Real architects vs. people who call themselves architects

[Joel_Stewart]

The love affair here in the Bay Area over Harding Park was almost sick in the press and public ignoring the excessive $16 million to rebuild an existing golf course.  Furthermore, no one even thought of why did San Francisco use the PGA tour design team as opposed to using a real independent golf architect.  Its a long story but the fact is Sandy Tatum was trying to get the Tour Championship to rotate to Harding every three years and gave the PGA a carrot by agreeing to use the PGA design team.  At about the same time, the big time people at East Lake negotiated the Tour Championship and Finchem then gave Harding the one time AMEX as a payoff  for using the PGA design team.  It was big time politics and money and out of the picture was Champions Golf Club (remember them) because Jackie Burke wouldn't play politics.  

So my question is, should independant architects consider the PGA tour architects (as well as the USGA) to be threats to their employment?  

[A_Clay_Man]

Joel, The thought that comes to my mind was what Doak just said about Keiser focusing on the "retail golfer".

In that arena "real" architects have an open field of competition. Don't they?

What is amazing is how courses (clubs) would fall all over themselves (save for Champions Praise Burke) to hold an event.

Another possible solution to the distance, bifurcation, and course disfigurment issue would be for all tour and usga events be competed on their own venues. Built with the modern, and future ball strikers in mind. Surely both institutions have plenty of money to make that a reality.

[David_Tepper]

Joel -

I question at least part of your premise. If the PGA Tour was so  dedicated to promoting the work of their staff architects, why have they used multiple outside GCA's on almost all of the TPC courses they have developed across the country? I cannot think of one of these courses that was designed by their in-house staff. If I am mistaken in this regard, please let me know.

As I recall, Tom Doak recently posted here that he has had some preliminary discussions with the PGA about designing at TPC course. I don't see it as a closed shop.

DT

   

[Tom_Doak]

My understanding (based on brief discussions) is that the Tour's design staff is there to consult with golf course architects working on Tour courses, about issues unique to hosting a PGA Tour event.  This would include not only tee shot length and green speeds, but also things like gallery flow, leaving room for corporate hospitality and infrastructure, and so forth.  

I have the impression that all those things we don't normally think about have a bigger impact than appreciated upon the golf values of a typical TPC course.

The Tour is generally not in the golf course design business.  Nor are they generally developers -- they partner with developers, but it is up to the developer to hire and pay the golf course architect for the project.

Harding Park was a rare project for them, in that it just involved taking an existing course and upgrading it for the Tour event.  I don't know the details but it's possible that's something they were comfortable doing themselves; but that is not their usual m.o.

As for the rumors about us designing a TPC course, I did meet with the Tour to express interest in the possibility, but as of today I still haven't spoken with a developer about actually doing one, so the rumors are at least a bit premature.

[Joel_Stewart]

I cannot think of one of these courses that was designed by their in-house staff. If I am mistaken in this regard, please let me know.
 

I think that was the old days.  The last TPC course and without doubt the worst was TPC Valencia in Southern California using the PGA tour architectural services.  The same person Chris Gray (I will not call him an architect) was used at Harding Park.  Chris Gray is the head of the PGA architectural services and at Valencia they used Mark O'Meara as consultant (another fat payday for a tour player).

I think Doak is now big enough that he could go to the PGA and work a deal if he had a developer who would use the TPC management system and let some PGA player past his prime get some type of paycheck as co-designer.  

[THuckaby2]

Harding Park was a rare project for them, in that it just involved taking an existing course and upgrading it for the Tour event.  

And therein lies the problem.

In a more perfect world, couldn't the course have been upgraded for better enjoyment by the public, rather than to challenge the pros?

It's true that the saddest words are "what might have been."

 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:

Did they really ruin it for the public?  I've only seen the course "before" the changes.

[THuckaby2]

David's right:  I enjoyed TPC Valencia.  I surely wouldn't hold it up as any marvel of design, but I would play it again.  But as often happens with courses like this, I am in a very solid minority.  It is more hated than loved, that's for sure.

But Dave, you need to speak to my Dad and my brother in law - they both liked it a LOT.  You know, the same two who liked Moorpark?

 

Tom D:

I wouldn't say the course was "ruined" for the public - far from it.  You have to remember how truly awful disrepair the course had fallen into before - it is indeed lightyears better now, for one and all.

My wistfulness here, however, stems from what they COULD have done if making the "tough but fair" course the PGA Tour seems to require wasn't the goal.  Gib Papazian, among others, listed many specific things they could have done, bringing greens closer to the lakeside; making quirkier, more fun greens; clearing more trees, etc.  Hey, I'm no architect and don't have nearly the imagination or skill required to list specifics.  That being said, it's not hard to imagine things that could be done.  You'd have to see the course yourself as it is today to understand.

