Ideal Clients / Ideal Architects

[Adam_F_Collins]

For the architects:

What kind of person makes an "ideal" client? Besides one that pays the bills, what do look for in a client? How do get the feeling that "this is going to be a great project" or "this is going to be painful"? What kinds of signals do you look out for both positive and negative?

For the rest of us:

What have/do/would you look for in the personality of a designer? Besides liking their work, what kind of relationship would you hope to establish with an architect?

[cary lichtenstein]

Easiest question in the whole world.

The best client is very knowledgeable about golf, knows the look he wants, knows the architect he wants for the job, and leaves him alone to do his work.

If I had a site like Friar's Head, I'd hire Coore and Crenshaw, one in the mountains, I'd hire Jim Engh, one like Pacific Dunes, Tom Doak gets the job.

The perfect client knows what he wants, respects the architect for the talent he has, and let's him do his thing.

[Tom_Doak]

Cary:

I'm curious just what the differences are between the sites of Friars Head and Pacific Dunes, that would lead you to pick myself over Bill and Ben, or vice versa.

Most clients do not really "know" what they want, they only have a vague sense of it at the outset.  What I'm looking for is clients who will be fun to work with:  those who ask good questions, enjoy the process, don't get nervous about the money, and respect our abilities and how hard we work.

Early in my career I would have said it was great if the client just left me alone to be creative ... but the couple of times that has happened were High Pointe and Apache Stronghold, and both courses eventually had difficulty because they didn't understand what they had.  So, I prefer a client to remain actively involved.  I just hope he doesn't want to overrule my decisions, and only comes out one day every three or four so I have plenty of time to think about what we're doing in between.

[tonyt]

Tom,

Would it be an ideal client if regardless of their level of involvement, they both respected the archie's abilities and ideas, AND had a strong desire to learn? That could be what often makes the difference between the involved client and the less involved one that understands little about the final product. Among those who get involved, there must be great examples of a little bit of assumed knowledge being a dangerous and counter productive thing.

[Mike Nuzzo]

A client with an open mind.
Someone who can understand what I'm saying or at least takes the time to try by asking questions when they don't.
Someone excited to get started and committed to their goals, not questioning themselves half way through - assuming no outside changes.

[Scott Witter]

Cary:

Please tell me a few mountainous courses you have seen or played that were design by Engh?  The basis of your claim for him as an architect may really miss the point.  I know of a couple, particularly the True North Golf Club in Harbor Springs, MI where I have never seen anyone disregarding the flow, movement and character of the landscape as much as he did!  Redlands Mesa...not bad, but I don't think anyone could have screwed that one up given the setting and the site.

With respect to Friar's Head and Pacific Dunes, I agree with Tom Doak and I could never understand the distinction for chosing one over the other in that circumstance.

[ian]

For the architects:

What kind of person makes an "ideal" client?

Some one whom your friends with beyond golf. They need to have a passion for golf architecture, so they understand what you want to do for them. You will work together because of the mutual respect.

You still need more than this to have sucess.

[Scott Witter]

Ian:

Friends beyond golf as clients first could be an ingredient for problems or it could be very rewarding.  The friendship could develop without either party knowing it was happening and this too would be a good thing.

"They need to have a passion for golf architecture,"  I am not so sure this is a valid requirement, but certainly a strong interest would be a benefit at many levels throughout project development.  I don't believe their passion proposes that they will in fact have an understanding of what we do as architects.  Be serious, we are designers and as evidenced on this site for quite some time now, who truly understands why we do what we do?  Do we want the golfers to understand what we do? do they need to?

As far as the mutual respect...Respect is great no matter where it comes from or who is expressing it.  I grew up being taught to show respect to all I may learn from and continue to do to this day no matter who may be suggesting thoughts onsite. I certainly appreciate it when my clients show me the respect for what I am doing for them and if they actually do "get it" that may be a bonus to the whole mix.  Hell, I think the least they can do is show respect, isn't that generally inherent in the reason they hired us in the first place?

Yes, in the end you do need more than this to have success!

[cary lichtenstein]

Scott:

The Jim Engh courses I have played are:

Sanctuary
Black Rock
Lakota Canyon
Snowmass
Redlands Mesa
Fossil Tace

Cary

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

I used a bad example, so sorry. I could use you or C & C for either Friar's or Pacific Dunes, but I'll stick with Engh for mountain courses, and if I want to move a lot of dirt on a dead flat site, I'll take Dye for his work a Whistling Straits, although I have not  your work at Rawls Course in Texas.

