News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Amount of time architects spend on site
« on: November 03, 2004, 06:44:21 AM »
In the design & construction of a course, how much time do architects spend on site ?

I am not asking this question to condemn anybody or to start any controversy. I’m not interested in instigating arguments or bashing any particular architect. I have no agenda in asking this question, except mere interest in the topic.

How important is being on site during construction & how important should it be ? Do architects have a longing to spend more time on site, but are unable to do so due to business ?

When an overseas contract is secured, how important is it to find a talented architectural associate that lives in the country the course is to be constructed ? How does that relationship work ?

I understand that every site & contract is different, & there is no formula. I also understand that every architect is different in the way they work best.

I am aware that architects like Mackenzie & Ross often didn’t spend much time on site, but were still able to convey what they wanted to those who were involved in construction.

It would be great if some of the architects on GCA could answer this question. (Even by PM if they feel the need). I’m happy for answers to be based on specific experience, or merely by concept & ideal.

Andrew

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2004, 08:34:44 AM »
Andrew,

For me it varies a bit.  For a big project, like the Quarry at Giants Ridge, or Fortune Bay in Minnesota, I spend a lot.  I recall (as part of a billing audit with the state of Minnesota) having 60 Hotel nights, which probably translates to about 90 days on the project, over two years of construction.

Granted a few of them were for public hearings, etc. but I think its an accurate reflection.

I did have some projects where lower fees were important to the Owner, so I spent proportionally less time on site, like ten or twelve days.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2004, 08:55:26 AM »
Andrew,

One of the benefits of regional architecture is that architects & their associates can be on site virtually everyday. This close relationship between the architecture firm and the work being done by any contractors ensures a product that more closely resembles the original vision of the architect. A further advantage to regional architecture is that no job is too small, and the close proximity allows the knowledge of the architect to be tapped more frequently.

Tyler Kearns
« Last Edit: November 03, 2004, 08:56:44 AM by Tyler Kearns »

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2004, 09:19:48 AM »
During the construction of Blackhawk GC, Rod Whitman spent more than 300 days on-site over two years. Well over 300 days, in fact.

There were a couple reasons for this: 1. we didn't have another big project going on at the time, and 2. Rod did a majority of the shaping work, personally.

I'm pretty sure, too, that either Dave Axland or Dan Proctor was on-site everyday during the construction of Wild Horse. For the same reasons.
jeffmingay.com

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2004, 09:41:45 AM »
Andrew,

I think at a minimum 2 days onsite per week is a must, but with some regrets I must admit that being there everyday would be the ultimate situation, and one that I have not either had the foresight to propose, or have not be granted the opportunity.  There are so many little details that don't quite get done exactly the way you want them in those few days between visits.  However, I would rather give the course my personal attention 2 to 3 days per week and not have someone either there daily or making the site viists for me on the days I am not there, and have them compromise or undo the work I have done during my visits.  

I must say I have evolved from working with an architect and being on site every 2 to 3 weeks, to being on my own, really touting hard my detailed plans and being on site to ensure those plans are implemented, to where I am today which is still providing detailed plans, but being onsite 2 to 3 days and improvising major improvementments to the desing in the field rather than letting the plans strangle my in field creativity, and beyond today I hope to be able to give the client a budget that they can count on, then go into the field everyday with a routing plan and no construction plans and improvise the whole stategic design in the field.  That to me seems like the promise land right now.  There is no greater joy in this profession than being in the field, the closes thing to it may be when you feel you have really nailed the routing plan.  

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2004, 02:13:26 PM »
Jeff B:  

I was surprised by your answer!

Jeff M:

I admire Rod for spending so much time at Blackhawk, really I do.  But spending that much time is also the reason he is working for someone else right now, and you're on GCA today instead of out in the dirt somewhere.  You have to find a way to balance field time and future business, or you'll only get to build a handful of courses in your lifetime.

Andrew:

The answer to your question really depends on how willing one is to pay talented associates, so they can keep the project moving forward in the lead architect's absence.  I've got some really talented [and expensive!] guys on staff, and I think their input more than makes up for the time I'm not there.

On most of my projects in the last three years, I've been there about 10 days before construction starts and about 25-30 more days during construction.  That's not nearly as much as Bill Coore, but I'm comfortable on most of them that I had all the input I wanted to have, and that the golf course wouldn't have been that much better if I had been there ten more days.  This system works for us only because Jim or Eric or Brian or Bruce are there for 100 days during construction, and because we usually have other talented people doing some of the shaping alongside them.

I must admit there are days when I wish I could just stay on a site a bit longer and get on the bulldozer myself ... I've been spotted on the machine in New York a couple of times this fall.  But not because I think the project would turn out much better ... only because sometimes I feel like I'm missing out on the fun.  Maybe one of these days the business will really dry up and I'll get my wish.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2004, 02:39:57 PM »
Tom D.,

I didn't want to say it. But, you're absolutely right. I've had that discussion with Rod numerous times. He tends to get solely focused on the job at hand, and then when it's done think, damn we should have been looking for other work at the same time. (Duh!) To be honest, it's been one of the frustrating aspects of my life over the past few years.

There's no doubt that spending too much time on one job has hurt Rod's future prospects throughout this career.
jeffmingay.com

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2004, 05:35:05 PM »
Jeff B:  

I was surprised by your answer!


