Are Interior Designers Better at Interior Architecture? A Case for Better Collaboration, Not Bigger Egos

On a recent episode of the Business of Home podcast, Sean Low, a design business consultant, made a point that stopped me in my tracks: in his opinion, designers are often superior at interior architecture. As he put it,

“When you open the door, that’s what an interior designer does.”

He followed with the assessment that designers are uniquely attuned to the flow of a space, the relationship between one decision and the next, and the ability to translate and communicate those connections across every level of a project.

This is something I’ve thought about before, though never formally verbalized (at least not publicly). I’ve certainly wondered why interior designers -- responsible for shaping the lived experience of a space’s inhabitants -- are so often brought in after significant architectural planning has been completed. Or worse, at the very end of the architectural design phase or even AFTER construction is complete.

Before I incur wrath from our architect friends, collaborators, or colleagues, let me be very clear: this is not an argument that one discipline is inherently better than the other, nor is it a referendum on talent, intelligence, rigor, or value. Architects bring essential expertise to the built environment, and in many projects, their role is inarguably critical.

But the role of the designer is too often devalued, or dismissed entirely. Sometimes, I might add, right to our faces. I am still salty about one project partner who referred to the interiors budget as “the leftovers,” meaning whatever remained after all the “important” elements had been accounted for. That comment probably deserves its own blog post, but for now I will say this: the value of an interior designer extends far beyond providing the “jewelry” for a space.

Let’s unpack it. To many, this may be a provocative idea, controversial, even. But who is best positioned to lead the effort of creating an experience out of an interior space? The answer may be more obvious for those of us inside the design industry than it is to the outside world.

For many clients, the roles are understood in fairly simple terms. Architects are associated with structure, systems, framing, roofs, and the relationship between a building to its site. Interior designers are often associated with finishes, furnishings, decoration, and the later stages of a project.

That perception is understandable, but it’s not entirely accurate because between structure and styling lies an enormous category of decision-making that determines how a space actually feels and functions for daily living. That category is interior architecture and design.

Most homeowners, when beginning a renovation or new build, naturally assume the architect should be the first call. If a home is to be fabricated from scratch, or walls are moving, systems are changing, or the project involves substantial structural remodeling, that instinct makes sense.

Architects and interior designers often overlap, but they don’t always prioritize the same things in the same order. Both disciplines matter, but when the majority of the client’s emotional and functional experience happens inside, interior thinking needs to be present from the beginning and, in fact, is well-positioned to lead.

When an architect begins work without interior design input, many of the decisions that shape the interior experience may already be made by the time the designer enters the conversation. After research, discovery, and schematics, a designer may identify architectural adjustments that would meaningfully improve the project: a doorway that would function better if shifted, a kitchen that wants a stronger relationship to the dining area, a window placement that complicates the furniture plan, a room whose proportions do not support the desired program, or a primary suite that lacks the kind of flow the client actually needs.

Sometimes, the implications are even more detailed. They show up in lighting locations intended to highlight millwork or art, in the thickness of a tile floor and how it meets wood, or in the many small transitions that determine whether a space feels considered or compromised.

Sometimes these things can be adjusted; sometimes they cannot. And when they can’t, everyone is left doing their best within constraints that could have been avoided.

This is where I think Sean Low’s point resonates, because when it comes to interior architecture, designers are often uniquely equipped to anticipate the lived consequences of early architectural decisions. We are trained to see the downstream effects.

When designers are brought in late, they are forced into a difficult position: slow the process down to make critical assessments and recommendations, or fold into a process that is already in motion. The first risks reinforcing the tired narrative that designers are slow, disruptive, overly particular, or difficult. The second protects the schedule, but often at the expense of a more thoughtful, fully resolved outcome.

In my opinion, if we have the opportunity to make improvements -- ones that our clients will live with (or without) for the life of the home –– what’s another month or two to get it right from the start?

One challenge is that many people still do not fully understand what interior designers do. Another is that the profession itself is broad, encompassing many different types of designers with varying scopes, specialties, and levels of technical expertise. As an industry, we have not always done enough to clearly communicate the full range of our skills and capabilities. How can we be treated as essential to the process when our role, scope, and strengths are widely misunderstood?

A good interior designer thinks holistically from the inside out. We understand that the success of a room isn’t determined by any single decision but by the relationship between all of them. That kind of thinking, and the opportunity to introduce these considerations early and collaboratively, is central to the success of the architecture.

The best projects happen when the interior designer is involved from the earliest conceptual stage. This allows the architect and designer to work in dialogue from the beginning, each bringing their strongest lens to the table.

Collaboration is not always seamless, but when it works, it creates something richer, more thoughtful, and ultimately more enduring. One of the most valuable lessons I have learned over time is how to work with others more thoughtfully. Collaboration is a skill; it takes time, humility, and intention to develop. It requires knowing when to lead and when to follow, when to listen, and how to trust the expertise of others without losing your own point of view.

Over the years, I have spent a lot of time sharpening that muscle. What I have come to understand is that the best work is never created in isolation. It comes from a team of people who are deeply knowledgeable in their craft and willing to lean on one another. They challenge ideas, refine decisions, and elevate the outcome beyond what any one person could achieve alone.

The industry is evolving, and this conversation is part of the shift. One meaningful step forward would be for architects to advocate for designers earlier and more intentionally. Not as a concession, but as a recognition that no single discipline can or should own every part of a project. The strongest architects understand where their expertise is essential and where another perspective can sharpen the work. When they make room for interior designers at the table from the beginning, they signal to clients that interior thinking is not decorative or secondary, but fundamental to how a home will function, feel, and live. That kind of advocacy does not diminish the architect’s role. It demonstrates confidence, generosity, and a commitment to the best possible outcome.