If I'm doing a restoration project, I'd pick Symers if I wanted big, challanging bunker work.

Alot is site dependent and the market the course is going to cater to.

Cary

[Willie_Dow]

I'd pick Kittleman and Hanse for a seaside course.

[Steve Lapper]

I'd add Kelly Blake Moran for either a simple rolling "farm-land" style piece of land or an extemely difficult and slope-challenged tract.

His work on both stands out as exceptionally playable, stylistic, and protective of the fun element.

I'd also agree with Cary re: Jim Engh for anything mountainous. All too often, I've seen really mediocre examples by the otherwise exalted (by GD/GM, etc...) architects like Nicklaus, Fazio, Norman in the mountains. Engh has clearly understood the difficulties of transforming usually difficult land and truf into something very special and fun. Like all others, you may not like one or two of the outcomes, but in general, the majority of his mountain portfolio is exceptional.

At the risk of sounding overly esoteric and bordering on compartmentalization, the argument over Doak v. C&C on Friars Head v. Pac Dunes might hinge on the amount of experience on elevation changes. One could conceivably argue that Tom's work has best been exampled on slighly rolling land with no dramatic elevation shifts and Bill and Ben have done the opposite. Also, one might argue Tom has more experience in working close to the sea?

I've yet to see Cape Kidnappers or Barnbougle Dunes so that might not hold too much weight, but clearly the Sand Hills experience lent itself perfectly to the potato farm that became Friars Head.


Either way, great architects, like great artists, near unanimously respect great land and inevitably acquire a style and taste for certain subjects and only rarely impart their brillance on completely different canvases. The good news is that with a Doak, C&C, Engh, KBM and some others, the project integrity is protected, and the fun preserved.

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

Why don't you get Gil and Bill up to Salters Point and work some of their magic on that dilapidated but quaint nine-holer of yours?  That's a nice seaside piece of ground.  Or at least have them implement the Flynn plan on site.  

See you when you return north!

Best,
Wayne

[Kelly Blake Moran]

As they say, be careful what you wish for!  I would never want someone to be what I want them to be, rather it is much more interesting to collaborate with those those are very different from you with regards for their approach to life from a personal and professional way.  I guess the clients I enjoy the most are the ones that are the most confrontational and challenging.  I think you can confuse respect with idolatry (sorry couldn't come up with the word I wanted so I apologize for the religious overtones of the word) in that I think a lot of respect comes from challenging people and not being intellectually lazy with someone just because they are the professional.  So I guess I like the client, the superintendent, shaper, construction supervisor, who force you to be intellectually honest, to express your ideas clearly, and who really give you no slack, in my mind that makes for the most satisfying experience.  After I explain myself I don't want to see a lot of smiles and nodding I would rather hear more questions and more challenging, obviously in a manner that promotes creativity. I think much of what I have read on this site would disqualify most from being ideal in my book because of the high level of ass kissing that is afforded "The Chosen", they would just roll over and wag their tails everytime their architect spoke.  So, to inject respect into the process I would advice the client to always start by saying, "Your the professional.....BUT, What the *#/*? does that mean!!!

[Scott Witter]

Kelly:

You make a good point and and I agree with your engagement with the client, shaper, superintendent, etc.

For me, in a related manner as you described by being challenged by these individuals during the process, I have found that I seem to be more creative, become more connected and actually enjoy my work more at times when I am pressed for time, or when on site and I need to make decisions as a result of site conditions that don't relate to what we may have originally intended to build.  Which in a way is really to say that no, I don't want my clients and the people involved in the project to be complacent because at the end of the day it's all about the relationships we make and the exchange of ideas to make the project better and have as much fun doing it as possible.

My earlier reference to a clients understanding may have been misguided, but I too feel it is important to have someone, be it the client, a shaper or superintendent say at times what the #*@.. is that,  this seems to place me in a spot where I can truly explain myself and feel that they will listen, think about it and come back to me and say,"yeah I understand, or wow, your an idiot"

Cary:

I stand better informed by your examples.  My reference to True North may be an exception to what may be Engh's design approach, but take my word for it, you really needed to see and know the site before he got there, and I did, to appreciate that his approach was way off base.  He did some interesting work at your other listings.  Nevertheless, I still find his work to be too mechanical and appearing very similar on all sites.

