I am very grateful for the initiative of the Poznań University of Economics, the Association of Polish Architects Poznań Branch, the Wielkopolska Chamber of Architects of Poland, and the Congress of Polish Architecture for the undoubtedly valuable content presented during the Economics for Architects conference on January 16, 2026 in Poznań. Their common denominator - regardless of the economic, marketing or strictly design perspective - is one fundamental observation: architects are unable to clearly communicate the value of their work to clients, and consequently they themselves fall into the trap of valuation based on simplistic and inadequate criteria. Significantly, this is not a singular observation. The same problem has been named and described from different sides - and it is this common optics that is worth paying special attention to today.
everyone is talking about it - just still too quietly
In the presentation "Diagnosis of the Needs of Design Offices" (Hanna Nowak-Mizgalska, Department of Microeconomics, UEP, p. 5), based on the Business Model Canvas tool, the need to define and name the values that design offices actually provide to clients - not those that architects assume are obvious, but those that, from the clients' perspective, are real.
In turn, in the presentation "Economic factors affecting architects' margins" (Dr. Wojciech Augustyniak, Department of Microeconomics, UEP, final slide), a key question is asked: what can a design office do to deliver "uniqueness" from the perspective of a client or investor? Not in the formal or aesthetic sense, but in the sense of experience, safety and predictability of the process.
The problem of communicating value was named even more strongly in the presentation "Communication Strategy, Building an Architect's Image" (Aneta Niedziałek, IARP, p. 7):
The problem is that the public, including our clients, do not understand what they are paying us for. They don't understand who an architect is, the scope of our work, and they don't understand our hermetic architectural language at all.
This sentence basically summarizes the situation of the entire profession.
The client doesn't buy the project, the client buys the solution to the problem
As Kuba Wojciechowski notes in his presentation "Marketing and Sales in Architecture" (pp. 18 and 55):
Don't sell a project for a m². Sell value and a solution to problems.
Architects are not seen like doctors or lawyers - professions whose sense of existence is automatically linked to solving clients' problems. In architecture, this connection is still not obvious, although clients' problems are very specific:
- housing need,
- money and investment budget,
- stress and uncertainty of the process,
- lack of formal and technical knowledge.
Often the choice of a project "at a price" is not due to a lack of respect for the profession, but to the fact that the investment budget is managed too late - and yet it is the architect who could (and should) play this role from the very beginning.
The need for optimization is independent of the wealth of the client: for some it is a necessity, for others - a conscious choice.
Price per m² and investment value - false mental shortcuts
Square meters as a unit of valuation in no way relate to:
- the number of design decisions,
- the complexity of the process,
- the responsibility of the architect,
- nor the value the client actually receives.
Similarly, it is misleading to relate remuneration to the value of the investment. In most cases, design activities involve solutions that are independent of the price of the materials used, and often have a much higher realized value to the client than purely aesthetic elements such as view axes or formal design gestures.
A low-cost house does not result from a low-cost design, but from a thoughtful design - one that results in:
- optimized installations,
- durable materials,
- conscious use of natural resources,
- lower utility costs over time.
why an hourly rate is not the answer either
As Dr. Marek Gnusowski points out in his presentation "Strategies for pricing architectural services" (pp. 14-15):
Gradually shift the emphasis in client conversations from time to the benefits and outcomes you deliver.
An hourly rate can be an internal tool - helpful in monitoring project profitability - but from the client's perspective it can sometimes be incomprehensible and frustrating. This is especially true when the result of several hours of work is "three dashes" that, in his opinion, "could have been done faster."
The customer is not paying for time. The client pays for the responsibility and consequences of the decision.
where the value of an architect is really created
The value of an architect is revealed not in the visualization, but in the process:
- listening and adjusting to the lifestyle,
- respecting the budget and reviewing it,
- guiding through the paperwork,
- practical thinking and coordination of trades,
- preparing options and decisions,
- predictability of the process,
- a sense of being taken care of and supported in times of stress.
These are elements that the customer feels directly - even if he can't name them.
Aesthetics are not enough
Aesthetics are important, but they are also an element that is relatively easy to follow - even for students. What cannot be quickly copied is experience, anticipation of the consequences of decisions and the ability to guide the client through the entire investment process.
Focusing solely on aesthetics often leads to designing "at cost," hoping that the project will stand on its own. The result is sometimes predictable: a colorful blowout, empty inside.
Perhaps instead of minimum rates - a common language?
Perhaps instead of further discussions about minimum rates, it might be worth considering a model breakdown of tasks in the construction and investment process - understandable to clients, based on a process that is consistent with the art of the profession, and at the same time does not violate the rules of competition.
Such a matrix could also become an element of education - a new course or teaching standard in architecture departments, where good practices would be instilled from the very beginning.
summary
If we start talking about values in an understandable way, we will stop defending ourselves with price and start defending ourselves with meaning. Clients will begin to see the architect not as a cost, but as a solution to their problem.
And perhaps the most important sentence to leave to ourselves and others at the end:
Let client values also help us defend the value of our own profession, and build the value of our studios' portfolios.
