Is Patience Just Not Profitable Enough?

[Adam_F_Collins]

In reading things about Hidden Creek and on the clearing trees thread, it occurred to me that beyond know-how and creativity, an architect requires time and patience to really do the best job of a golf course in the "minimalist" or "natural" way.

Why don't more architects do this? This time could be served through the architect just spending more time on the site, rather than visiting several at the same time.

Is this patient approach just not profitable enough? Does an architect need to be "famous" or okay with not making a ton of money in order to work this way?

To me, it seems like the poking around the land part and discovering all of the sublties would be where most of the fun would be.

Dickin' around in your office with topos and CAD would seem stale in comparison...

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

Running the business of being a golf architect is not quite as simple as that.  You don't know when the heck the projects you're planning are going to start, and if you're spending a significant amount of your time poking around the sites, you'll need to pay others to keep the rest of the business running.

I agree with you that poking around the land is way more fun than sitting looking at a CAD screen, but very few architects spend more of their own time at the latter.  With the big names, other people are likely filling both roles.  What I really can't understand are the one-day site visits most architects make ... they spend more time traveling than walking the site that way.  Yet many clients insist on this formula because they think they're getting more input out of more trips.

But I would disagree about looking at the topo maps ... sometimes that is the most fun part of my job, because nobody else is looking over my shoulder or trying to steer me in a different direction.  The topo map IS the site, if you can read it as well as a few of us can.  If I had tried to route Sebonack by walking around through the trees, we'd still be trying to figure it out, and I doubt it would be any better than what we came up with, which was 95% done on paper.

P.S.  Being famous is not an end to itself for me, but it sure does help in finding the next project.  There are many talented guys who spend all their time on site as you suggest, but they will spend too much of their lives idle instead of building more golf courses, because one good project does not necessarily lead to another.

P.P.S.  Of course, if you are truly patient, then it won't bother you that you aren't being so productive.  I admire those who aren't concerned over this, but my insides are wired differently.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, that is a great point about routing from a topo instead of on foot in the thicket with a machete.  I have wandered around enough construction sites before anything happened, wondering where I was, to get your point.  

But at some point somebody with a level and somebody else with a rod has to wade in there and create the topo, right?  Have you ever worked on a site so remote and thickly forested that a decent topo wasn't available?  What then?

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

Most topo maps are done from an aerial survey.  You can't do an aerial survey without a few ground control points, but it only takes a few ... the aerial equipment and the computers do the rest.  (Just don't ask me how!)

I have yet to work in a place that COULD NOT get an aerial survey, although early in my career we worked on a couple that didn't want to spend the money for a good one ... all we had was a map with five-foot contour intervals.  Mike DeVries and I walked around in the trees at Black Forest for some time to figure out that routing.  One advantage of this approach was that ultimately we decided to locate two of the greens on sites that were not on the map!

In fact I have gone "off the map" more than once in my career ... the 5th at Apache Stronghold and the 13th and 14th at Pacific Dunes weren't on the map, either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

For whatever reason, few view architects as other than architects, never considering the business side of the profession, which is considerable.

Adam Foster Collins,

How would you view Donald Ross's approach to architecture, business and time spent on each site ?

Or, is it possible that some architects are so talented, and/or have extremely talented staff that they don't need to spend an inordinate amount of time on site ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
Where did #5 originally go?  (I would also like to say that paticular green is shere genius that only an insane person could conjure-up! )

[David Sneddon]

Adam:

Running the business of being a golf architect is not quite as simple as that.  You don't know when the heck the projects you're planning are going to start, and if you're spending a significant amount of your time poking around the sites, you'll need to pay others to keep the rest of the business running.

Tom, could you briefly outline what it takes to run a successful architecture business, especially in terms of the amount of time you spend on various aspects of a project.  I can understand that no one project involves all of your time, and that various projects are all at various stages of process.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam Foster Collins,

How would you view Donald Ross's approach to architecture, business and time spent on each site ?

Or, is it possible that some architects are so talented, and/or have extremely talented staff that they don't need to spend an inordinate amount of time on site ?

I would say that different designers will fulfill themselves in different ways. Certain designers may be talented enough to make great courses with little time on site - but that doesn't sound so enjoyable to me personally.

Of course the business must be run, and to me, that is obvious enough. I realize that no business can be conducted without 'the business' part. (um, what part of what I posted would suggest that I thought that an architect didn't have to do anything in life other than design?) But there seem to be many architects who spend little - or no time on a site at all, where as some spend quite a bit of time.

I'm talking about design time - how much on the ground, vs how much in an office?

I simply asked about whether spending time on the ground cuts so much into business time that it is, for some, detrimental to business to do so. If so why? For whom is it less so? For whom is it more so?

Why did I ask?

