Why Some Architects Won't Tell You What They Charge (And Why I Do)
TLDR: Famous architecture firms rarely publish their fees, and that's not an accident. Their clients come through international reputation, already sold before they ask. My clients are different. They're researching, comparing, and trying to understand a process that feels unfamiliar and high-stakes. For them, not knowing the range is just one more thing to be anxious about. So I publish mine: 12-18% of construction cost for new homes, 18-24% for major renovations. Here's why.
Why don't famous architects publish their fees?
Search all you want for a design fee estimate from Olson Kundig, West Chin, or Marmol Radzinger, and you’ll come up empty. Trust me I’ve tried. They don’t have to. Their clients have probably decided - and dreamed of hiring them - long before picking up the phone.
I’m not famous yet so I’ll publish mine. But first, a caveat. Ask ten architects how they charge and you'll get ten answers. Ask what they charge and you'll get ten more. Ask what the homeowner actually gets for that—that's where it really falls apart. Percentage of construction cost is just the common language everyone defaults to, even when it's not how the fee was built.
As of 2026, while I don’t calculate fees based on percentage, they work out to 12-18” of construction cost on new homes and 18-24% for major renovations.
So why does the number matter if it's so inconsistent?
Percentage of construction cost, dollars per square foot—these are the shortcuts people reach for to compare architects on equal footing. The problem is the footing still isn't equal. A site that needs three iterations to get through permitting isn't the same project as a flat lot with a known builder. A fee that includes interior design and construction oversight isn't the same fee as one that ends at a permit set.
The number alone doesn't tell you much. The number plus what it covers does. Not to mention the skill level of the architect. (more on that later)
The lower end of each range may cover just enough architectural scope to get you to permitting—site, shell, layout. That is still nowhere near enough to build a house though. The higher end covers an integrated commission, where I'm also designing the cabinetry, lighting, and interior finishes as part of the same documentation set. Renovations run higher across the board because there's more forensic work involved—figuring out what's actually inside an existing wall before you can design around it.
What moves the number
I once asked an artist why bigger paintings always cost more. Her answer, “its like french fries, you want more fries? More money!” Bigger projects mean more decisions, more documentation, more coordination. Difficult sites mean more problem-solving before a single line gets drawn. Clients who make decisions quickly keep a project moving; clients who revisit decisions add hours or burn up design rounds. Material and finish choices matter too—I don't treat finishes as an optional layer at the end. They get coordinated into the design from the start, which is part of why the fee covers what it covers.
And of course there’s skill level. A more creative and seasoned architect is going to be able to combine more contradictory wants and needs into an elegant whole, versus one who is going to tack on request after request (and you will have plenty) without much sensitivity and you can end up with a house full of “barnacles”.
Is it worth it?
Depends what you're looking for. If you want a set of plans and you're comfortable figuring the rest out as you go (Godspeed, but plan for inevitable delays), that's a different kind of architect, and a different kind of fee.
If you want someone who stays involved while it's being built, who treats the interior as part of the same vision as the architecture, you'll see where the fee goes.
Have you run into pricing that felt impossible to pin down before you found this page?