Architects around the world are facing a persistent crisis of low fees, inadequate compensation, and diminishing professional respect. A major survey conducted by Dezeen revealed that architects feel underpaid, overworked, and undervalued—a sentiment echoed across multiple studies examining worker wellbeing in the profession. At the heart of this widespread frustration lies a fundamental economic reality: most architecture studios struggle to generate substantial profits from their work.
Peter Farrall, a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool who co-authored the Good Practice Guide on fees for the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), describes the situation as "a real problem for the majority of practices." He emphasizes that "there's no question that fees are under massive pressure," noting that studios can only "afford to pay decent salaries and provide good working conditions" if they secure appropriate compensation for their services.
The problem extends far beyond any single country's borders. Yale University professor Peggy Deamer, whose research focuses on architecture as a form of labor, characterizes architecture as "a weak profession, in the US particularly." She observes a troubling cycle where "people accept low wages because they know the firms they want to work for have low fees," describing this dynamic as "tragic" when she hears it from students entering the field.
Data from the Fees Bureau, a division of Mirza & Nacey Research that has been tracking architecture business metrics since the 1990s, reveals a complex picture. While the bureau's Architects Fees Index shows that UK fees have grown 48 percent since 2000 when adjusted for building-costs inflation, these revenue increases have failed to keep pace with broader economic pressures. Rising general inflation, skyrocketing insurance premiums, and increasingly complex project responsibilities have steadily compressed profit margins across the industry.
The financial disparity between architects and other professionals has become stark. Recent research from the Fees Bureau shows that in the UK, architects' average annual salaries are now $16,900 lower than those of chartered surveyors. The bureau's biennial Europe-wide study for the Architects' Council of Europe found that, with notable exceptions in Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland, concerns about inadequate earnings affect studios across the continent. Vince Nacey, director of Mirza & Nacey Research, reports that firms consistently say "they're underpaid for what they're expected to deliver—the responsibilities they have, the length of the training, everything."
The roots of today's fee crisis trace back to government deregulation efforts of the late 20th century. Several decades ago, architects had little choice about fees, which were set according to scales determined by professional bodies. As Farrall explains, "A lot of older architects have happy memories of when there used to be an RIBA fee scale, which everybody was meant to work to then." However, this system ended when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government, viewing fee scales as restrictive, took action against the RIBA in 1982, making their fee framework advisory-only.
Similar pressures emerged in the United States, where the Department of Justice sued the American Institute of Architects (AIA) twice—in 1972 and 1990—over fee schedules. These legal challenges, driven by new competition and antitrust laws, forced professional bodies to abandon mandatory fee guidance. By 2009, the RIBA had stopped publishing fee information altogether. As Deamer explains, "It's seen by the Department of Justice as collusion, and so you cannot mention fees or wages at any AIA meeting at all."
The elimination of fee guidance created what Mark Tuff, a partner at London- and Zurich-based architecture studio Sergison Bates, describes as "a rather inevitable race to the bottom as practices seek to win work." Without common parameters, secretive and often cutthroat bidding processes became the norm, with undercutting becoming rife throughout the industry. Tuff notes that other professions, particularly law, "appear to have done a better job than architecture of protecting fees in the push for competitive markets."
Interestingly, two countries that maintain relatively strong architecture fees—Switzerland and Germany—still have forms of oversight in place. The Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects publishes guidance on "standard fees," while Germany maintains a government-approved fee schedule known as the HOAI. Although the HOAI faces review after a 2019 European Court of Justice ruling, Tuff notes it "still persists as a starting point for discussions with clients on levels of fee."
While deregulation theoretically opened possibilities for fees to increase, the reality has been far different. Nacey diplomatically suggests that the ability to negotiate fees "may have left the architects in a position that they're not at their strongest." Deamer is more direct: "I think we're kind of laughed at by developers. It's the first place where they save money. If they say no to certain fees for one architect, they'll find someone else willing to do it."
