In an Instagram post on Sunday (26 July) titled ‘Architects never share their fees, so here’s mine…’, Emily Scullion Architects shared the boutique residential firm’s fees for RIBA Stages 0-6.

In doing so, Scullion – who admitted some might ‘gasp’ at the thought of sharing how much they charge – asked whether a ‘little more transparency could actually benefit the profession’ and prevent a ‘race to the bottom’.

Architects seemed to agree with the director of the practice. More than 1,800 Instagram users liked the post and shared. Dozens, meanwhile, left comments praising and thanking the practice, while stating that smaller firms needed to raise their fees.

‘We definitely should be discussing fees,’ wrote Tidy Architects in reply. ‘I think it may be the only way we can wrestle back control of this race to the bottom in which small practices are embroiled.’

‘I really appreciate this post and also wish we (small firm owners in particular) shared these figures more,’ added Jonathan Mole Architects. ‘First job I quoted I got significantly undercut by someone else. I (wrongly) assumed I was going too high for the area.’

Architects from outside the UK also commented on Scullion’s ‘bravery’ for sharing her fees. Iceland-based architect and critic Shruthi Basappa replied: ‘Refreshing to see this as transparency of business numbers is simply unheard of in Iceland where I practice.

‘As a small firm owner, it is always a race to the bottom despite being in business for many years. Not at all heartening to see that it is the same story elsewhere.

‘We have priced ourselves too low as a profession’

‘We have simply priced ourselves too low as a profession. Perhaps it’s the nexus of these two schools of thought, of the struggling artist and that architects are glorified draftsman simply doing the bidding of clients/ contractors.’

Scullion had argued in her post: ‘Personally, I think it could help us avoid a race to the bottom by giving architects, particularly smaller practices, more confidence in understanding what sustainable fees look like.’

She added that, by sharing fees with other small practices, it could ‘help us avoid a race to the bottom’ by showing what is sustainable and unsuitable.

‘I think many architects have probably had that moment of wondering: “Am I charging too much? Am I charging too little?”’ Scullion finished by saying. ‘So maybe the question isn’t “should we share fees?” but “could sharing fees actually help us all?”’

Speaking to the AJ about the response to her post, Scullion said there were still ‘aspects of the profession that feel quite secretive, particularly around money, and I think that can make it much harder for small practices and those starting out to know whether they’re pricing sustainably’.

She added: ‘The response has been interesting. I expected plenty of engagement, but I didn’t expect to feel quite so overwhelmed by it. There was lots of encouragement, but also a lot of unsolicited advice from people assuming the post was asking whether my fees were “right” or “wrong”.

‘That wasn’t really the point,’ she continued. ‘Our practice is small; our fees continue to evolve and every project has its own context. I wasn’t presenting our approach as a model for others to follow; I was simply being transparent about one example.’

According to the latest AJ100 survey published last month, 52 of the UK’s biggest practices stated that the fees paid to their UK offices had increased, while 43 reported a decline in fees.

Russell Curtis, founding director of RCKa, argued in the AJ yesterday (It’s time to admit it. Too many architects spoil the broth): ‘The days of mandatory fee scales are never coming back’, adding that a cap on the number of people entering the profession could lead to higher fees and higher salaries in the long term.

Comments

Emily Scullion, director, Emily Scullion Architects

I shared the post as a discussion starter rather than an attempt to tell people what architects should or shouldn’t be charging. My thinking was that if I was suggesting greater transparency could benefit the profession, then I should be prepared to go first.

A big part of my Instagram content is about being honest and authentic about my own experience of being an architect. There are still aspects of the profession that feel quite secretive, particularly around money, and I think that can make it much harder for small practices and those starting out to know whether they’re pricing sustainably. When I set up my practice, I had no real benchmark for fees, and I undercharged for a long time because I simply didn’t have any precedents to work from. Since then, I’ve had similar conversations with many architects who have experienced exactly the same thing.

Greater transparency could benefit the profession

The response has been interesting. I expected plenty of engagement, but I didn’t expect to feel quite so overwhelmed by it. There was lots of encouragement, but also a lot of unsolicited advice from people assuming the post was asking whether my fees were ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. That wasn’t really the point. Our practice is small, our fees continue to evolve, and every project has its own context. I wasn’t presenting our approach as a model for others to follow; I was simply being transparent about one example.

I’d say this initial conversation has highlighted that perhaps the more important discussion isn’t what architects charge, but how we arrive at those fees in the first place. That’s a far more complex conversation, thinking about location, overheads, experience, workload, project complexity and personal circumstances. I definitely don’t have the answers, but if the post has encouraged the profession to have a more open conversation about that, then I think it’s been worthwhile. I plan to follow up with a reflection post soon to hopefully continue the conversation.

Jas Bhalla, principal, Jas Bhalla Works

A toxic combination of a flat-lining economy, technological upheaval, and regulatory change have rightly brought renewed focus on how much we charge for our services. By concentrating entirely on lump sum figures – most commonly reflected as a percentage of construction value – we completely miss out on discussing scope which is equally as important.

Whilst the industry has seen a modest increase in fees since 2022, our scope across many projects has become significantly more complex. This phenomenon isn’t just confined to architectural endeavours; we have found the fee envelopes for public sector urban design projects have remained stagnant for over a decade, whilst the brief requirements have grown exponentially more intricate.

Our scope across many projects has become significantly more complex

Part of securing higher fees requires the industry to first have an accurate diagnosis of the challenges; moving beyond a discussion of fees expressed purely as construction value to a more intricate record that reflects revenue generation, profitability, and productivity would be a useful starting point.

David Tigg, director TiggColl

My big headline would be less about architects knowing your fees but more fundamentally architects knowing their value.

To be honest, sharing is great and I wholly commend this – conversation and discussion is healthy and ultimately no one is right and no one is wrong as we all have different costs, perspectives, locations and goals. So all ok as long as it is viewed through  this lens.

That said, everyone running a business should also inherently know how much it costs them to do a job and sequentially also make a crust! So personally speaking it is anecdotally interesting to have some guides and benchmarks but not necessarily helpful nor should ever be dogmatic at following them. There is so much variation of what is required of you in each projects that no two fee proposals are every the same ( and neither should they be!).

A race to the bottom serves no one well

The other obvious point is a race to the bottom is serves no one well. And how you express this to a client is equally important. Clients obviously want good value and they are going to push for this – no problem with that – construction is fraught with risk and it is ultimately expensive to build anything today. You must be brave and know when to say no and move on – there are always other projects (and in those situations, better clients!). You are only doing yourself and your team, who you are responsible for, a disservice.

Coming back to my headline then – knowing your value – this is what all architects should focus more on and how this is representative and clear in your services … how do we sell our services better and thus show what we do is worth paying more for not less. It is hard but we are not the only industry that is under pressure on fees and services and as a result we must perhaps also focus on this side of the equation more.

Lee Davies, director HNW Architects

Greater fee transparency would be positive, but only if clients also understand the quality, scope, and expertise behind the number. Many of our clients already use benchmarking, framework fee scales or competitive tendering, but the most informed also look beyond the headline fee to consider relevant knowledge and experience, the proposed team, risk and the service being provided. Transparency should support meaningful comparison, not a race to the bottom.