This article moves to the next layer: what actually makes a sustainable architect-as-developer business possible in practice.

Let’s talk about money. It makes the world go round, and architects are exceptionally good at pretending it doesn’t matter.

There is no single formula. But there are common elements that show up again and again in firms that survive multiple cycles. And they all start with one uncomfortable truth.

Architecture Fees Are Not Enough

To achieve long-term sustainability, an architect-developer must create a path to secondary revenue. Your architecture fee alone is not going to do it. There is no continuity built into that model.

On top of your architecture fee, you need to charge a development fee that is a percentage of total project cost. That fee must be sufficient to cover operating costs over the full life of the development—however long that may be.

For us, we charge that fee quarterly. We’ve found this to be the most effective way to manage the office, align with the development budget, and stay in sync with the requisition and construction cycle. It’s not a profit center. It’s meant to keep the lights on.

A Word of Advice

I’m not sure this point fits neatly anywhere, but it’s critical.

This is where many developers make their first serious mistake. There will almost always be an investor—sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes not—who suggests that you back-end your architecture or development fee so that “interests are aligned,” or so they feel more comfortable or secure. People in the industry or those who understand investments usually won’t ask this of you.

Don’t do it.

Find a different investor.

You’re a developer now - not an architect providing drafting services. Developers need operating capital to pay a great team dedicated to the success of the endeavor. You need money to run an office, manage consultants, carry risk, and survive delays. There is no shame in that.

Shifting the Economic Power Base

In retrospect, architects who shift their economic power base from architecture to construction tend to have a much more stable platform for paying themselves fees.

I didn’t do this myself, but I thought about it many times—and still do. When you study architect-developers with truly sustainable businesses, you’ll notice a pattern: many of them are also the builder.

The ability to manage the construction schedule, control the billing cycle, and unlock a different scale of fees is materially superior to architecture alone. Construction cash flow is faster, larger, and more predictable.

If you look closely at other architect-developers, notice how many of them also control construction. You may be surprised.

Long story short: many of them can afford to be the architect because they are also the contractor.

Where the Money Comes From (Early On)

In the beginning, projects are scraped together from friends, family, and anyone willing to take a chance on you. You will need to make sacrifices—sometimes in ownership, sometimes on the back end—because you need one thing above all else: a track record.

You do not have a real business until you have a track record you can show potential partners.

Once you do—and if it’s successful—raising capital becomes easier. More importantly, options start to appear.

At that point, you can decide which bucket of capital you want to work with:

· Debt-heavy structures

· Syndicated equity

· Family offices

· RIAs

· Institutional capital

Each comes with different constraints and different implications for control. We’ll get into those distinctions later. The point here is simple: optionality only comes after credibility.

Ownership and the Role of Passive Income

One of the most important lessons I learned early on is that passive income—though rarely truly passive—is the end goal.

Owning your own real estate changes the equation and flips things.

Yes, it’s more work. But compared to the high-risk world of development, it’s often much easier to live with. It’s predictable. It’s stable. It’s recurring. It’s income that shows up every month regardless of what the market is doing—and something you can actually build and budget around.

After the 2008 crisis—about ten years into my career—I was married and had just had my first child. After barely surviving the crash, I set a clear goal: build enough rental income so I would never again be deal-dependent.

I did my first rental project and self-managed it. The income was small, but it was a start—and more importantly, I knew how to scale it. I set a specific monthly income target from rentals. That number became my safety net, and eventually part of my end game.

With that single objective, over the next ten years any money I didn’t need to survive or operate the business went into rentals. To my surprise, I hit that number in nine years.

Then I tripled it in five.

That income didn’t eliminate risk—but it fundamentally changed how much risk I had to take. And on top of that, I accidently created a third stream of revenue by created a property management company.

Exit Strategy Is Not an Afterthought

When looking at a deal, there are dozens of ways to structure it. The right structure depends on your goals, your financial objectives, and the requirements of your equity partners.

Exit strategy isn’t just about maximizing IRR. It’s about how a deal fits into your broader business model:

· Cash flow vs. liquidity

· Portfolio balance

· Risk tolerance

· Long-term control

Those decisions matter far more over time than any single deal.

One final note: you will never be able to time the market. All you can do is test and stress your thesis, and execute professionally.

Anyone who tells you they can time the market is either lying—or trying to sell you something.

For architecture and development, the real question is this: what creates longevity for an architect-developer in a tough, cyclical marketplace? And what model actually allows for long-term growth and sustainability?

Market cycles last years, not days or months. That raises a practical issue most architects don’t spend enough time thinking about: how does the architect-as-developer manage and maintain a team, an office, and active development work through both good markets and bad—continuing to build throughout the cycle without drifting back into a client-service model?