Many experts point to architects' lack of business acumen as a contributing factor. "Architects are passionate about design, they're not quite so keen on running the business," Farrall observes. "That really isn't the way we were all brought up at college. We're not driven by profit as many other professions are." Some studios have even offered services at a loss to win prestigious or award-worthy projects, further undermining fee structures industry-wide.
The fee crisis has been exacerbated by cash-strapped public bodies seeking construction cost savings and private-sector clients eager to benefit from efficiencies enabled by Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology. Architects typically charge clients through three mechanisms: hourly rates, predetermined lump sums, or percentages of total project costs. The percentage model, while preferred by clients for its comparability, presents particular challenges for architecture studios.
As Farrall explains, "There isn't a direct relationship between the resources needed to deliver the project and the fee that's being charged." Project complexities inevitably emerge, with "stuff coming out of the woodwork" and goalposts changing throughout the design and construction process. Many smaller practices lack provisions for discussing additional fees in such situations, leading them to lose money as hours accumulate beyond original estimates.
Small studios, which comprise a large portion of the architecture profession and typically focus on residential projects, face particularly intense pressure. RIBA head of research Adrian Malleson describes "very intense downward pressure on fees from those outside the profession—people calling themselves 'architectural services.'" He suspects "most people don't know the difference between an architect and someone who provides architectural services, but the difference is very important."
This confusion reflects a broader challenge in communicating the value of professional architectural services. "A lot of it comes back to communication of value," Malleson explains. "Quantifying the value of design and making the value of design apparent to clients is a challenge, and it has been a longstanding challenge." Farrall adds that "to deliver really good design requires an awful lot of effort, and even when people are on sensible fees, those fees don't necessarily reflect the amount of care that's needed to deliver buildings of that quality."
Deamer argues that architecture has contributed to its own diminished status by focusing too narrowly on "the aesthetic dimension." She states bluntly, "My whole position is that we've done this to ourselves. We shouldn't sit here saying, 'oh my god, the public doesn't understand us, the media doesn't get us.' We've done this to ourselves." She contrasts the American situation with other countries where architecture maintains greater respect and better compensation.
"In Switzerland architecture is very much seen as part of their craft—it's like watchmaking—and it's much more respected and better paid," Deamer explains. "Same with Germany, where architecture is really understood to be more of an engineering technical feat, there's more respect for it." This cultural difference in how architecture is perceived and valued translates directly into fee structures and professional compensation.
Potential solutions to the fee crisis remain contentious and elusive. Malleson suggests that fee mechanisms could evolve to reflect the value of appointing skilled architects by linking compensation to measurable outcomes such as thermal performance and water tightness, though he acknowledges this approach is "a long way off." Some advocates call for greater regulation, including mandatory involvement of registered architects in construction projects—a step the UK Government is reportedly considering.
Deamer proposes a controversial solution: abolishing professional licensing so that "architect" is no longer a protected term. "If we were not a licensed profession, we would enter into the marketplace in a normal way and be able to claim our expertise in a more honest fashion," she argues. This proposal would likely face significant resistance from architects who prefer increased rather than decreased professional regulation.
Professional organizations acknowledge the challenges while working within existing legal constraints. The RIBA states it is "working to find a way" to provide clients with "direct advice on architects' fees" without violating competition laws. The Architects' Council of Europe is conducting a survey to analyze the impact of varying fee practices across different countries, seeking to "identify good practices that promote fair fees within the framework of competition law."
The American Institute of Architects emphasizes the restrictive nature of U.S. competition laws, explaining that "while AIA cannot set fee minimums or guidelines due to federal antitrust laws, we can and do actively advocate for fairer conditions that support the financial health of the profession." This legal framework significantly limits what professional bodies can do to directly address fee compression while remaining compliant with federal regulations.
The architecture profession's fee crisis represents a complex intersection of regulatory history, market dynamics, professional culture, and public perception. As the industry continues to grapple with these challenges, the search for solutions that balance competitive markets with sustainable professional compensation remains ongoing, with significant implications for the future of architectural practice and the built environment.
