Web Design
—15 October 2026
Best Architecture Websites: 10 Examples That Get It Right
Ten architecture websites that do more than display beautiful buildings — from project filtering and editorial layouts to photography, movement and genuinely distinctive digital identities.
Best Architecture Websites: 10 Examples That Get It Right
Architecture websites are interesting because they begin with an advantage most businesses would love to have: the work is already visual.
The problem is that this can also make the website feel almost too easy.
Put some enormous photographs on a white background, use a tasteful sans-serif font and call it done.
A lot of architecture websites end up somewhere around there.
The better ones go further. They think carefully about how someone explores hundreds of projects, how drawings and photography sit together, how much information appears before a visitor clicks through, and how the website can feel like an extension of the practice rather than simply a digital folder full of JPEGs.
That is what I have focused on here.
These are not necessarily my ten favourite architecture firms. I am looking specifically at the websites — how they present projects, how the interface behaves and what another architecture practice could realistically learn from them.
I also design and develop websites for architecture and built-environment businesses myself, so this is a subject I find particularly interesting from the development side as well as the visual side.
If you're researching this because your own practice needs a new site, you can also see my Architecture Website Design service or get in touch with me directly.
What makes a good architecture website?
Photography is obviously important, but I do not think photography alone makes a good architecture website.
A serious practice might have decades of completed work across several sectors, countries and project types. The website has to make all of that browsable without turning the experience into a spreadsheet.
Project pages also need enough depth to tell you something about the architecture itself. That might mean plans, drawings, materials, collaborators, location, status, photography or simply a good piece of writing explaining what the project was trying to achieve.
There is also a balance between restraint and personality.
Architecture naturally lends itself to minimal design, but minimal should not mean anonymous. A really strong architecture website still gives you some sense of the practice behind the buildings.
1. Snøhetta
Snøhetta's website is one of the strongest examples of dealing with a huge multidisciplinary body of work without making the visitor feel buried in it.
The project archive can be switched between grid, list and map views, and projects can be filtered by discipline, typology, location and status. That becomes particularly useful because Snøhetta's work extends far beyond conventional architecture into landscape, interiors, products, branding and creative technology.
What I like is that the filtering does not make the site feel like a database.
The projects still dominate visually.
That is probably the difficult balance for a larger architecture practice: providing enough structure for somebody looking for something specific without sacrificing the feeling of discovery.
There is also a nice confidence to how much space the work gets. The site does not constantly interrupt projects with sales messaging.
For an architecture practice, the projects are the strongest sales material.
2. BIG — Bjarke Ingels Group
BIG's website has an enormous amount of work to organise.
Architecture alone spans culture, education, workplace, hospitality, residential, infrastructure, space, sport and healthcare, while the wider studio also works across interiors, landscape, planning and products.
The site therefore behaves almost like a visual catalogue.
That suits BIG.
There is a lot happening, but the hierarchy makes it possible to move from a very broad overview into individual sectors and projects quickly.
I particularly like that it does not try to make the interface feel artificially luxurious or precious. The website feels active and prolific, which actually suits the practice much better.
That is something worth remembering when designing for architects.
The website should not automatically become ultra-minimal simply because it belongs to an architecture firm. It should reflect the kind of practice it belongs to.
3. MVRDV
MVRDV is another studio with a huge archive, and its website makes project exploration the central activity.
The project section covers everything from major mixed-use developments and cultural buildings to retail, residential and more experimental work.
What I think works here is the sense that the archive itself is the experience.
You are encouraged to browse rather than being funnelled into a tiny number of featured projects.
That can be a very good approach for an established practice because somebody evaluating the firm may be looking for evidence of a very particular capability.
They might want to know whether you have worked on housing, adaptive reuse, retail or a particular scale of development.
A good architecture website should let that person find the relevant evidence quickly without making everybody else navigate a complicated menu first.
4. Foster + Partners
Foster + Partners has one of the biggest organisational challenges of anyone on this list.
Its work spans aviation, civic and cultural projects, education, healthcare, hospitality, industrial and research projects, mixed use, offices, residential, retail, sport, transport and urban design across locations around the world.
The website handles this through a more structured project archive than some of the more experimental examples here.
Projects can be filtered by type and location, which makes sense for a practice operating at this scale.
I think it is a good reminder that usability sometimes matters more than trying to make every interaction unusual.
If a prospective client arrives specifically looking for healthcare projects in a certain region, making them decode a clever piece of navigation first would be counterproductive.
The site still feels polished, but the organisation is doing much of the heavy lifting.
For a larger architecture practice, that can be much more valuable than adding another visual effect.
5. Olson Kundig
Olson Kundig's site feels particularly well matched to the work.
The practice describes its approach around people, place and experience, and the website gives project imagery enough room to carry much of that message itself.
Its project archive covers residential, cultural, hospitality, workplace, commercial, mixed-use, academic and conceptual work, among other categories.
What I like most is that it does not feel like a faceless global architecture directory despite the amount of work available.
There is still a sense of authorship.
That matters because architecture websites can sometimes become so restrained that you could swap one firm's logo for another and barely notice.
Olson Kundig avoids that.
The website feels connected to a particular attitude towards materials, landscape and craft rather than simply presenting a polished grid of finished buildings.
6. Studio Gang
Studio Gang does something especially interesting with the way it categorises work.
Projects are not only divided into conventional types such as residential, office or civic. They also carry conceptual tags including Flow, Materiality, Movement, Rhythm, Reuse, Mass Timber and Bird-Safe.
I really like that.
It gives the visitor another way to understand the practice.
Instead of only asking what type of building is this?, the website can also communicate what ideas connect these projects?
