There have been a number of discussion on this topic, you might find a search of the forum turns up some of them. It depends on the designer, some charge, some don't.

Someone who gets a lot of requests for consultations can end up spending half their time doing unpaid work that may or may not result in a paying job in the end. Charging for a consultation not only covers their time and gas, it weeds out clients who are not serious or just looking to compare prices or pick someone's brain during the visit, which I'm certain happens a lot.

Those who do design AND installation are more likely to consult for free, because they make more from the jobs they get than do those who do design-only, having the benefit of marking up materials and the labor of their workers. New designers who need the work may also be more likely to do a free consultation, ditto those who are employed by a nursery that hopes to sell you the plants they recommend.

There is not a whole lot of money in design-only work unless you are in demand and can command top dollar, oversee installations and charge a percentage for managing the job. I'm guessing that once a designer/architect has reached this point, his/her time is so valuable that qualifying new clients is a must. I've talked to at least one landscape architect's firm who will not even look at your design job unless you agree up front to let them do the entire installation.

There really is no standard approach. I have had, over the years: a free shrub border design from a nursery-staff designer on my scale drawing after a 20 min. meeting (nicely done, and I had them plant it); a free visit from a local nursery for 15 minutes to address a landscaping problem, with an unimaginative suggestion for a fix that was worth exactly what I paid for it; a free half-hour consult with a designer followed by design work billed at $85 per hour for a planting plan; design consult with a well known designer billed at $120 per hour for several hours of brain-picking and quick sketches. Everyone does it differently.

If they're charging that much for an initial consult, they're probably quite busy. It would stand to reason, then, that they may also be quite good. However, as I'm sure you discovered with finding an architect, "fit" plays a pretty big role too. You're interviewing each other; if this is someone you feel you may want to work with, it's probably money well spent. If you're not that invested in this designer yet, I'd say call around.

As far as whether or not this is standard; depends on the designer or LA, as saypoint mentioned. If I was too busy to meet new clients and booked several months out, I'm sure that I would charge for the initial consult to weed out the tire-kickers. But, I'm only comfortably busy (working I certainly applaud you for planning the landscape before you're totally ready for it. I wish more folks had that foresight.

I grew up in southern New England and have maintained some great professional relationships with LAs, designers and contractors out there. Believe me, there are a lot of pros who have worked with old homes!

Saypoint said it all, perfectly.

I'm guessing this is a very well known designer who works with period restoration projects. When you are in demand, it is essential to charge or you can spend half your life being called all over the place for dead leads. Time spent chasing leads displaces productive billable time on other projects. That would essentially translate to losing money. If you get 20 calls a week and only one out of 20 decide to pay for the consultation, it is worth it because the chances of closing a design deal with that prospect is very high - probably in the 90+% rate. Even if it were only 50% it would mean 25 good jobs a year. The alternative would be to visit a whole lot of people and spend hours writing up proposals and only being able to do 15 jobs a year because you don't have the time to do more.

I will second saypoint's comments. That is exactly the same approach most designers follow in my area. And I'd be leary about making direct comparisons with architects - I believe the scope and time frame of an architectural project puts it in quite a different light compared to a landscape design. You can bet the expense of an initial consultation/meet and greet is factored into their overhead and accounted for as a "cost of doing business" and their overall fee structure reflects that. Most landscape designers don't have the economy of scale and similar scope of project to be able to do that so they charge upfront.

While the exact dollar amounts may differ, that fee structure is pretty common to what is typical here. I personally do not charge for travel time as with traffic in my area you never know how long it may take to get from point A to point B :-) But I do charge mileage in addition to an hourly fee. And I also credit the cost of that initial consultation towards the design fees if I get the job.

you send me some pic,dimension,
i will design free
i draw perspective rendering,show here,there will be many people good advice.