When you operate only an architecture office, you at least have some flexibility. You can lay off members of the team. You can get lean if needed. But if your pool of clients dries up—as it will in bad markets—you’re done. There is nothing to wait for.

There are a lot of layers to this onion, and there are many ways to approach it. Every long-lasting architect-developer office has its own version of the model. Some work very well. Many are outright poor and completely unrealistic. In my own search to become a better firm, I studied many of the architects and firms I admired over the years and pulled bits and pieces from their models to create our own.

If we’re honest with ourselves, experience has taught me the architect-developer model—at least as it’s commonly imagined—is one of the worst business models there is. It combines the volatility of development with the thin margins of architecture, often without adequately addressing either.

In fact, unless you’re an architect—and you’re doing this for the reasons we’ve already discussed—it is significantly cheaper and far easier to just hire an architect and save yourself the overhead! And yes, I have thought about it more than once…

When you really dig into the firms that have actually lasted, you start to notice something important: they do a lot more than architecture to pay the bills and create the freedom we’re all looking for. They are construction firms, general contractors, property managers, private equity firms, fund managers – in part or often all at once.

Architecture may be the identity of the firm, but it is rarely what keeps it afloat.

What This Is Not About

This is not a discussion about the traditional architecture firm that has conventional clients and develops its own project once every now and again. To be honest, that model doesn’t interest me much, because there is no real path to financial freedom in it.

Those firms may produce good work, but they remain dependent on continued commissions and continued labor. Most will never truly retire, and they will never have total control over their outcome.

What I’m interested in is a model that creates control, durability, and optionality over a long career.

Set the Goals

Before any discussion of business structure, fees, or capital, I believe some goals need to be set—both short-term and long-term. They will change and evolve with experience, but they are necessary as markers of progress. Without them, it’s very easy to drift.

The questions are practical, not theoretical:

• Is there a target date to eliminate client work?

• What kind of work do you not want to do?

• How much revenue is required to operate the office doing only your own work?

• How do you pay yourself without clients—and for how long?

• What does “enough” actually look like?

If you don’t define at least some of these goals, you’re not building a business—you’re reacting to opportunities as they appear. And trust me, I spent a fair share of time playing defense before I got my goals in order. Take your time with this part.

My Own Starting Point

I had my own goals going in. They didn’t come all at once. They developed over time, shaped by experience and market cycles. But once I started focusing on an actual plan, the pieces began to come together—and I made plenty of mistakes along the way.

At the beginning, my markers were straightforward:

• First, I set a date for when I wanted to take my last client job.

• Second, we created a revenue model that could support a small office, the team, and pay me—first with some client work, and eventually without it. From there, I had to work backward and build a base of development projects that could support that model.

• Third, early on—and especially coming out of the 2008 crisis—I wanted to build a rental portfolio that could provide income regardless of what the markets were doing. I wanted to insulate myself from future crashes.

These variables and the model changed four or five times over the course of fifteen years as the firm matured and the markets shifted, and then shifted again. But the objective stayed the same: design a practice that could survive market cycles, not just perform during good years.

Where This Leads

This article isn’t meant to solve the problem. It’s meant to frame it honestly.
The architect-as-developer path isn’t elegant. It’s stressful, high-risk, and far from forgiving. Real estate is a business that has crushed many people over the years—and will continue to do so. It’s not an easy business, which is probably why the payoff can be so high.

If structured correctly, however, it can create something most architects never experience: independence that isn’t dependent on approval.

Everything that follows in this series—how fees are structured, how capital is raised, how construction is controlled, how assets are held and exited—flows from this single concern.
The question isn’t whether an architect can develop a project.
It’s whether that architect is actually on a path to financial freedom.

1. Push!

You will need to lead and push everyone involved to complete deadlines. The team of consultants, lenders, attorneys, engineers and everyone else can get very large, and you are in charge of making sure everything is done on time. If one things slips, the entire schedule gets pushed back.

Architects are often polite, respectful, and avoid confrontation — but in development, you’ll need to push, sometimes be blunt, and occasionally rude. You may need to push a dialogue no one wants to discuss and it gets uncomfortable – but it’s a necessary evil (and you may even get to like it).

2. Negotiate everything

Similar to having to push deals along – if you’re not comfortable getting uncomfortable – learn quickly. Real Estate is a money sport, so you need to navigate it accordingly. Get comfortable taking about money – try negotiating a few times – it will be awkward, but it gets easier, and then you will find you will get good at it, and even look forward to it.

3. No one cares about your design.

You care — and that matters — but design alone doesn’t drive deals or sales. Quickly lose the inflated architect’s ego — because real estate runs on price, value, and return. Merging these worlds means understanding what actually creates profit, not just what looks good in a rendering…..

