Why the big firms say no
BC firms with 200+ buildings under management operate on per-manager load economics. A single manager carrying 20 buildings at $3,000/month in fees produces ~$60k/month in revenue; the same manager carrying 20 buildings at $1,200/month produces $24k/month. The fixed cost of managing a building doesn't scale linearly with size — the smaller building still needs AGMs, records, insurance certs, vendor coordination. Most larger firms have made a deliberate choice to exit the under-$1,500/month segment.
This isn't bias. It's a rational business decision that leaves small buildings looking for someone else.
The three paths small stratas have
Path 1: small-building specialists
BC has roughly 30–40 firms that deliberately specialize in under-50-unit buildings. They accept a lower per-building revenue because their model is built for portfolio density and operational efficiency (shared tools, bundled vendors, standardized meeting templates) rather than individual-manager attention at scale. Our matching flow surfaces these firms first when the building profile warrants.
Path 2: limited-service or financial-only arrangements
Instead of full-service management, contract for just the pieces the council can't do itself: monthly bank reconciliation, AGM notice, records retention, insurance tracking, some vendor oversight. Leaves maintenance decisions and owner communication to council. Monthly cost drops to $300–$600 total (not per unit), which works at small scale. Roughly half the BC firms that decline full-service will accept limited-service engagements.
Path 3: self-managed with digital tooling
Council does all operational tasks themselves using purpose-built software for records, notices, online meetings, and collections. Works best when at least one council member has 2–4 hours/week to commit and the building's maintenance load is low. Average cost: under $100/month in software, plus volunteer time. See the self-managed toolkit for tool recommendations.
Which path fits you
Depends on three things: unit count, council capacity, and building complexity. The small-building scorecard asks six questions and returns a placement band (Specialized / Narrow / Competitive / Open) with a specific next step. Takes under two minutes.
Rough heuristics:
- Under 12 units, tight budget, urgent timeline → Path 1 (specialist) first, Path 2 (limited) fallback.
- 12–30 units, some council capacity, no active capital projects → any path works; compare proposals.
- Under 20 units, engaged council, simple building → Path 3 (self-managed) often wins on total cost-plus-time.