Because to me, the ground part seems like a potential source of great satisfaction - the essential reason (beyond a living) for doing it at all. So, Tom points out that it's not so easy to do many things on the ground; that some is better served by maps - an insight which makes sense. But he speaks often of "digging the course out of the ground" - which takes time - and I'm wondering why many designers spend so much less time doing this than he does.

Thus my question.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

It's obviously impossbile to say how various golf courses would've turned out differently if their architects had merely tried to design a golf course only off a topo map.

I don't think there's any question at all that practically any architect will see more on the ground than they ever can on even a really good topo map. What they obviously miss is the full effect of what any particular landform (potential hole or series of them) will look like on the ground from a potential golfer's view---particularly the long view.

Clearly this type of on-site analysis presupposes that the architect can see these things on the ground on raw sites and obviously things like forests of trees minimizes that on ground analysis tremendously. In those cases topo maps become far more necessary and useful, of course.

Reading topos really well to match what one is looking at on them to what actually appears when one stands on the ground and looks in any direction (again persupposing one can see things well on the ground regarding trees minimiizing that) is unquestionable a separate talent. Some architects can obviusly do it better or much better than others.

I have heard and I feel that reading topo maps really well and basically matching well what's on them to what one eventually does see on the ground is just another something Tom Doak can do and does very well. I've asked Gil Hanse about this too and he says he feels he can do it very well now too.

I know if I'd ever become an architect doing that well is probably something I never could really pick up like those two guys have. I just don't think I have any knack for looking at those maize of contour lines flowing in all kinds of directions and translating them well into precisely what one sees on the ground as a complete visual. There're things like backdrops, the twists and turns of the top profiles of the ground against one another that a topo map can show, I guess, but with real difficulty compared to what one can see and the effect of it on the ground level.

Bill Coore, can obviously read a topo map but it isn't lost on me that he only likes to rely on one so far. He's an architect that simply likes to find at least the nuances of what he does (in both routing and designing up holes) on the ground. It's obviously where he feels more comfortable and that is probably why he spends so much time on sites just walking and walking and walking.

I have a feeling that Doak is just what one calls a "quick study" perhaps like MacKenzie once was (maybe that's one of the reasons he has such an affinity for MacKenzie). Maybe Coore is not such a quick study that way or maybe he just doesn't want to be. In the end though both seem to get the most out of however they go about it. I think Ross did a ton of exclusively "topo" routing and designing and I believe on some of his courses and holes (like my own course) it shows! I think he simply made some mistakes but only in degree.

I know I spent about 500 hours on the ground on a site once trying to work out a routing (for a course that was never built---actually maybe 750 hours on two sites). That was about six years ago and if I had to do what I did using a topo only I'd probably still be out there trying to figure out how things really looked on the ground and probably would've made a much greater mess of things than I may've have even with those 500 hours on the ground.

I didn't have to spend all that time on the ground, I guess, but I just loved looking at those landforms over and over again and I still believe that the long view or long vista, particularly the power and effect of the "backdrop" can never really be picked up as well off a topo as even the best topo reader can pick up those things on site and on the ground,

[Tom_Doak]

David S:  It's taken me almost twenty years of trial and error to figure out how to run my business, and even with all of that, if I put it down on paper I'm sure there are a few business majors here that would laugh at me.  Anyway, that's one area where I'm not sure I want others to know exactly what I do.

The components would include the following:

Business (legal, insurance, accounting, cash flow, etc.)
Marketing
Networking (by phone and by e-mail and by travel)
Prospecting (going out to look at potential sites)
Juggling (staying in touch on the fate of projects, trying to decide how many new ones to commit to)
Personnel management

and then the design components:

Routings
Plans
Permitting
Construction Logistics
Construction Site Visits

I spend about 75-100 days per year on construction site visits; the only way to spend more would be to do less jobs.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

I'm certainly not going to ask you for any specifics because I know you'd never answer them (for obvious reasons) but is there any golf course you've ever done that is precisely the way you'd like it to be architecturally as if it were your own?

The issue of maintenance practices is another issue for another time, perhaps.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  Not sure I understand your question.  Do you mean:

a)  Have I done things to please owners that I would not have done if the course was mine?  or,

b)  Have I done things to please players that I would not have done if the course was mine?

Many of our projects have some little feature that the owner liked better than I do.  Many also have a feature that my design associates liked better than I do ... I have to manage their emotions, too.

As for part (b), if I owned a golf course for my own personal pleasure it might be very different than some of the things I've built, I suppose.  That would certainly be a radical shift in the assumptions we make when we start a project ... most golf courses are intended to be busy and popular, and are designed with that in mind.  In fact, it would be such a radical shift that I'm not sure I can even imagine the possibilities.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Pretty good responses. However, why not mention some of the things you'd do if it were just yours? I don't care if that never happens---it's just an interesting thing to know from you---even if it is a hypothetical. At the very least we might get a better idea what your ideal in golf design may be. And who really knows in life? Some client may come along someday who has the interest and wherewithal to say to you---"just give me what you (Tom Doak) thinks is the "ideal" golf course."

