A homeowner searching for an architect usually has a project in mind. They may need to restore a Federation house, design a traditional family home or plan a country estate. Your practice’s visibility becomes more useful when it connects with those specific needs.

Michael Bell Architects offers a useful example. In Creato’s case study dated 3 October 2026, the practice was named in 29.5% of 606 tested AI answers to unbranded NSW architecture buyer questions. It received 21.5% of architect mentions across that sample, and its website recorded 209 citations in the audit.

Those are visibility results. They show where prospective clients could encounter the practice during their research. The report did not measure enquiries or revenue, and the figures should not be read as a promise of future rankings or projects.

Here is what the evidence means, and how architecture firms can use SEO, AEO and GEO to plan a more useful online presence.

What SEO, AEO and GEO mean for architects

Search engine optimisation, or SEO, helps your website become discoverable and useful in search. For an architecture practice, that includes clear service information, relevant project pages, technical accessibility and credible evidence of your work.

Answer engine optimisation, or AEO, focuses on the questions people ask and how clearly your content answers them. Generative engine optimisation, or GEO, is commonly used for work aimed at visibility in AI-generated answers, including business mentions and source citations.

The terms overlap. An agency proposal should explain the actual work and measurement rather than simply offer three separate labels.

Google’s guidance on generative AI search says its AI experiences build on core Search ranking and quality systems. The implication for your practice is straightforward: useful, specific content and sound SEO foundations remain relevant. There is no special wording that guarantees an AI recommendation.

What the Michael Bell Architects audit measured

The case study reports 743 answers overall, including 606 answers to questions that did not name a business. Its scope included 30 unbranded buyer questions, six branded checks and 20 tracked keywords using Sydney Google results. Questions were repeated two or three times per engine.

The tested platforms were ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Google AI Overview and Google AI Mode, across nine distinct surfaces. Exact business-name matches counted as mentions; generic descriptions did not. The source audit retained answers, screenshots and fingerprints of the evidence.

Three headline numbers describe different things:

• 29.5% answer visibility: the proportion of the 606 unbranded answers naming Michael Bell Architects.

• 21.5% share of architect mentions: the practice’s share of all architect mentions within those answers. An answer can mention several firms, so this has a different denominator.

• 209 website citations: the audit’s recorded citations of michaelbellarchitects.com. Citations are not visits or enquiries.

The report ranked Michael Bell Architects first by share of architect mentions in this sample. That is a finding about the tested questions and surfaces, rather than a claim that it is the leading firm for every architecture search in Australia.

Creato’s Michael Bell Architects project case study documents the branding and website work. The search results discussed here should be understood as an audit of the practice’s wider online presence, including its SEO work, rather than proof that a single design change produced every result.

Graph 1: Google AI visibility across two reporting periods

Source: Creato, Michael Bell Architects AI Search Success Case Study, 3 October 2026, pages 3 and 14. Historical Australian Google AI tracking. Bars show monthly averages for two unequal reporting windows, not individual months or an uninterrupted time series.

The report’s historical comparison shows average monthly mentions rising from 2.2 in August–December 2025 to 7.7 in March–September 2026. Average monthly website citations increased from 12.2 to 30.7 over the same comparison windows.

That is 3.5 times as many monthly mentions and approximately 2.5 times as many monthly citations. January and February 2026 are outside these comparison windows. The chart preserves the published averages rather than estimating missing monthly values.

This comparison provides evidence of increased recorded visibility. It does not isolate the effect of SEO, a redesign, new projects, external coverage or changes in the AI systems. The audit is observational, not a controlled attribution study.

Graph 2: The buyer questions where the practice appeared most often

Source: the same case study, page 5. Five highest reported question-specific rates from the 30-question unbranded set. Labels are shortened in the graphic; percentages are rounded. These highlights do not represent the overall 29.5% answer-visibility rate.

The highest result was for the question, “Which architects specialise in country estates in New South Wales?” The practice appeared in 95% of the repeated answers for that question.

It appeared in 79% for “Which Sydney architects design classic or traditional style homes?” and 74% for a question asking for an architect to design a homestead on a rural property in regional NSW. Federation-house restoration and timeless rather than modern Sydney design each recorded 68%.

These results suggest a practical focus for architecture marketing: make the relationship between your specialism and the client’s project easy to understand. A practice does not need to claim expertise in every building type or location to present a convincing case for the work it genuinely does.

Build pages around the projects you want to win

Start with the types of enquiries your practice is equipped to handle. For one firm, that may be heritage residential work. For another, it may be coastal new builds, multi-residential developments or commercial interiors.

Write a service page that answers the first decision-making questions: what you design, who it suits, where you work and what your involvement includes. Link to completed projects that demonstrate that experience.

The Michael Bell report identifies consistent coverage of classic, heritage and traditional homes, country estates and stud farms. It also points to relevant location pages and real portfolio evidence. Our interpretation is that this gives both readers and search systems concrete information to assess, although the audit does not prove the contribution of each element.

Avoid creating dozens of interchangeable suburb pages. A location page is more useful when it contains genuine local experience, relevant projects and a clear explanation of the service available there.

Give your project photography enough context

Photography helps clients recognise work they admire. Supporting text helps them understand whether your practice is suitable for their own brief.

For each featured project, explain the building type, the broad location where appropriate, the client’s brief, important constraints and your role. Describe the decisions behind the result. Credit collaborators and photographers, and obtain permission before publishing private client details or images.

A heritage project might explain how an extension relates to the original house. A country residence might explain the relationship between the home, landscape and supporting buildings. These are useful distinctions for a buyer comparing practices.

Keep important information available as page text. A gallery, video or downloadable PDF can support the story, but visitors should not need to open another file to learn what your practice actually did.

Measure visibility and business outcomes separately

A useful reporting plan distinguishes discovery from commercial results. Keep a consistent set of buyer questions, record the platforms and dates, and save the answers being measured. Track mentions and citations separately so a change in one is not mistaken for a change in the other.

Alongside search reporting, review website enquiries and their suitability: project type, service area, likely scope and how the prospect found you. The practice’s own enquiry records can help show whether improved visibility is reaching the right people.

Avoid declaring success from one favourable AI answer. Responses can vary with wording, location, platform and timing. The Michael Bell results are a dated snapshot, supported by a separate historical comparison, rather than a permanent position in an AI ranking table.

Questions architecture firms ask

Does SEO for architects still matter when clients use AI search?

Yes. Clear, accessible service and project content remains useful for conventional search and for AI experiences that retrieve web information. Google explicitly connects its generative search features with its existing Search systems.

Can AEO or GEO guarantee that an architect appears in ChatGPT?

No. A practice can improve its information and evidence, but cannot control every answer an external platform produces. Agree on deliverables, a testing method and reporting that records uncertainty.

Should every architecture firm target heritage and country-house keywords?

Only if those services genuinely match the practice. Michael Bell’s results reflect its specialism and the audit’s question set. Your campaign should reflect your own portfolio, geography and preferred projects.

Did this audit prove an increase in qualified enquiries?

No. The case study explicitly measures visibility and citations, not enquiries or revenue. Those outcomes require separate business records and a defined comparison period.

Find out where your architecture practice appears

Creato’s AEO and GEO services combine visibility auditing, technical SEO, service-page content and supporting business evidence. Start with your website, the projects you want to attract and the locations you genuinely serve. That gives an audit a useful question to answer: can prospective clients find and accurately understand your practice when they research those projects?