Is the Leap to the Other Side of the Table Right for You?

by a former architect turned AEC career advisor

Spend enough time in an architecture or interiors firm in the DC area and you’ll hear it eventually:

“I’m thinking about going client-side.”

Sometimes it’s whispered over coffee. Sometimes it’s announced like a mic drop after a rough deadline week. And increasingly, it’s not just talk. Architects and interior designers are actively “hopping the fence” – leaving design consultancies for roles with developers, global brands like Nike or WeWork, or owner’s rep groups.

I see it daily advising professionals across the AEC industry. And I get the appeal. I’ve sat on both sides of that table. But here’s the part people don’t say out loud:

Most people don’t actually understand what they’re jumping into – and more importantly, what they’re giving up.

Why the Shift Is Happening

Let’s skip the polite reasons and talk about the real ones.

1. Compensation and perceived stability
Owner-side roles often come with higher base salaries and bonus structures tied to performance. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) Compensation Report shows median total compensation for architects has increased roughly 10–15% over the past several years, while roles tied to development and real estate have seen stronger upside, particularly when bonuses are factored in. Meanwhile, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows architect wage growth trailing some adjacent real estate and construction management roles at similar experience levels.

2. Burnout from fee-driven environments
Let’s not pretend this is a fringe issue. Tight fees, aggressive schedules, and constant utilization pressure are the norm. AIA firm surveys have repeatedly cited workload and staffing as top concerns, with a majority of firms reporting difficulty maintaining adequate staffing levels – which directly translates to longer hours for existing teams.

3. The pull of decision-making power
There’s a belief that moving client-side means moving “upstream” – closer to where real decisions are made.

4. Curiosity about the business side
More designers want exposure to deals, pro formas, and portfolio strategy. According to industry research from Urban Land Institute (ULI), interdisciplinary experience across design and development is increasingly valued – which is fueling interest in crossing over.

None of this is wrong. But it’s incomplete.

The Salary Shift No One Fully Breaks Down

Let’s talk about the one that drives a lot of these moves: “I’ll make more money on the other side.”

Short term? Often true. Many people see an immediate bump – sometimes 10–25% – when moving into developer, brand, or owner’s rep roles, especially when bonuses are layered in. But zoom out. Architecture has a flatter early curve and a steeper long-term ceiling than people give it credit for.

According to the AIA, compensation increases significantly at the principal and partner level, particularly in firms with ownership structures. Add profit distribution or equity, and total compensation can rival – or exceed – many client-side roles over time. Now layer in firm size dynamics, which almost no one talks about coming out of school.

In design school, the implicit goal is: land at a big-name firm. And there’s value in that – exposure, brand, scale. But the reality?

• Larger firms = more competition, longer timelines to advance, and more internal politics
• Smaller to mid-sized firms = fewer layers, earlier responsibility, and a clearer path to ownership (if the firm is successful)

Data from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and industry benchmarking studies show that smaller organizations across industries often promote faster due to flatter structures. In AEC specifically, ownership transition planning has become a major focus, with many firm leaders actively looking for the next generation to buy in.

Translation: at the right smaller firm, you’re not one of 200 people trying to make principal. You might be one of 10. That changes the math.

So yes, the “other side” can offer a quicker financial bump. But staying on the design side – in the right environment – can be just as, if not more, financially rewarding long term. It’s just a longer game. And a less obvious one.

What These Roles Actually Are (vs. What You Think They Are)

Here’s where expectations start to drift from reality.

Developer / Owner-Side

Perception: You’re shaping projects and driving big-picture decisions.

Reality: You are managing risk, schedule, and capital. Design becomes one variable in a much larger equation – and often not the deciding one.

You will spend more time reviewing budgets than reviewing plans. According to ULI and National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), cost overruns and schedule delays remain among the top risks developers actively manage – not design quality.

Brand / Corporate (Retail, Workplace, Hospitality)

Think companies like Equinox, Warby Parker or Marriott.

Perception: You’re the design authority ensuring beautiful, consistent spaces at scale.

Reality: You are enforcing standards, reviewing submissions, and balancing brand guidelines against cost and speed. There is design input, but it’s filtered through operations.