I hate to ask, but which way were you surprised, high or low?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2004, 06:08:37 PM »
i'd say on average ,two to three days a week during construction , six to eight trips pre-construction and probably the same during grow in and the course opening.......distance to the site can compress this .

   i think that sounds similar to kelly, tom and jeff....
on most all of my jobs i work solely, punctuated with visits by davis and mark love ,although on occasion i have had support from a site superintendant ,scott drader ,who is a love golf design employee.......this system seems to work for us .
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2004, 08:05:09 PM »
Jeff B:

Actually, I was surprised at the range of your answer from high to low.  Most of my projects get about the same amount of time ... the variation comes from how much I've got going at the time, more than other business factors.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2004, 08:20:01 PM »
I try to spend one day per week and keep at least two days per week open for marketing and prospecting.  Sometimes this is more like 3 day visit every two weeks when out of country.  But we keep someone on site at all times.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2004, 12:01:13 PM »
Jeff,
  You mention sometimes not being on site as often due to cost factors for the developer. How much more does it cost to have you on site each day, especially in the overall scheme of how much money is spent on a course?
   
For all of you guys. Do owner/developers have an informed idea of what the various cost factors are in building a golf course? Or do they just randomly pick out things that they think are too expensive, and try to cut those costs, without understanding the longterm impact of what they are asking for?
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2004, 09:40:48 PM »
Ed,

Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

Out of 46 courses designed, about 10% have had minimal site visits from me - much to my chagrin.  Its for several reasons - and these haven't all happened to me, but it could be (please excuse mild sarcasm in a few answers.....)

Owner thinks hes an architect, and doesn't want the gca in the way, - hey, its his baby......

Owner is the contractor in a design-build arrangement and doesn't want the gca in the way (and probably has enough experience to know what he wants)

Owner is a management company with and experienced in house construction admin team - this can be the best arrangement, as my time is devoted strictly to artistic issues, and it can be the worst - the maintenance supervisors redo things in the name of making skinny maintenance budgets work.  However, they take over much of the paper work, and believe me, on some jobs, the paper work and meetings of construction admin takes up far too much time.

Owner is on a low budget and thinks cutting back gca field time amounts to signifigant savings.

Owner is building a "functional" course, and everyone knows up front that the exact placement of any feature, or even its very nature isn't very important in the big scheme of things.  Think Ross paper plans here.

Owner is on tight schedule, and doesn't want gca to delay him, or gca just can't get there on a timely basis.

Owner has delayed schedule, and gca has moved on to other projects, expecting normal weather, or fewer delays, limiting time on that project.

In rare cases, sometimes we find out we just don't get along, often for reasons above, and just get tired of going there.  That usually isn't the case, and it can work the OTHER way, too.  Once, when we were having some personality problems with a foreman, and I had a staff member volunteer his vacation time to go do a "complete" punch list for, ah, fun.

As to cost, I'm sure it varies across the board, especially with travel costs.  I have made cross country trips to look at one thing, sometimes on last minute airfares of $1000 or more.  Add in hotel, car, etc, plus a daily fee of about $200 an hour, or up to $2000 per day (I usually bill 10 hour days, including travel, etc. when on site, if its an extra visit not anticipated in my original agreement)  and a one day visit can cost several thousand dollars in some cases.  I will also say that I have made $5000 site visits that saved an owner, or contractor, 10X that, or more, by seeing problems no one else did.

Of course, they can always add more days, if the project necessitates it, and most owners do retain full confidence in the gca, and have few qualms about a few thousand dollars on a multi million dollar project.  If the project is exciting, and the Owner is willing to pay travel costs, I'm usually willing to add some days to the total for the good of the project.  At some point though, particularly difficult and time consuming projects do get to the point where we have to apply for an additional fee to keep going.

I generally leave 20-25% of my fee for site visits, and simply divide what's there by $2000 to determine the number of days I give on site.  So, if I have provided a reduced fee to the Owner, for whatever reason, I need to limit field time provided as part of the lump sum, since its a time business.  On a $200,000 contract, that would be 20-25 days, on $300,000, it would be 30-37 days, etc.  It should really be less days, since there is always the followup field report to write.  With laptops, at least we can use plane time to do that.  

We try to time our visits for maximum effect of course, but weather etc. sometimes confounds us.  Generally, I like to personally flag tree clearing lines, bunkers, grassing lines, etc. as well as approve all shaping along the way.  )

As mentioned, every visit must have some time devoted to a cursory check of construction quality, as that is usually in our contract.  So, we look in trenches, sample greens mix, count seed and fertilizer bags, etc. etc.  There are always site meetings, where we review schedules, problems, etc.  There are days when I have attended those meetings all day, and have an associate do the fun work, and we go check it in twighlight hours by ourselves.  

Sometimes, Owners want to go with you, which is usally fine, but I hate to have them hear us discuss things among ourselves......

Sorry to be so long - If Doak had written this, perhaps it would have been titled, "Anatomy of a Site Visit." ::)
« Last Edit: November 04, 2004, 09:46:06 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Amount of time architects spend on site
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2004, 03:26:23 PM »
Jeff,
   Thanks for the feedback. I am always amazed at all the stuff you guys go through to pursue your passion.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.