[Brian Phillips]

For me the best ones are the honest ones.  I don't just mean the ones that pay the bills but I like a client that is willing to speak his or her mind.  I like to have discussions about holes and the way we are doing things. If the client is unhappy about something I want to know straight away.

Brian

[cary lichtenstein]

Scott:

I haven't seen True North and I take your word for it.

I can only tell you that I think Jim Engh's work at Lakota Canyon is amazing. Just a thrilling course if you have a change to play it, it is about an hour from Aspen.

I also loved Black Rock, Sanctuary and Redlands Mesa.

Cary

[Tom_Doak]

I've got to say I think a lot of the statements about "whom to pick" on this thread are just ridiculous.  It's typecasting in the extreme.

The fact that Pacific Dunes had more water views didn't make me a better fit for it, nor did the abrupt elevation changes of Sand Hills make Bill & Ben a better fit [you should see Ballyneal!].  I'm thrilled that people now think I'm the go-to guy for great seaside sites, and I hope I get to elbow everyone else away from those for the next thirty years on the strength of Pacific and Barnbougle.  But other guys aren't unqualified for those sites now, anymore than I was before we built Pacific Dunes.

If you are good at this business, you can apply your skills to any kind of site.  One of the reasons I chose to take on The Rawls Course and Stone Eagle was to try and prove that, while stretching ourselves creatively.

The fact that Kelly did a great job on "an extremely difficult and slope-challenged tract" in PA doesn't mean he should be typecast into doing those for the rest of his life.  And it sure doesn't mean that Bill Coore wouldn't do well on that kind of site, if he chose to try.

[tonyt]

Those giving ideal architect examples on the basis of site type are stereotyping in a way that may remove their ability to be ideal clients!

If the truth be told, C&C, Doak, DeVries, Hanse/Shackleford and quite a few others would be an exciting sign up for me no matter what site I was running with.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

I love one person who told me that his best client was a member at some of the world's best courses and had a corporate box, sounds honest to me.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I've got to say I think a lot of the statements about "whom to pick" on this thread are just ridiculous.  It's typecasting in the extreme.

Maybe I should restate that part of the question:

What have/do/would you look for in the personality of a designer? Besides liking their work, what kind of relationship would you hope to establish with an architect?

Think about it from a "human relationship" perspective - rather than a stylistic one.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

One of the things I learned from 30 years in the textile business, having my own design directors for both wovens and prints, plus 10 full time artists, is that no one director or artist has the talent to do contemporary, traditional and transitional equally well.

If we wanted a "tight hand", we used  a chinese artist. We specially had artists from England, India, Japan, China, France, Poland, US, etc., in order to achjieve the look we we wanted.

If we ventured outside our in house looks, we went outside and commissioned someone who was an expert in that field.

I'm sure you have found that the first time you do something new, for example, a mountain course as I assume you are doing in Palm Springs, California, that there is a learning curve. The 2nd mountain course will be the beneficiary of that.

Granted, the more time spent in the field on the first one helps tremendously, but there still is a learning curve.

Hopefully, you have the unusal amount of talent to design all types of courses, all types of terrain.

 From the pictures I have seen of your overseas courses, it appears that you have.

 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Golf is full of typecasting. A golf pro at public course will have a very tough time landing a private job. A supt. at a low budget course is viewed as lacking the skills to manage a larger budget. I'm sure designers suffer from the same assumptions. Fact is, talented people with a drive for success will usually produce positive results in any environment.

[Tom_Doak]

Cary:

The fundamental difference between Jim Engh and Bill Coore is that Jim's courses have a very "clean and polished" look because he grades the whole site, and Bill's have a very rough-edged look because he designs them in the field and tries to make them look more "natural."

Different people favor different styles and that's fine.  But style and venue are not the same thing.  If you want a mountain course that looks like it blends into the native landscape, Engh is not the guy to go to, no matter how much experience he has in that setting.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

I have always preferred more of a wild look, especially the bunkers.

But I have always enjoyed all forms of art, so my taste runs pretty wide. If the modern clean look works, then I have no problem with it, and clearly enjoy playing.

Augusta clearly is in the very clean modern look.

I'm sure you have seen pictures of many of the great courses, and the way they have been "cleaned up or modernized" from there original intent.

One of the things that I like so much about a more wild look, is the use of color and the definition you get around the fairways, bunkers, etc.

Color adds another dimension, and letting grasses grow wild adds texture. If I were to critize Jim Engh for anything, he underutilizes both of those.