framework · advanced analysis in development

One site. Different development choices.

The lowest-cost option may not use the least water or emit the least carbon. A useful comparison makes those trade-offs explicit.

A · Baseline

Establish a common reference

Define IT load, cooling, and resilience
Document land and energy assumptions
Set the same cost and carbon boundary

B · Lower-water strategy

Examine the water–energy trade-off

Study dry or hybrid heat rejection
Check climate, power, and space impacts
Price equipment and operating changes

C · Heat-reuse strategy

Test a local heat connection

Identify a buyer and seasonal heat demand
Include heat pumps and connection costs
Test tariffs, contracts, and carbon effects

Compare: capacity · upfront cost · annual energy · water · carbon · heat revenue · delivery risk

This is an example of the intended study structure, not a calculated project result or a feature included in a standard purchase. Results require consistent boundaries, local data, and validated assumptions.

Workflow value

Estimate the value for your team.

Compare the same work over one billing month or one Project Pass. Use your own estimates to see the time and labor value needed to cover the software cost.

Plan and comparison period

Use totals for one billing month. Match the workload to your plan allowances. View limits.

Current workflow · total team hours

For the same screening and reporting workload.

With DCFR · estimated team hours

Include input preparation, result review, and all remaining checks.

Loaded team cost · USD per hour

Your blended internal labor cost, including overhead.

Additional software / data costs · USD

Include purchased extra runs and any incremental data or software costs for this period.

Estimate from your inputs

Start with your current process.

Enter both time estimates and your hourly cost. Results will appear here; no savings assumption is preselected.

Calculation basis

Hours released = current hours − hours with DCFR.

Net value = hours released × hourly cost − software and added costs.

ROI = net value ÷ software and added costs × 100.

This is a user-defined workflow estimate, not measured customer ROI or a savings guarantee. It excludes avoided acquisition losses, consultant-fee reductions, and construction savings. Professional diligence remains necessary. Prices are USD before applicable taxes; paid access availability follows the pricing page.

Architect-led planning logic

Architect-led data center feasibility intelligence.

Built by Jeehee Hong, a New York State Registered Architect with 20+ years of experience across architecture, infrastructure, logistics, master planning, and mission-critical development in the US, Asia, and EMEA. DCFR structures that experience into repeatable planning questions, explicit assumptions, and clear next actions.

New York State Registered Architect
AIA Member · NCARB Record Holder · Data Center Certified Associate · LEED Green Associate

Explore founder project experience

Jeehee’s background includes 100+ completed projects across high-rise mixed-use, residential portfolios, institutional and healthcare facilities, adaptive reuse, hospitality, commercial office, global retail, and large-scale integrated infrastructure — including AI-enabled smart logistics city developments totaling 16M SF / approximately $6B.

Across her career, she has contributed to more than $10B in accumulated project portfolio value, working across multidisciplinary teams, program governance, feasibility strategy, cost and schedule constraints, and technical coordination.

Plan the whole site

Professional insight: Buildings depend on support infrastructure.
Planning rule in the workflow: Carry building, electrical, cooling, circulation, stormwater, and expansion allowances together.
Decision output: A coordinated land budget and visible capacity constraints.

Carry delivery into planning

Professional insight: Access and phasing shape what can be delivered.
Planning rule in the workflow: Keep delivery, equipment replacement, construction access, and future phases in the review.
Decision output: A focused list of geometry and logistics checks for the design team.

Keep evidence accountable

Professional insight: A decision is only as strong as its supporting information.
Planning rule in the workflow: Separate inputs, calculations, assumptions, and unresolved utility or authority questions.
Decision output: A traceable finding with an owner and a next action.

Expertise shapes the framework. Standard reports are software-generated. No individual architect or engineer review, seal, or approval is included.

See the methodology

Site intelligence

Understand the questions that matter.

Practical notes on the constraints and development choices behind a data center land decision.

Site Screening

Your next step

Bring your sites. Test what they can become.

Start with candidate locations, approximate acreage, target capacity, and any development strategy you already have in mind. If you are still open, DCFR can evaluate the site without forcing a predetermined form.

Discuss your project Compare plans