The Perception Of Architects’ Fees.

Finding clarity in the complexities of architects’ fees both internally and externally to the industry.

There is complexity surrounding the perceptions of architects’ fees than what we realise, both within the profession and outside it. The outside (public) perception is that architects are expensive, while the architects’ perspectives are ‘architects are paid so little,’ ‘architects are never rich,’ or ‘architects never have money.’ All of which state the same thing. The more this is said, mentioned or stated, the more this will become a reality, if not a continued reality. Hopefully, after stating it here and now, we won’t hear it as often, if at all.

So, first of all, architects are not really expensive, that is the belief of the former. The public, perhaps, looks at it with rose-coloured glasses. Whether they have an interest or not, it’s what is seen at face value. Generally, this is of high-rise buildings or skyscrapers, community buildings, or the ‘luxury’ residential homes and properties that have almost everything that opens and shuts, think of gadgets and ‘smart technology’ that are implemented. So because something looks expensive, they may perceive, or believe, that the profession is the same as a whole, and yes, this perception crosses over into other creative professions. Within this is the potential clients, those in the public with an interest, and smaller budget, yet not truly understanding the process, the craft, or the cost. In hiring an architect, one is hiring them for their expertise, just as you would hire a lawyer or other skilled service. The architect will provide a design based on all factors of planning, site, client brief and building regulations. This is where the collective profession has a duty to educate the public as a whole in re-thinking these perceptions and not just educating the potential clients.

“In hiring an architect, one is hiring them for their expertise.”

The latter remarks are perhaps more often expressed by sole traders and small businesses, however, this does not have to be a continued narrative. To the architects who express this, consider it as an opportunity to become aware every time you say, hear, or notice it and what is really behind it. It could be guiding you to re-evaluate your current situation and a need to adjust your fees in order to achieve what you want in your business and in life. It may also be directing you toward a path of finding new and better strategies, or opportunities for monetary income and resources that may or may not be directly associated with architecture. We can stretch our skills and capabilities further and beyond what we are currently doing, or believe. So, whoever said that once we have achieved a degree or trade in a certain area that we had to stick with it? This is an old perception, and may no longer serve you. It’s neither positive nor negative, however, it is more of a transition allowing you to shift and adjust your mindset to understand what you want to achieve within the profession and outside it. We are living in an era where we don’t have to stay in one particular profession. We all have transferable skills and the ability to grow and move in different directions. Even if you continue to practice as an architect, there are many opportunities and avenues to take that will support this while gaining more.

Perhaps the moral of this is a need for the architect to adjust fees periodically to ensure there’s no falling short in achievements. If potential clients turn their nose up at an architects’ fees, they, perhaps, are not in alignment with the architect and the practice. It is a balancing act between what the client wants to do and the fees placed on what is created, while also navigating income gains without devaluing the architect. This leads us to ask what does the client value? This is a question that involves not just the monetary value of architects’ fees, but also the value of experiencing a space for specific or multiple reasons. Is it the value of a quality space? Or is it the low cost that is more valuable, without the higher quality? If the majority of potential clients want low cost over quality, this then leads to the architects’ statement mentioned above. This has some truth, as every architect wants to win a project to keep their business going. However, this is unsustainable for the industry as a whole, as it leads to an imbalance. The imbalance here is that in attempting to lower fees, just to win another project, raises the need to find more projects to cover costs, which can lead to issues of how many projects to take on at any given time with, perhaps, little resources such as a small team of employees.

“The value in fees needs to be clarified while also upholding the value of the industry.”

When lowering fees, it can also de-value the architect and the profession as a whole, regardless of the quality of work and craftsmanship. This is where the seed of the remarks, again, previously mentioned, has been planted. This is not generally expressed by all within the industry, yet it has become a passing comment, almost a cry, and could be reflective of the circumstance of the architect and the profession as a whole. Once again, this becomes the responsibility of the architect to structure their fees accordingly to create monetary value, not just value in quality and experience. Therefore, the value in fees needs to be clarified while also upholding the value of the industry. Without this, it may become a smaller industry and undervalued industry. This leads to asking, in the broader sense, ‘what is the value of an architect?’ Which will be addressed in the following article.