But then again I could be all wet about this.  

The bottom line is this:  just as David M. hasn't talked to anyone who likes TPC Valencia, I haven't talked to anyone outside this board who's played Harding and wants to go back and play again.  It's just not that fun and not worth the price.

TH

[Joel_Stewart]

The Tour is generally not in the golf course design business.  

Harding Park was a rare project for them, in that it just involved taking an existing course and upgrading it for the Tour event.  

Tom:
I would watch your back on this, I bet the tour would love to get into the design business in a much bigger way.  It would be a profit center for them.  Think of combining the design and management into one with the carrot of a tour stop.  Maybe they can put a tour player as a touring professional with a few stops per year for the members to feel like they know someone.  Its one stop shopping and the tour and its players reep the rewards.  Damn the independant architects.

As for Harding, imagine what you could have done for $16 million on an existing golf course.  I would almost wager you could have done Harding, Sharp Park and possibly Lincoln for that amount.  

[les_claytor]

I've been biting my lip, but can't help it!

Joel:  What is your definition of a  "real" architect?  I presume you mean Golf Course Architect.  If so, I'm afraid to tell you that GCA is the most unregulated of all design professions.  

Tom:  I'm having fun talking Harding with you.  Operational issues asside, which no GCA our golf body can control unless an owner, I don't agree with your premise that we changed Harding just for the TOUR event.  The routing is the same ( except for 13) , the corridors are the same ( dito). The additional tees were added to catch up with techno.  Why not maximize your property.  We were upset they used the back tees on #2 for the regular card, bcs those and a few others were only intended for the tournament and are unsafe for regular play.  

The great thing about the event, was that the TOUR players got the same treatment at Harding that everyone gets.  It is just a relentlessly tough course through tight Cypress and Pine lined corridors.  It's always been a course that favors long hitters and straight hitters equally on top of  precission  iron play to small greens.  We restored half the greens, and I've agonized over two years that I should have bumped the percentages up a bit, but the subtle detail work on the greens held up.  We say sooo many putts jarred, but also say tons of misreads all week by the worlds best.  I tried to pattern a little SFGC into the greens, albeit on a 1/2 % -1% - 2% scalve vs. a 3 - 4% scale.  

Babies crying, I'll be back.

[David_Tepper]

Joel -

1) Haven't some of the leading golfers of their day been designing golf courses for the past 150 years? Were Old Tom Morris, James Braid and Jack Neville "real architects" or "people who call themselves architects?"

2) As any business grows in scope, it is common to hire staff people full-time to peform jobs that may have been contracted out on a project or consulting basis. Companies hire staff lawyers, accountants, human resource people, etc. rather than farming that work out as they get bigger. Assuming they hire quality people, is there any reason why the PGA Tour should not follow that business model?

I thought this board was a bastion of the free market. If the PGA Tour wants to get into the business of developing, designing and operating golf course to a greater extent - good luck to them.

DT  

[Neal_Meagher]

For the really important stuff, congratulations Daddy Les on the new baby girl.  That means you got to see two of your creations in full flower this past weekend.

[THuckaby2]

David's right:  I enjoyed TPC Valencia.  I surely wouldn't hold it up as any marvel of design, but I would play it again.  But as often happens with courses like this, I am in a very solid minority.  It is more hated than loved, that's for sure.

But Dave, you need to speak to my Dad and my brother in law - they both liked it a LOT.  You know, the same two who liked Moorpark?

If you dont mind, I'd rather leave your family out of this.  A rather sensitive topic, if I recall.  

But your version of "the masses"-- those who you think I misunderstand--  well, they arent holding up their end of the bargain by supporting the courses you say the love and want more of.  From my perspective all these courses still seem to be struggling.

I am surprised you have such a low opinion for the changes at Harding Park.  On t.v. it looks like an uninteresting course with nice views . . . just the kind of course you usually think the masses love.  If it was a from scratch project, would you feel the same way about the result?  

David:

I was hoping you'd have a sense of humor about this.  By mentioning my Dad and brother in law, I was indirectly poking fun at myself.  Glad you caught the reference, hope you find the humor in it.

In any case, not that I ever felt you misunderstood anything before, but the only thing you seem to misunderstand now is my take on these things.  I have no doubt you have a fine handle on all other things.  

You might be interested in what I wrote last week to David Tepper on the subject of Harding.  Here's a snippet:



The bottom line is this:

1.  We have way way way way too many overpriced CCFADs as it is.  As nice as Harding came out, why do we need another?

2.  They could have made the course better and yet affordable.  They could have made it interesting to play, with less attention to "tough but fair" and more toward FUN and INTERESTING.  They failed in both respects.