That makes the archive feel less like a filing system and more like an expression of how the architects think.
There is an SEO lesson in that too.
Not every navigation system has to be based purely around search keywords. The strongest websites can combine a sensible underlying information structure with more expressive ways of exploring the work.
7. OMA
OMA's website feels more archival and almost institutional in places, which makes sense given the sheer range of material associated with the practice.
Projects can be explored through filters and list or map-based views, while the wider site also connects architecture to publications, lectures and people.
That breadth is important.
Architecture practices often have much more to communicate than completed buildings.
There may be research, exhibitions, competitions, writing, lectures, diagrams and unrealised work that says just as much about the intellectual identity of the studio.
OMA's site gives that wider output a legitimate place rather than treating it as miscellaneous content.
For architecture firms that are active academically, culturally or through research, that is worth thinking about.
A website does not necessarily need to force everything into Projects / About / Contact.
The structure can reflect the wider life of the practice.
8. Kengo Kuma and Associates
Kengo Kuma and Associates has an enormous project archive, and the website solves that with unusually deep filtering.
Projects can be explored by use, location, scale and status, with categories spanning retail, museums, offices, residential, interiors, pavilions, hospitality, education, products, civic work and much more.
It is a good example of when filtering becomes genuinely useful rather than decorative.
There are hundreds of completed projects across many countries.
Without some form of structure, the archive would be almost impossible to navigate.
I also like the separation between the full archive and a more tightly edited selection of projects.
That solves a common portfolio problem.
You may want everything available somewhere for completeness and credibility, while still wanting to curate a smaller set of work that defines the practice most clearly.
Those two goals do not have to conflict.
Visit Kengo Kuma and Associates
9. Henning Larsen
Henning Larsen's website has a particularly strong approach to filtering multidisciplinary work.
Projects can be explored by discipline, typology, status and region, covering architecture alongside landscape architecture, urban design, interiors, graphic design and research.
The typology structure is also more specific than a simple residential/commercial split, with areas including climate adaptation, biodiversity, life science and healthcare, civic work, education and urban landscapes.
That tells you quite a lot about the practice before you have even opened an individual project.
I think that is useful for architecture firms thinking about how to structure their own websites.
Categories are not just an administrative tool.
They help communicate what you actually specialise in.
If your strongest work is cultural, hospitality, adaptive reuse or life sciences, the site architecture should probably make that visible rather than flattening everything into one generic Projects section.
10. Heatherwick Studio
Heatherwick Studio is slightly different from many of the practices on this list because its output moves across buildings, public space, transport, objects and conceptual projects.
The website reflects that broader design identity rather than presenting everything as conventional architectural commissions.
I think that makes it an interesting example for multidisciplinary studios.
If your practice genuinely crosses architecture, interiors, product design, installations or public realm work, the website should not necessarily force everything into a category that does not fit.
The structure can help visitors understand that breadth.
The important part is making sure breadth still feels intentional.
A multidisciplinary portfolio can easily look unfocused if there is no clear relationship between the work.
When done well, though, it can make the studio feel much more distinctive than a tightly templated architecture site.
What the best architecture websites have in common
The strongest examples here are quite different visually, but there are patterns underneath them.
They give projects enough room to matter.
They make large archives navigable.
They use categories that actually say something about the practice.
They do not bury the work underneath endless marketing copy.
And most importantly, they feel like they belong to the architects behind them.
That last point is the one I care about most.
There is a temptation with architecture website design to equate quality with restraint: black text, enormous whitespace, beautiful photography and as little interface as possible.
Sometimes that is exactly right.
But there is no reason every architecture practice should have the same digital personality.
The website should reflect the work.
The project page matters more than the homepage
For architecture firms in particular, I think there is often too much attention placed on the homepage.
The homepage matters, obviously.
But if I am seriously evaluating a practice, I am probably going to spend far more time inside individual projects.
That is where the website can give me photographs, drawings, project context, materials, location, collaborators and the thinking behind the design.
A strong project page can also connect me naturally to related work.
If I arrive through one hospitality project, I should be able to discover other hospitality work without returning to the homepage and starting again.
That is the kind of detail that turns a portfolio into a useful business-development tool rather than simply an online gallery.
Architecture websites don't need to be overly complicated
Some of the websites above have enormous archives and sophisticated filtering systems because they need them.
A smaller architecture practice probably doesn't.
If you have 20 excellent completed projects, building an interface designed to manage 2,000 projects may actually make the site worse.
The structure should match the size and reality of the practice.
For a smaller studio, that might mean a carefully edited project archive, strong sector pages, a concise studio section and an extremely good contact journey.
The sophistication should be in the thinking, not necessarily in the number of features.
Building websites for architecture and the built environment
This is also a space I would like to do more work in myself.
I design and develop custom websites rather than beginning with an off-the-shelf architecture template, so the site can be structured around the way a particular practice presents its work.
That can include large-format photography, project filtering, drawings, interactive elements, unusual transitions, maps, video or even 3D where it genuinely adds to the experience.
I also already work with businesses around construction and the wider built environment.
Two relevant examples are Signature Builds by MH and Mackin Construction. They are construction projects rather than architecture practices, but both sit within the same broader challenge: presenting visually led project work in a way that also helps prospective clients understand the business.
View the Signature Builds by MH case study
View the Mackin Construction case study
If you're an architecture practice looking at the examples above because your own site no longer feels representative of the work you're producing, I have also put together a dedicated Architecture Website Design service.
The aim is not to make your practice look like Snøhetta, BIG or anyone else on this list.
It is to work out what your architecture should feel like online.