Architects' salaries compared by city

15 January 2010 | by Gemma Battenbough

A national survey of architects’ salaries, based on the responses of 460 users of jobs website Seek.com.au, can divulge how pay packets compare across the capital cities.

Analysis by Architecture & Design can reveal that architects in Sydney fair slightly better in the pay stakes on average than those in Melbourne, throughout their careers.

However, Brisbane architects in the middle of their careers earn more than those in the other capitals. Brisbane professionals with five-to-10 years’ experience earn, on average, $11,000 more than architects in Melbourne and Sydney.

But, it’s not all good news for architects from the Queensland capital. Remuneration peaks at an earlier stage in their careers than it does for architects in Melbourne and Sydney.

Brisbane architects earn most when they have five-to10 years’ experience. Respondents to the Seek survey reported to earn between $64,000 and $82,000, with the average taking home $73,000.

Sydney and Melbourne architects reported salaries continuing to climb until they had been in the profession for 20 years, when they suffered a small drop.

Sydney architects had the potential to earn the most, with the top 10 per cent earning $89,000 and averaging 11 years’ experience. Melbourne’s top 10 per cent reported an average pay packet of $77,000 at 13 years in the role.

Staff in Melbourne tended to move around more, with respondents averaging 2.8 years in their current role, compared to 4.2 years in Sydney and 4.5 years in Brisbane.

Based on a smaller sample size of 57, architects in Western Australia earned an average of $59,000 and averaged 7.7 years’ experience, with the top 10 per cent being paid $88,000.

Those outside of Brisbane but still in Queensland earned a typical $59,000 and averaged 11.3 years in practice. The top 10 per cent took home $91,000 and reported 14 years’ experience.

Seek’s data did not provide enough evidence from the Northern Territory, ACT, Tasmania or South Australia to support analysis.

Just in:

Add a comment5 Comments

NotSoSure | 18 January, 2010 at 05:20 PM
These surveys are rubbish and are never a true reflection of architectural salaries...I'm within the 10-15yr experience bracket, & I can guarantee that all my peers and I do not get paid anywhere near this average!!! We're all working in small practices (because the large ones are even worse to work for) or have our own business, and we're all getting paid a lot less than this "average". Even the directors take home less than this "average"! If ArchiStK is making as much as they are - well done & I hope it continues - you are part of a tiny minority. The sad reality is that Australia doesn't value architects to actually pay them what they are worth. And consequently the majority of practices now don't even provide a traditional full architectural service. Australians in general do not value architects & architecture, and would rather pay a plumber or their neighbour to have their house 'designed', or instead put the fees into a massive bbq, jetski, media room & car. This is one of the few countries in the world where we do not have legislation enforcing our engagement for any project size. The employment of foreign graduates isn't the underlying problem, we've always been poorly treated and underpaid in this country. Having a union will not solve anything because if higher salaries are required by law, there will be even more unemployment, and less architecture being paid for. The problem is that in Australia, the land of the tall poppy syndrome & everything that is anti-elitist, very few people want to pay for or even use an architect...they would rather 'design' it themselves. The government here needs to follow examples in other countries, and legislate our use in all projects, and provide rebates on architectural services & certain things used on architecturally designed building....IF this happened, we would all be getting paid a lot better, and our opinion & services valued.
ArchiStK | 18 January, 2010 at 10:19 AM
I agree with all the comments so far, esp. Architeca :: "THINK ABOUT IT" (you're a trained professional) The report just reinforces the anecdotal evidence that working for a salary is a big 'skam' - contract rates are better if you can get them, but even contractors are getting shafted by the fundamental problem: an oversupply of cheap grads willing to work long hours for very little (many foreign grads in particular seem to have been indoctrinated from a young age into accepting this). I can highly recommend taking the plunge and forming your own practice & taking your own independent commissions - it's not as hard as you'd think, and the increased risk is offset greatly by the increase in income. With just 2 residential developments per year, avg. contract value of $1.5M each, I gross $250k. After all overheads it's still around $160k. You'll never get very far ahead working for someone else.
Arcitecha | 16 January, 2010 at 10:34 PM
With such low wages after so many years of training, firms are worried about a skills shortage possibly initiated by the long hours, poor pay and many leaving the profession as a consequence. Oh well, they may just have to import more people and pay them badly for the privilege of being able to work in this country. Try getting an Australian educated graduate with 5yrs local experience !! Having trouble ? Are you offering them a living wage ? Think about it.
Peter D | 15 January, 2010 at 05:44 PM
What an absurd comment! Salary figures for the " industry average" are largely unknown given the nature of the architectural profession as non-unionised/ organised.
Leighton | 15 January, 2010 at 02:11 PM
The validity of a placement agency running such a poll is questionable. Why are people at the SEEK website in the first place. Are they not being paid enough (i.e. below the true industry average)...!?!