3.  The last thing our area needs is another venue for pro events.  What do you call the course across the lake and the several down in Monterey?  Do we really need a glut of these?

Take all this into account and I'm sorry my friend, but I fail to see why this is a great day for Bay Area golf.  In fact the success of Harding just perpetuates the "all good courses must be 7000+ yards, must be fair for the pros, must cost $100+" mindset that is the RUIN of golf here, and many places elsewhere.

If anything a massive failure at Harding this week would have been a great day for Bay Area golf.  The fact the pros are not shooting lights out, the course looks nice, they are praising it... that just means we're gonna get more of this stuff.

And that makes me sad.

Surprised you can't see the logic of this.  

Look at it this way:  a successful event at RUSTIC CANYON - fun, affordable, doable for all - that would be a great day for golf.  

This?  The soul of golf continues to shriek.

TH

Cheers.  

TH

ps - if full tee sheets and gross profit are how golf courses are to be judged, then Santa Teresa has got to be in the world's top 10.  

[Brent Hutto]

Same routing, same corridors, only half of the greens restored, 16 million dollars.  

Am I missing something here?  

Apparently you and I both missed out on getting into the green-reconstruction business. For a $1,000,000+ a pop we should all go out and learn how to renovate greens.

[Joel_Stewart]

I've been biting my lip, but can't help it!

Joel:  What is your definition of a  "real" architect?  

A real architect understands and appreciates classic architecture.

A real architect doesn't bulldoze a classic course into oblivion and place containment mounding on the sides of fairways.

A real architect does faithful restorations to classic courses.

A real architect doesn't place a front right bunker on just about every hole.

A real architect understands surface drainage.

A real architect doesn't place dozens of drainage bowls around a classic golf course.

A real architect understands fairway undulations and knows how to shape them.

A real architect doesn't place 40 bunkers on a TPC course and then doesn't see that the course is lacking.

A real architect doesn't hide under the power of the 2nd most powerful golf organization.  

A real architect doesn't have the power to dangle a PGA tour event to get jobs.

A real architect is an independent businessman that gets jobs on his own merit.

A real architect understands budgets and doesn't blow 10 to 16 million dollars on a renovation of an existing golf course (not including clubhouse).

Let me know if you want me to continue.  Hope your lip doesn't hurt.

[THuckaby2]

David:

Cool this is in good humor!

And very good questions.... Yeah, I seem to tolerate those overpriced CCFAD's in my hometown, but berate them more here in my adopted home.  Interesting.  I guess it's because I don't have to deal with the SoCal versions often - for me they are once a year type visit courses, and in that context are acceptable.

But you make a very good point - I really shouldn't look at them that way.

Because I don't think I - or my beleaguered family group - really would like to play them on a frequent basis.

Well done my friend.  I have definitely learned something today.

TH

ps - I don't think I ever repeatedly said anyone was out of touch with the masses... just that when some say NO ONE likes a course, I find people who do.  None of this is 100% - that's what I have maintained for a long time.  As for which mass is more massive, well... Rustic is making a very powerful statement.  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Shivas hits on something in another thread when he distinguishes between businessmen and professionals. I'd like to see architects as some sort of combination of artists and professionals, with their clients best interests in mind but also with some sort of higher calling or allegiance to the artistry and potential greatness of gca,  instead of just trying to make a buck.

Very well said except the "trying to make a buck" is rarely the payoff so no need to worry about that being the motivating factor that compromises design, at least for some of us.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Kelly, I'll take your word for it, and I am sure that most intentions are good.  That being said, from a distance some of the projects out their seem like outright scams, especially in the renovation/restoration end of things.  

I did qualify my statement by saying for some...Outright scams, outright deceptions, outright incompetance, outright indifference, and outright arrogance definitely exist in the design business in great volumes it can seem, I certainly understand your view, and being judgemental, which I think is a virtue in some respects other than a vice as many want you to believe, I am sometimes astounded by what goes on in the restoration/renovation business.  Intentions are good may be true, but I see too much arrogance and indifference.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

"Outright scams, outright deceptions, outright incompetance, outright indifference, and outright arrogance definitely exist in the design business in great volumes it can seem"..Kelly Blake Moran

I could not agree more.  But to look at the problem in another light:  the following are to blame for the above and i many ways come before the architect.

