{"id":716466,"date":"2026-07-29T02:12:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-29T02:12:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/716466\/"},"modified":"2026-07-29T02:12:26","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T02:12:26","slug":"refreshing-to-see-transparency-architects-respond-to-practices-fee-reveal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/716466\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Refreshing to see transparency\u2019: Architects respond to practice\u2019s fee reveal"},"content":{"rendered":"

In an Instagram post<\/a> on Sunday (26 July) titled \u2018Architects never share their fees, so here\u2019s mine\u2026\u2019, Emily Scullion Architects shared the boutique residential firm\u2019s fees for RIBA Stages 0-6.<\/p>\n

In doing so, Scullion \u2013 who admitted some might \u2018gasp\u2019 at the thought of sharing how much they charge \u2013 asked whether a \u2018little more transparency could actually benefit the profession\u2019 and prevent a \u2018race to the bottom\u2019.<\/p>\n

Architects seemed to agree with the director of the practice<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

\u2018We definitely should be discussing fees,\u2019 wrote Tidy Architects<\/a> in reply. \u2018I think it may be the only way we can wrestle back control of this race to the bottom in which small practices are embroiled.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018I really appreciate this post and also wish we (small firm owners in particular) shared these figures more,\u2019 added Jonathan Mole Architects. \u2018First job I quoted I got significantly undercut by someone else. I (wrongly) assumed I was going too high for the area.\u2019<\/p>\n

Architects from outside the UK also commented on Scullion\u2019s \u2018bravery\u2019 for sharing her fees. Iceland-based architect and critic Shruthi Basappa<\/a> replied: \u2018Refreshing to see this as transparency of business numbers is simply unheard of in Iceland where I practice.<\/p>\n

\u2018As 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.<\/p>\n

\u2018We have priced ourselves too low as a profession\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018We have simply priced ourselves too low as a profession. Perhaps it\u2019s 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.\u2019<\/p>\n

Scullion had argued in her post: \u2018Personally, 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.\u2019<\/p>\n

She added that, by sharing fees with other small practices, it could \u2018help us avoid a race to the bottom\u2019 by showing what is sustainable and unsuitable.<\/p>\n

\u2018I think many architects have probably had that moment of wondering: \u201cAm I charging too much? Am I charging too little?\u201d\u2019 Scullion finished by saying. \u2018So maybe the question isn\u2019t \u201cshould we share fees?\u201d but \u201ccould sharing fees actually help us all?\u201d\u2019<\/p>\n

Speaking to the AJ about the response to her post<\/a>, Scullion said there were still \u2018aspects 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\u2019re pricing sustainably\u2019.<\/p>\n

She added: \u2018The response has been interesting. I expected plenty of engagement, but I didn\u2019t 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 \u201cright\u201d or \u201cwrong\u201d. <\/p>\n

\u2018That wasn\u2019t really the point,\u2019 she continued. \u2018Our practice is small; our fees continue to evolve and every project has its own context. I wasn\u2019t presenting our approach as a model for others to follow; I was simply being transparent about one example.\u2019<\/p>\n

According to the latest AJ100 survey<\/a> published last month, 52 of the UK\u2019s biggest practices stated that the fees paid to their UK offices had increased, while 43 reported a decline in fees.<\/p>\n

Russell Curtis, founding director of RCKa, argued in the AJ yesterday (It\u2019s time to admit it. Too many architects spoil the broth<\/a>): \u2018The days of mandatory fee scales are never coming back\u2019, adding that a cap on the number of people entering the profession could lead to higher fees and higher salaries in the long term.<\/p>\n

Comments<\/p>\n

Emily Scullion, director, Emily Scullion Architects<\/p>\n

I shared the post as a discussion starter rather than an attempt to tell people what architects should or shouldn\u2019t be charging. My thinking was that if I was suggesting greater transparency could benefit the profession, then I should be prepared to go first.<\/p>\n

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\u2019re 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\u2019t have any precedents to work from. Since then, I\u2019ve had similar conversations with many architects who have experienced exactly the same thing.<\/p>\n

Greater transparency could benefit the profession<\/p>\n

The response has been interesting. I expected plenty of engagement, but I didn\u2019t 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 \u2018right\u2019 or \u2018wrong\u2019. That wasn\u2019t really the point. Our practice is small, our fees continue to evolve, and every project has its own context. I wasn\u2019t presenting our approach as a model for others to follow; I was simply being transparent about one example.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d say this initial conversation has highlighted that perhaps the more important discussion isn\u2019t what architects charge, but how we arrive at those fees in the first place. That\u2019s a far more complex conversation, thinking about location, overheads, experience, workload, project complexity and personal circumstances. I definitely don\u2019t have the answers, but if the post has encouraged the profession to have a more open conversation about that, then I think it\u2019s been worthwhile. I plan to follow up with a reflection post soon to hopefully continue the conversation.<\/p>\n

Jas Bhalla, principal, Jas Bhalla Works<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 most commonly reflected as a percentage of construction value \u2013 we completely miss out on discussing scope which is equally as important.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n

Our scope across many projects has become significantly more complex<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

David Tigg, director TiggColl<\/p>\n

My big headline would be less about architects knowing your fees but more fundamentally architects knowing their value.<\/p>\n

To be honest, sharing is great and I wholly commend this \u2013 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 \u00a0this lens.<\/p>\n

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!).<\/p>\n

A race to the bottom serves no one well<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 no problem with that \u2013 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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Coming back to my headline then \u2013 knowing your value \u2013 this is what all architects should focus more on and how this is representative and clear in your services \u2026 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.<\/p>\n

Lee Davies, director HNW Architects<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t