Practitioners see consolidation reshaping Australian architecture amid procurement pressures

Australia’s architecture sector is tilting toward consolidation, with leading practitioners saying tougher procurement settings and a scarcity of projects are pushing firms to the extremes of very large or very small. In a recent roundtable, Annabel Lahz, Dimitty Andersen and Ricky Ray Ricardo described an industry where big practices are getting bigger and international players are expanding their foothold.

Ricky Ray Ricardo said he has observed what feels like a consolidation event: large practices are growing rapidly and several big international firms have established locally. He noted this mirrors broader patterns in Australia’s free‑market economy, where many industries settle into a duopoly or “big four”, and pointed to engineering as a precedent now dominated by a handful of national or global operators.

Annabel Lahz argued the profession is experiencing a “hollowing out”. Many medium-scale studios are merging to compete with larger firms, she said, because Australia’s procurement system is geared to scale—demanding extensive capability, track record and insurance.

Yet most architects still work in small practices of 20 people or fewer. If the trend continues, Lahz believes, fewer architects will be able to contribute meaningfully to the public domain, creating an imbalance. Mid-sized practices have long been the sweet spot for public work without the culture of very large firms; their decline, she said, polarises choices and makes for an unhealthy ecosystem.

In South Australia, however, Dimitty Andersen said a countercurrent is visible: micro studios of two to four people are splitting off from medium-sized practices, while some interstate firms are opening very small satellite offices. At the same time, big national practices continue to grow and win work.

Andersen described a “Bunnings effect” as some practices become a one‑stop shop for services, and warned that with too few projects in the pipeline, very large to very small practices are increasingly competing for the same commissions. If teams are not selected appropriately and at realistic fees, she said, project outcomes could suffer and the profession could struggle to retain talent.

Ricardo added that tender requirements, especially where public money is involved, have become steadily more onerous over the past decade. Asked whether government procurement inherently favours scale over small and medium enterprises, Lahz said yes. She called it a significant factor in the rise of large practices and in the pressure felt by smaller and mid-sized studios to merge in order to compete.

The practitioners said these dynamics will continue to shape who secures public work and how talent is retained across the industry, with the structure of procurement and the volume of projects likely to determine whether the middle of the market can recover—or fade further.