#1 Banker-Dont know where to begin on this character and the "creativity" that licensed on pro formas.  In many ways they are the architect and who would have ever guessed they could be artistic when drawing up draw releases and contracts!ha

#2 Developer-  This group has opened my eyes since I worked for a golf developer on a big budget project.  They tend to play whos got the biggest d*ck.  But in my case it was what can we give the potential member to make him join and what happens down the road is up to that membership(turf quality, design changes, and construction flaws)

The biggest thing that many dont realize is that if the budget was publicized at 16 million, many times that total ticket price is not spent on the course.  I saw first hand the amazing amounts thrown to entertainment, dining, and hotel rooms plus flights.  Stupid wastes that would make many IRS agents have a stroke.  Plus the more "experts" on the team meant more bonuses etc.  Gross numbers.  Kinda like if you win the lottery you can bet on the number of "old" friends calling for an advance or handout!ha

Sure the architect got his cut but many times he was the last paid individual and sometimes did not get his payment due to "the draw" not being sufficient.  Funny thing is that many times the problem was sugar coated with talk of I guess we have to raise those memberships or sell a few more.ha

To be continued.

[David_Tepper]

There has been a fair amount of comment and speculation on this thread and others regarding the alleged $16 million spent to renovate Harding Park. Setting aside the vaguaries of municpal finance and accounting, you all should keep the following in mind:

1) Construction projects of ANY type in San Francisco are VERY expensive. If any public employees were involved as laborers on the project, figure the labor costs were at least 2x-3x times what a private project would spend. (As an aside, if you knew what we were about to spend to renovate our 60 sq.ft. kitchen here, it would boggle your mind. For the time and expense involved, you could probably build a nice 1-bedroom home many places elsewhere in the US.)

2) You should remember that the project involved 27-golf holes, not 18. Both the Harding 18 and the Fleming 9 were redone.

3) A whole lot more was done than just re-building 18 (or even 27) tees and greens. There was extensive tree-trimming and tree-removal as well.  Perhaps the most expensive part of the renovation was the contouring of all the fairways and the installation of a comprehensive drainage system to both improve the overall drainage of the course and minimize the water run off into Lake Merced.          

[Joel_Stewart]

Dave:

I agree that the politics of doing business in San Francisco like many big cities is out of control.  If you read the article Geoff wrote on the numbers its very shakey.  Furthermore, nobody has stepped up and accounted for the money and exactly how much did the PGA get for their services?

 
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=230137&currentPage=2

Here are the estimated figures by Geoff.

According to the GCSAA fact sheet for this week Harding has approximately 113,000 square feet of putting surface. At the typical $5 per square foot for USGA green construction, that's about $565,000. Let's throw in the practice putting green and make it $600,000.

They have about 62,000 sq. feet of bunker sand in 46 character-free bunkers, at $3 per square foot to replace sand, add drainage and install a few new pits, you're looking at $186,000 for the bunkers.

Let's say the tees were laser leveled, sodded, nurtured and blessed by a priest at $3 a square foot. They have approximately 153,000 square feet of tee space, so we're looking at around $460,000 for tees.

That puts us at $1.2 million for your primary material and construction costs. Rather standard these days.

Shoot, let's make it $1.5 million just to be safe.

Now we'll throw in a generous $3.5 million for a new irrigation system, sod, drainage, cart paths, maintenance equipment and extra labor.

Another $500,000 for design shaping and services (too much).

Another $500,000 for tree trimming and removal (too much).

We'll even include a silly-but-likely $500,000 for renovating the par-30 Fleming Course.

Of course there's $1 million in legal fees, lobbying, more labor, kick-backs and any other bureaucratic waste you'd like to throw in.

Then there was $4 million reimbursed to the city in lost green fees.

Total: $11.5 million.

So where did the other $4.5 million go?

[les_claytor]

I just lost a good  post, will repsond later!

[les_claytor]

DSL sucks!

[les_claytor]

I will try this post in two parts in efforts not to lose text.

Joel,

I enjoyed your manifesto on "Real Architects."  I sympathize in theory but in reality you've eliminated about 95% of practicing architects.  I guess that may be your point.

I will say that I feel a real architect stands behind their work, because at the end of the day that's all that matters.  Respectfully, I will stand behind our efforts at Harding Park and am proud that the character that defined Harding and Flemming is still very much in the course.  When the course re-opened, the public said we didn't do enough changes, which is a great compliment.

As far as my lip, it's doing just fine.  Constructive criticism is what makes GCA such a passionite field, and creates the need for the profession.  Negative reaction is better than no reaction.

Next: the science of Harding

[les_claytor]

I have said before that I find Geoff's article on the Harding Park renovation to be poorly researched.  Consequently, to write an article that insinuates public fraud without proper facts is unprofessional and irresponsible journalism.  If your going to draw up a budget, at least find out what the complete program was before posting.

The renovation was a public works project managed by the city of San Francisco, so do the homework.