How about the design online? U know that is a new way accepted by more and more people now.
Of course,the design process allows us to plan and visualize your new landscaping before any work begins, and before any money is spent for plants or materials.So, it's necessary. But, u have to spend the hundreds money for just once meeting with the designer . i think that's a waste for many families,especially who live in backland.
Now,thanks to web-based collaboration tools, no matter where u live, we can complete whole design online. apparently,it save energy ,time and money.
So ,i have many experiences of designing online for client.
The process as follows:

1.Describe your ideas and preferences in the questionnaire
2.Send photos and diagram of your property
3.I'll create your blueprints and other requested documents
4.You review the submissions, request changes, and I revise as necessary
5.You receive the finished landscaping plans, images and specifications

Um, so i hope u will choose this new way to get a wonderful gander with a low cost!

ahhhh... there we go. Be careful, as the hasty angler loses the fish. And may get run out of the fishin' hole.

Finally, the bait cutting gave way and Shakespeare had King Lear say it best..."Meantime we shall express our darker purpose. English as a second language notwithstanding, you have now advertised your "design services" for a fee which is not allowed.

Kind of too bad, I rather enjoyed being transported back to the 60's gymnasiums all impossibly decked out for a prom night theme set in some fantasy locale. (Yes, before the days of a stretch limo taking us to the grand ballroom at the Four Seasons.)

Although I still think it is a bit of stretch (how can one possibly correctly analyze site conditions through just photos??), I am willing to accede that online design services may have a limited market. However to extend that stretch to a market halfway across the globe and to an entirely different culture, not to mention plant palette, and expect to generate any sort of successful design plan honestly boggles the mind. Forget the blatant advertising - it is just an incredibly awkward and ineffective way to do any sort of design business.

On-line versus on-site design strategy. Once the site data is gathered the design process (pondering, research, drafting, rendering, specifications, plant list) isn't it the same? The only cost savings to a customer would be the initial hours of consultation and mob-fees to the site. Without an on-site visit, I can't imagine a designer providing a warranty for their work. It seems that the only savings to a customer are really at the risk to the customer that the plantings may fail?

Thank you, all, for your input and information. I'm not sure what I will do next. I am not ready to spend that kind of money for an initial meeting without any knowledge of what sort of person the designer is and how we would interact. I would be more comfortable with personal referrals, but no one I know has had work done of this nature or on this scale. I'll mull it over for a while.

Thanks again.

isabella- regarding your question of "isn't it the same?" Yes and no. I will do designs for properties that I've never been to, but ONLY for contractors who I've spoken to and feel comfortable with. No offense to homeowners but I don't offer my services to them because I need a skilled set of eyes at the site. Not just to accurately measure and shoot grades, but also to tell me where there are drainage issues, where the shade is densest, where the septic field is... all the information that you must have in order to create an informed design that will work. Most homeowners don't know to look for these things, and might not be able to identify them if I asked them to.

So, yes- the process is, technically, the same. However, I will be the first to admit that the designs I've created for sites I've spent time at are ALWAYS the better designs. They're just more nuanced and attuned to what's going on around the site. You can only get so much of a vibe from looking at a photo and talking to someone who's been there.

I think where a lot of the websites that claim to offer landscape design services to homeowners over the internet tip their hand is by making the client REALLY involved in the design process. One of them sets up a conference call with the homeowner and the designer each at their computers, and the homeowner tells the designer where to place everything as they go along. Really? I'd rather walk across the street and lick the fire hydrant than get involved in anything like that. Too many cooks, baby. There's no way it could be good.

serveta- you have to do what's right for your comfort level. Where in NE are you?

I will point out to everyone that the designer in question would not have these rates for very long if there were not those who felt she is worth it. Is the price too steep? It depends on your needs and whether the consultant has something equal to that value or not.

I think I know who the designer is and if I'm correct, this person is a specialist in period design. I was involved in a publicly owned historic renovation project a couple of years ago as the site designer. I told the board that was running it to look for such a person because I did not want to touch the landscape design with a ten foot pole. I'm not saying that I could not do the research and get up to speed with historically accurate, but there is more to it than that.

I did the Site Plan and all the politics involved in getting approval for a large parking lot and some large retaining walls that were necessary yet very scary to those who use the historic campus this was on. I was in the best position to get that phase done which allowed for a fresh face and new specialized set of credentials to get through the planting design without the added baggage of the site plan battles.