Also, you’ve traded a studio environment for a corporate one. That comes with layers, approvals, and a level of internal process that can make a CD set feel… agile. Corporate real estate reports from firms like CBRE consistently highlight efficiency, scalability, and cost control as primary drivers – not bespoke design exploration.

Construction Management / General Contractor (GC)

Perception: You’re closer to the action – building things in real time, solving problems in the field, and seeing projects come to life more directly than in a design role.

Reality: You are managing execution, logistics, and risk on the ground. Your world revolves around schedule, subcontractors, cost control, and constructability – not design authorship.

You will spend more time coordinating trades, running meetings, and tracking progress than engaging in design decisions. According to industry groups like the Associated General Contractors of America and Construction Management Association of America, success in construction management is primarily measured by delivering projects on time, on budget, and safely – with design intent being one of many constraints, not the driver.

There is a tangible satisfaction here that’s real. You see things get built. Problems get solved quickly. Decisions have immediate impact.

But the tradeoffs are just as real:

• The pace is relentless and often dictated by the field, not your calendar
• Early mornings, site presence, and less flexibility are common
• You’re managing constant pressure from owners, subs, and internal teams
• The work is highly reactive – issues don’t wait, and neither can you

You’re not designing the building. You’re making sure it actually gets built – correctly, efficiently, and without falling apart under real-world constraints.

For some, that shift from designing ideas to executing reality is exactly the point. For others, it’s a loss of the creative control they didn’t realize they’d miss.

Owner’s Representative

Perception: You guide the project and keep everyone aligned.

Reality: You sit in the middle and absorb pressure from all sides. You are the translator, the negotiator, and occasionally the person everyone is frustrated with.

You don’t design. You manage the people who do. According to Construction Management Association of America (CMAA), owner’s reps are primarily evaluated on schedule adherence, budget performance, and risk mitigation – reinforcing where the priorities actually sit.

The Pros (They’re Legit)

• Higher earning potential – especially with bonuses
• More predictable schedules – generally fewer fire drills
• Exposure to the business side – finance, operations, strategy
• Influence over outcomes – particularly at senior levels

And for some, this is exactly the right long-term lane.

The Cons (Where People Get Surprised)

1. You give up being “the designer”
This sounds obvious. It’s not. The loss of authorship hits harder than expected.

2. Design is no longer the priority
You’re balancing design against cost, schedule, and ROI. Design rarely wins that argument outright.

3. The work is less tangible
Fewer portfolio moments. More spreadsheets, calls, and coordination.

4. You inherit a different kind of stress
Deadlines don’t disappear. They just shift. And now you own the outcome in a different way. BLS data shows roles in these sectors still report high levels of schedule-driven pressure – just in different forms.

5. Career paths are less defined
Advancement depends on business performance and organizational structure, not just experience or design ability.

The Part That Should Give You Pause

Here’s the reality most people don’t fully consider: It’s easier to leave design than it is to come back to it.

Once you step away from production, detailing, and the day-to-day of practice, your technical edge dulls. You’re less in-the-know with industry trends. Your Revit skills weaken. Your value shifts. Re-entering a firm at the same level is not always straightforward. This isn’t a side step. It’s a pivot.

A More Grounded Take

Let’s be honest – feeling stretched thin or underpaid isn’t unique. It’s baked into much of the profession. But that alone shouldn’t be the reason you leave it. Because here’s the trade most people underestimate:

You’re not escaping pressure – you’re exchanging one type of pressure for another, while also stepping away from the core of the discipline.

And for many, that core – the act of designing, problem-solving, and building – is the reason they got into this in the first place.

So… Is the Grass Greener? Sometimes.

But often, it’s just a different shade with a different set of tradeoffs. From where I sit, the architects and designers who stay the course – and get intentional about where they work, who they work for, and how they position themselves – tend to build more durable, fulfilling careers over time.

That doesn’t mean don’t look. It means look with clear eyes.

Final Thought

Every week, I talk to people on both sides of this fence. The ones who are most content aren’t the ones who chased what seemed easier or more lucrative. They’re the ones who understood exactly what they were trading – and made a deliberate choice.

Because at the end of the day, this decision isn’t about escaping challenges – it’s about aligning your career with the kind of work, impact, and day-to-day reality you actually want to be part of.