[Mark_Rowlinson]

Today's architects are clearly restricted, directed, restrained, circumscribed (call it what you will) by the wishes of the client.  Were Ross, Colt, Mackenzie, Thomas and the like similarly restricted?  

I'm thinking, for instance, of an architect wishing perhaps to have consecutive short holes, an overall par of 69, a course without par 5s, or a course which begins or ends with a par 3 because such a layout maximises the potential of the site, while the client wants a 'standard' par 72 whether or not it is the best course that could be built on the site.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Probably true to say that today. I'm sure clients in the old days asked for certain things like perhaps a "championship" caliber course vs a more user friendly "member's" course (actually Flynn had a fairly scientific way of going about doing one or the other which he actually wrote about how to do one way or the other) but today there just seem to be more expectations of what-all should be "standard" in golf design. There seems to be more locked in "requirements" today of what should be and what shouldn't be. In a real sense a significant architect such as Tom Fazio really does contribute to those "requirements", restrictions or limitations or whatever one wants to call them. His frequent public statements that he knows precisely what golfers today will and won't accept is pretty scary really!

Why is that? Good question. There's a number of contributing reasons in my opinion.

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

I also think todays client comes to the table a little more informed a lot more traveled than long ago.

The internet, books and relatively low cost airfares have given the opportunity to see and learn in a way that just wan't possible back then. In fact, I'll go on record by saying I've been exposed to more knowledge of golf course architecture by reading websites than I have by reading books.

Perhaps in the old days there was a level of trust in the architect that existed because the client was unknowledgable or  had limited scope of what golf course architecture was.

Joe

[Scott Witter]

Gentleman:

I tend to agree with you in some respects, in so far as saying, clients of old were not as demanding, or knowledgeable about the profession and certainly, the ease of travel, more writings on the subject, yes even web sites and without question, the construction process/techniques/equipment has all had a profound influence on ones ability to achieve almost anything the mind can imagine (of course, assuming the $ is there to back it up, and often it is!, right or wrong), therefore, anyone who has ever thought about the possibilities, suddenly decides that naturally it can be done, so then it must be a great idea, and dog gone it, if I'm the paying client, I will tell my architect and they will make it so!

I think we also have to realize that in the past, the social and  economic climate was such that people didn't get all hung up on this sort of thing. I believe they understood, more so, the privilege to play golf and simply their expectation level was no where near the out of proporation state it is in now.

As I say, I tend to agree with you, but it does appears, at least from the outside, that over the past 10 years or so, with the exception from a few select architects, Dye etc., that clients have started to "loosen up", or perhaps become more respectful of their selected architect's ability and have given them more freedom to be truly creative once again.  However, this trend if you will, seems to directed a small group of architects, dare I say examples such as Coore & Crenshaw, Tom Doak and the like, but even here, I may be speaking out of turn and they would disagree.  This has been my impression and I hope I am right for I believe (and "minimalism" has nothing to do with it), that the quality of design improves as a result of it.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Clearly there are clients who respect their architect and trust the architect's judgement. Someone who is going to choose Doak or Coore/Crenshaw is doing so because they know of, understand and appreciate that architect's unique gifts.  But they are few in number.  

Suppose I had many millions of dollars at my disposal and I approached the Nicklaus, Palmer or Player designer teams.  How much say would I get, or would I be told that 'This is the house style, this is the formula laid down by the great man himself, this is what you are getting.'?  

Is there such a thing as recognisable house style?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I can tell you one thing about at least one architect and being more restricted (or not)---eg Pete Dye. Pete Dye's company has never been what one might call a high production outfit and Pete being what Pete is and has always been he pretty much tells a client straight out or can if he feels like it that he really doesn't want him looking over his shoulder or telling him what to do every minute. If that's what a client wants to do Pete is not the man to hire and he has no problem telling a client that rght up front. It seems like Pete feels if you hire Pete Dye you hire him to be the architect of the golf course not some guy to just care out a whole laundry list of a client's wishes and demands.

It seems to me with another low production outfit like Coore and Crenshaw if for whatever reason they feel like they aren't on the same page with a client or for whatever reason a client isn't on the same page with them they basically just say they're schedule is booked up for the foreseable future and they just can't fit the project in. Of course that has also been very true for a lot of projects they otherwise probably would've very much liked to have worked for. The Militia Hill course that Hurzdan and Fry ended up building was one of those.

[ian]

I don't think they are more restricted by the client, but they sure as hell are more restricted by the approval process required to get a course to construction. We lose a lot of great natural land to some very unusual "new" rules that can come a year or two into an approval's process.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know how many clients were "heavily involved" in the designs back in the day.

Today, though, many are very involved.  Maybe not the commercial clients who are more interested in selling lots in their developments ... I think they pay the freight for the big-name designers and are happy to let them do whatever it is that they do to put their names on the course.

But, out of 20 clients I've had only 3 or 4 who weren't out there pretty regularly during the construction of the course; and I don't think I've had one yet who would have been okay if I thought a 6200-yard par-69 layout was the best available option [apart from the novel concept that is The Sheep Ranch].

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I don't think they are more restricted by the client, but they sure as hell are more restricted by the approval process required to get a course to construction. We lose a lot of great natural land to some very unusual "new" rules that can come a year or two into an approval's process.

Good point, Ian, and I didn't see this point earlier in the posts; I believe there are more hurdles, especially environmental laws, which restrict what one can and cannot do.  In fact, I do know the laws are quite stringent; I studied this at Rutgers.  

In reading a review of the Shennecossett golf course, I recall Ron Whitten talked about some of the "newer" holes and routing with wetlands present, and contrasted this with back in the day, when "...Ross just filled them in..."

Tom Doak, if you read this, I seem to remember you weighed in on some of the environmental regulations you faced when designing and building Beechtree--this would have been in one of the discussions around the end of July last year.  I recall a few of us had questions about why trees were here and there, for example.  

I would imagine Gil Hanse encountered a lot of that in building French Creek, as well.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()