Working from home is no longer a temporary post-pandemic experiment. It is now a mainstream part of Australian working life.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 36% of employed Australians usually worked from home in 2025, well above pre-pandemic levels. For managers and professionals, the proportion is significantly higher.
But architecture is not like many other professions.
South Australian architectural practices responding to recent Practice Committee discussions describe a more complex picture, one where flexibility is highly valued, but where collaboration, mentorship and studio culture remain essential to practice.
Flexibility matters, but context matters more
Across practices of all sizes, from small studios to national firms, one consistent theme emerged: flexibility is now an expected part of contemporary employment.
For some practices, flexible arrangements are informal and responsive.
Greenway Architects, for example, describes a workplace where staff can shift hours or location when life requires it, without a formal policy.
Others are taking a more structured approach.
National practice Cox, with more than 600 staff nationally, offers one day of working from home per week, with Monday and Friday designated as “all in the studio” days to maintain connection, communication and culture.
Studio Nine is currently reworking its own policies entirely.
As Director Justin Cucchiarelli explains:
“We believe we work better together, however we understand the need for flexible working arrangements.”
This reflects a broader shift: flexible work is no longer viewed as a special accommodation, but as part of normal workforce expectations.
Architecture remains deeply collaborative
While flexibility is valued, nearly every contributor reinforced the same professional truth: architecture is inherently collaborative.
Wayne Grivell of Swanbury Penglase noted that while digital tools have improved efficiency, architecture is still best experienced in a shared studio environment.
Chris Watkins of Baukultur expressed a similar view:
“In architecture, learning by osmosis is very real.”
That phrase captures a recurring sentiment across practices.
Spontaneous design reviews, informal conversations, overheard project discussions, quick problem-solving across desks, and the cultural rhythm of a studio environment remain difficult to replicate remotely.
This was especially emphasised in relation to early-career practitioners.
Simon Frost of Greenway observed that younger architects consistently value immersion in studio life because professional growth often comes through observation, interaction and everyday exposure, not just formal supervision.
Different practice sizes, different realities
One of the most interesting findings is that there is no universal model.
Smaller practices often operate differently from larger firms.
Lumea, a four-person integrated architecture and construction practice, currently operates with significant flexibility, largely shaped by staff retention needs and changing life circumstances rather than formal policy.
Yet even there, questions are emerging about how much remote work best supports training and team development.
By contrast, larger firms appear more likely to establish clearer boundaries or formal frameworks to balance flexibility with operational consistency.
This suggests that working from home policy is not simply a cultural question, it is also a business model question.
Parents, carers and retention
Several practices acknowledged that flexibility is particularly important for parents and carers.
But contributors also raised an important equity issue: flexible work should not be framed solely as a benefit for parents.
Studio Nine’s policy review is specifically examining how flexible arrangements can be more inclusive across the workforce.
That broader framing matters in an increasingly competitive talent market.
Flexible work can be a retention tool, but only when balanced against the needs of projects, teams and practice culture.
So where is the profession landing?
The Practice Committee feedback suggests the profession is moving toward a pragmatic middle ground.
Not fully remote.
Not rigidly office-based.
But deliberately hybrid, shaped by project needs, people, and practice culture.
The lesson is clear: architecture depends on collaboration, but contemporary practice also depends on flexibility.
The challenge for leaders is not choosing one over the other.
It is designing workplaces that genuinely support both.