Interested in reading more?

Visit here for more: The Architect-as-Developer Series

Author’s Note

In this educational series of The Architect as Developer, I’m aiming to create a full picture of the industry — one article at a time.

My tone will be unapologetic and biased. It’s based on my experience and my thirty-year battle within a professional field that, when I was young, basically ostracized people like me.

If you’re easily offended or prone to whataboutism, real estate and entrepreneurship is probably not for you, and that’s ok as well.

The Myth of the Gentleman

You don’t hear the phrase “architecture is a gentleman’s profession” anymore, but the concept — though softened by time — still stands.

It’s not a proclamation of politics or ideology, nor a rejection of modern progress. It’s simply the way the field evolved. For centuries, architecture belonged to men who didn’t need to be paid. A gentleman lived on inherited wealth or family money, not a salary. Designing buildings was an expression of taste, intellect, and social stature — not a means of earning a living.

The title architect was less a job than a distinction. It implied refinement, education, and detachment from commerce. A gentleman didn’t negotiate contracts or chase fees; those were the tasks of tradesmen. His work was meant to elevate the senses — not to profit.

That said, while the economics of the industry have changed, that worldview baked a myth that still lingers today: real architecture is done for love, not money.

It’s a romantic idea — noble, even seductive — but it has quietly poisoned the profession. It taught generations of architects that financial ambition is beneath them, that earning well somehow dilutes artistic integrity, and that struggle is a badge of authenticity…….

Interested in reading more?

Visit here for more: The Architect-as-Developer Series

The Architect-as-Developer Lab explores the intersection of design, finance, and ownership within the built environment. It was conceived to teach those in a way I searched for when I was starting out, and as a working forum for a small group of architects to study and apply the principles of development through the lens of architectural practice.

In recent decades, a growing number of architects have sought to reclaim agency over their work — moving beyond client-service models toward structures that provide financial stability, creative control, and long-term equity. While many have attempted single projects or small ventures, few have developed lasting systems that balance design integrity with economic viability.

While a work in progress, this syllabus outlines the framework of study for participants in the Lab. It begins with the philosophical roots of the profession and the cultural barriers that have shaped its relationship to money and risk. From there, it progresses through financial modeling, capital structure, legal frameworks, and real-world execution.

The aim is not to prescribe a single path as some have searched for, but to provide a foundation for architects who wish to understand development as an extension of their design practice — a discipline where creative vision and financial literacy are inseparable – taking control of your financial future, and removing the reliance on outside forces.

Anthony Morena

Architect-as-Developer Syllabus

Part I – Philosophy & Mindset

1. A Gentleman’s Profession
   How the field’s aristocratic past created the myth that money cheapens art — and why mastering capital is now essential to creative freedom.

2. Why the AIA Doesn’t Want You to Do This
   An unspoken tension: the AIA’s framework depends on architects remaining service providers, not owners.

3. Don’t Ask Permission
   How every architect-developer starts: taking initiative, starting small, and proving concepts before institutions believe in you.

4. “Others Have More Opportunities” Is an Excuse
   Why access to capital is built, not given — and how design skills can become your first currency.

5. What Value Architects Actually Bring (vs. What They Think They Bring)
   How to quantify where design adds financial value — density, livability, and long-term performance.

Part II – Skills School Never Taught

6. What Architecture School Left Out
   The six missing skills: finance, persuasion, negotiation, leadership, and risk management.

Interested in reading more?

Visit here for more: The Architect-as-Developer Series

The Architect as Developer path is not a popular or often traveled one for architects – for a variety of reasons. But for the few of us out there, it’s important for those of us who have made the leap to share and help carve a path for the next generation. I learned from the guys before me that became my mentors – so I think it should continue.

As part of that – I’m not one to wax poetical and bs how great everything is – you can listen to others do that. Being successful in two different fields is hard – and I’m one to be direct and to the point. Not being direct, being passive aggressive or aloof will get you eaten alive in real estate. Do what you say and say what you do.

Since beginning my career and over the course of the last twenty plus years, I have been involved in the design and development of over a million square feet, and over 100 residential units in New York City and the outer boroughs. It’s been a mix of ground up construction and value add work, coupled with a mix of condominium and rental development.

The path was not easy, and took a long time to figure out the way and business model that best worked for me. I’ve had projects succeed by wild margins, and I have had some fail miserably. Early in my career – I’ve seen many developers succeed, but I also saw a lot more (many of the guys that I came up learning from) go out of business. I learned early that real estate is a game of detail and risk – if you slip, the result can end your career.

Interested in reading more?

Visit here for more: ‘The Architect-as-Developer Series