These projects are run by committees and subcommittes. It is the politics of design where specialty credentials is highly important as a position of strength in order to bring all the competing agendas and values together. You also have to have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to control that process and get the job done along with those credentials. Not many people fit that specialized description. When someone does, and this person did, he or she is worth the pay rate.

Now many might say that "I don't need the politacal power, so I should not be charged for it". They would be correct, but the designer can't displace her full billing rate with low billing rates just because someone only needs a portion of her value.

She knows most people are not going to need her full capacity and are not willing to pay for it. But, she wants both the challenge and rewards of working at that full capacity and the enjoyment of working for people who value that as much as she does.

The end result is only the people who really value what she does will get involved with her. She'll have a greater quality of life doing challenging specialized work and making a better living at it.

That is not bad for anyone.

I am interested in the responses here. I can understand the desire of the professional not to waste his/her time ...but among professionals there are so many styles, preferences, biases ....what if your styles clash? Then you have wasted the money for the consultation.

Serveta, there must be other homes similar to yours (same period, style) in the area. I would drive through the neighborhood and find one with a landscape design that you like ...knock on their door and get their recommendation. I wouldn't pay $350+ for someone to consult "blind".

Cindy, you are right and your advice is very good as well.

The high consultation fee scares away the ones who do not know enough about either the designer or what they want as well. The result is that they only people who call her in are those that have a pretty good idea of what she does and a desire to have that done. No one's time is wasted.

It actually atches your recommendation of knocking on doors of the landscapes you like. It is the client researching to find the person who meets their needs prior to contacting that person. A rare few will be lead to the $350 consultant because she is absolutely the right one for the project. Most will have different needs including a different design budget that will lead to a better match.

As a client I would not hire someone who provides free on-site consultations. Why? Because there is no free lunch. Someplace in the fees this time will be made up, and not just for my consultation but also for all those that didn't hire the guy. I don't mind paying for my work but I'm not about to get stuck for the average cost of a consultation program.

So would I pay a significant fee for a totally known person to visit my property that may not be of any use? No.

To my thinking, a more appropriate method is for the client to visit the place of business to meet the professional and discuss the firm's scope of services, not the client's property. For landscape design I would expect to see a portfolio of the firm's projects. The interview would likely be done in 10 to 20 minutes and would not be worthy of a fee.

This is actually a frequent resolution to the consultation problem. A brief phone conversation to qualify the client's needs and determine the "fit", then a brief meeting to show your portfolio and discuss how the process works, at no charge. Actual detailed discussion of the project or ideas shared fall under billable time. Otherwise people would have designers come out to pick their brains on a walk-around, and use the ideas without hiring them.

A free consultation is not inherently bad. It is often a form of marketing investment paid in the form of time instead of money for ads. I'm willing to risk two hours of my time for a chance at a $1,500 design job because that is how I get them. If my phone was ringing off the hook and/or I had a lot of dead end leads, I'd put a price on it. Instead I get just enough inquiries and a very high closing rate, so I don't feel there is a reason to change what works. I don't advertise, so I'm found pretty much by referral which is a form of pre-qualification of its own.

I worked in a landscape architecture office that was owned and operated by a very well established high profile garden center. There were over 50 inquiries for landscape/design estimates a day ...A DAY! They had a fee to send someone out because they absolutely had to. Ten to twenty percent of the inqueries would accept the fee. That still meant 5 to 10 appointments to look at jobs every day. The fee was not the money maker, but they were left with only very serious leads which resulted in a high closing rate on design sales and an even better closing rate on installation sales.

The alternative would be to ignore a certain percentage of the calls because it was physically impossible to have 50 or more appointments a day even with four people to do it. If you had more staff, the percentage of dead leads would be much higher so the added expense of hiring and managing more staff (and perhaps lesser qualified staff) would not necessarilly result in more sales. Finally, you can only build so much per year, so there comes a point where you can out sell your ability to build. By having a consultation fee they were able to balance the leads with the design capability and to the installation capability. It worked out well.

I also worked for an extremely good design/build company that no longer advertised at all in order to rely only on word of mouth from the limited demographic that they already worked for. That meant that the very limited staff time did not get mis-applied.

The thing that people outside of the situation don't understand is that fee structure has more to do with managing a company's resources than making money directly from the fee money.