And I think it's also fairly safe to say that golf course architecture in it's best case can have a certain amount of "flexibility" anyway. It may take a bit more thought and work and planning but it's possible. I think in the ultimate sense that's the interest and fun of it all.

Long live the conceptual genius of the likes of a Geo Thomas!  

[ian]

Adam,

I've was in the office for two hours in the evening this week, to process contractor billing. I will not see the office in the coming week. I've not had one full day in the office in 5 weeks.

.....and I'm just a small time reno guy , not a big name with a full travel schedule.

Architects are only in the office if:

1. there is contract administartion to do
2. proposals to be written
3. reports to be written
4. plns to be drawn
5. or the weather sucks and there is no site to go to.

The office architect is just typical bullshit from those not in the industry. Check an architects odometer, then you will understand a big part of there time.

For perspective: a few make a lot of money, others have to always hustle to pay the bills. Which means you always have to make sure the next project is lined up before you run out.

[David Sneddon]

David S:  It's taken me almost twenty years of trial and error to figure out how to run my business, and even with all of that, if I put it down on paper I'm sure there are a few business majors here that would laugh at me.  Anyway, that's one area where I'm not sure I want others to know exactly what I do.

Thanks Tom.  I can appreciate your last sentence, since it's much the same in my business.  

Have you given any thought to having a manager run the biz side, allowing you more time in the field??  Or is everything so interconnected that you feel you must be hands-on to stay on top of things??

[Jeff_Brauer]

In reading things about Hidden Creek and on the clearing trees thread, it occurred to me that beyond know-how and creativity, an architect requires time and patience to really do the best job of a golf course in the "minimalist" or "natural" way.

Why don't more architects do this? This time could be served through the architect just spending more time on the site, rather than visiting several at the same time.

Is this patient approach just not profitable enough? Does an architect need to be "famous" or okay with not making a ton of money in order to work this way?

To me, it seems like the poking around the land part and discovering all of the sublties would be where most of the fun would be.

Dickin' around in your office with topos and CAD would seem stale in comparison...

Adam,

I agree with Ian - there are a few flawed assumptions in your intial post.  Last I looked, there were no golf course architects on the Forbes 500 list of wealthiest people, and I seriously doubt any were haning in at 501, just missing the list!

In my case, I laugh sometimes at my lack of profitablility - I walke the property, do the plans, (repeat cycle) and then during construction, I often resketch the plans responding to field conditions.  Do you think Ford could make money if it ran the new 500's through the assembly line three or four times?

Like Tom says, poking around the land is fun, and sometimes leads to better design, but there are other factors in our job golf architecture junkies have no clue about.  You must run things like a business (albeit a fairly simple one in my case) to be able to practice your craft. And, there are some things you must do on plan - integrating golf with housing for one, or preparing exhibits to prove you are not impacting wetlands for another.

On my sites, I can honestly say that I know every tree on the property before one goes down. Attention to detail in clearing does make a difference.  I have one course at a multiple course facility where the graceful clearing lines to stand out to earlier courses there, where the contractor, not the gca, simply flagged off clearing 120 feet each side of center.  So, yes, it does make a difference, and I would call it natural, but not necessarily minimalist.

I will also add that in regards to tree clearing, among others, experience does make the decisions go quicker.  A first time client may agonize more than I would over the loss of this tree or the other, but I have been to the rodeo enough to know that shifting a golf hole one way to save a nice tree just means that another one on the other side of the fairway will likely have to come out and its a wash artistically.

Like Ian, my schedule goes in bunches. I will actually be in the office today or tomorrow, doing billing, paying bills, and roughing out some land planning on two projects we have.  If I want to get any design work done, its best to do it when the phone won't ring, or I have no obligation to answer it after hours.  Here is next week:

Tues - Morning meeting to present prelim concepts on a local master plan.  Afternoon site visit to local greens renovation to approve sand and see intial construction.

Wed - Drive to east texas for a site visit, irrigation contractor negotiations and grass selections.  Drive straight to airport (poor guy sitting next to me if its hot that day) for flight to Kansas.  Site visit until dark.

Thur - Construction Mtg. for Kansas project and site visit to direct shaping.

Fri - Early morning site run through, then Industry meeting and come home by 8 PM.

Mon - start all over again!

So, assuming we did make a profit or nice living wage at our work, the travel is hell on family life, to start, and hard on aging bodies in some cases too.  I am lucky that I have never tired of it, but think that the time involved in this job does entitle us to some decent compensation for all the hard work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Foster Collins,

This is where hiring talented people is a critical factor.

The division of labor allows the architect to do what he does best, design.

As a one man operation I doubt that Tom Doak could juggle the responsibilities of the individual details and have as many active projects at one time as he has.