Consulting Architects--Past and Present

[wsmorrison]

There seems to be a growing trend towards clubs hiring an architect to develop a master plan and staying on as a consulting architect.  Lehigh Country Club has been doing just that for more than ten years now.  Other clubs are engaging restoration architects on multi-year contracts to implement master plans and advise.  

William Flynn was the consulting architect at Merion, Lancaster, Lehigh, Philadelphia Country Club, The Cascades and others during his lifetime.  I don't think a lot of changes were done at Lehigh under Flynn, at least I have not been able to document them, but the other courses had substantial changes going on throughout the decades of Flynn's association with the clubs.  

Lancaster CC is one of the most difficult yet fascinating evolution reports I've ever worked on (it took weeks to figure out).  While the routing is very complicated due to changes in design, obsoleting holes and constructing new ones, changes to routing and hole progressions, the course was dramatically improved.  The same was clearly true of Merion, Cascades and Philadelphia Country Club.

I've wondered what made Flynn design the courses the way he did in the first place when the end result of his consulting was a dramatically different course.  Why didn't he get closer to his final product on the first go round?  Partly because these projects were initiated early in his career and also due to technological advances that required change.  In the cases of Merion, his collaboration with Wilson on the redesign of the 1912 East Course began within a year or so of the opening and continued on till his death in 1945.  The Lancaster project began early in his career, in 1919.  Likewise, the Cascades was relatively early in his career as well, opening in 1923.  On all these courses improvements were made over the course of 15 to 25 years or more.   On the other hand, Philadelphia Country Club opened in 1927 during Flynn's peak efforts yet the course was substantially altered for the 1939 US Open.  

Was it common practice in the Golden Age for architects to be engaged as consultants after the course opened?  It doesn't seem so as many changes on other architect's courses were done by others while the original architect was still very much alive and in practice.  Of all the 51 original Flynn designs, only one was worked on by another architect while he was alive, this was Perry Maxwell at Philadelphia Country Club in the mid 1930s.  Maxwell redid a few greens at PCC that had settled and formed pockets.  It turns out the quality of construction in the reworking was poor and they had to bee redone by Flynn at a later date.  

I think the uniformity of Flynn's work on his courses was unusual and likely a direct result of his consulting practices.

Clubs today seem to be coming around to recognizing the advantages to hiring a consulting architect.  Inherently this requires making a good decision in the beginnning.  If a club is going to consider engaging a consulting architect, what are the ways to decide upon one to ensure the best chances of success going forward?  How should such a contract be structured?

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

I gave this post a look earlier in the day and it's stuck in the back of my mind since. In my experience, it seems that Flynn's work has been the most well-preserved categorically as compared to some of his contemporaries. While changes are inevitable, it seems that Flynn's battery of work has survived the most (I know there are exceptions like CC of Harrisburg).

It seems that a lot of classic era architects had their pet courses, but Flynn especially seemed to come back and redesign as you stated. Was this a part of Flynn's agreement with those clubs?

That being said, with the prediliction for established clubs to develop a master plan during restoration and renovation work I've wondered why new clubs don't do the same thing. Are there any examples where modern architects have developed something like a 5 or 10 year master plan along with an initial plan for the course?

[Jason Mandel]

Wayne,

After Bobby Weed finished his work at White Manor, the club retained him (I believe for 10 years) to be the "consulting architecht".

He basically will come up once or twice a year and check on the progress of things and reccomend any tweaking.

I played with Forest Fezler on Sunday, who was Mike Strantz's top assitant and now runs Fezler Golf Design.  I asked him what his relationship with courses they had previously designed was.  He told me they don't have anything formally set up with the club, but that they will always come back and make suggestions. "It's part of the deal" is how he put it.

Jason

[TEPaul]

"I've wondered what made Flynn design the courses the way he did in the first place when the end result of his consulting was a dramatically different course. Why didn't he get closer to his final product on the first go round?"

Wayne:

If you and I and the rest of us on a website like this sit back and truthfully reflect on a question like that I'd think the answer should become obvious.

Get it right the first time?  

What's right mean? The golf course of any architect just has to pass the "test of time" of any membership and they certainly may not be the same or have the same tastes or motivations about their courses. If a golf course doesn't do that it's bound to get changed. That's a reality some on here don't seem capable of accepting with some of these "old guys". Some on here feel the need to write premises like Tillinghast was selling out his architectural principles and such. Others are into crowing that original architecture should be restored now without even bothering to figure out WHY it got changed at some point in the first place.

In my opinon, this is not a particularly intelligent way of looking at golf course architecture. Crump's PVGC was never much ARCHITECTURALLY changed once the course was finished following his death. Do we know why that was? I think we do. Cypress was never much changed. Do we know why that was? I think we do. Do we know why Lancaster was changed so much?  I think we do if we realize that perhaps two holes were let go for other uses with two others for perhaps the fact that they not have been very good in the opinion of the membership of the club and the fact of some water issues and flooding concerns. When you start changing something on a golf course like an entire hole or two or three or four in their par category or whatever we know because of the jigsaw puzzle effect of golf architecture that a "pebble in a pond" effect can take place very easily on the golf course and change and alteration can really begin to multiply.

[wsmorrison]

Thanks for the responses, guys.  I thought the topic might garner more interest, but it does require some thought.

Jason,

Your club made the right architectural decision to go with Bobby Weed.  I hope it turns out to be the right financial decision because you now have a heck of a good golf course.  Nice to see you guys followed up that choice with a consulting agreement.  And for ten years?  Good going!

Kyle,

It really is amazing that Flynn courses were hardly touched by another architect during his lifetime.  It is a tribute to his ability to design well and, as Tom points out, to recognize or be willing to listen to a membership when things don't pass the test of time and have the willingness to make improvements.

For those historians that know other architects, did they consult at courses over time?  We know Macdonald made changes to NGLA over a long period.  That evolution report would be fascinating and likely revealing of his changing philosophies and the impact of technology as well.

Likewise Ross fiddled with Pinehurst #2 for decades.  Did he do so elsewhere?

Tom,

Great points.  I know you are particularly sensitive to this, but we have to look at historical events not merely from our present perspective but from a contemporary perspective.  These guys did not always get it right the first or second time.  We don't really spend a lot of time studying the evolution of golf courses.  It does lead to a better understanding and is required to make informed decisions on restorations or renovations today.

Does your club have a consulting relationship with Gil going forward or just till the work is completed?

[Tags:]

Tags: