[Andrew Cunningham]

If Tom Doak now costs nearly as much as Tom Fazio or Jack Nicklaus, would a developer of a daily fee track with a projected peek green fee of $75 be better off hiring either Tom D, Tom F or Jack or should the developer consider a relative unknown full of great ideas who costs a mere fraction of these three?

It is easy to pick Tom D now after seven years of exceptional designs, but what about giving a guy like Mike Nuzzo a chance?  What does everybody think?

Lastly, if you dare, post what you think Tom D's current fee for service is.  Obviously the fee varies based market conditions, project requirements, and timing but on average what do you think Tom D would quote.  My guess: $950,000 plus, plus.

Andrew

[Jimmy Muratt]

Obviously, every project has a different budget to work with so the person/people footing the bills may choose to go with a more expensive architect if the budget is there.  Also, for a real estate driven project, a "big name" architect will drastically help property sales as well.

Some of the most interesting projects are the lower profile golf only sights that don't have as large a budget.  There are a lot of wonderful architects out there who just need to be given the opportunity.  Everyone was a "nobody" at some point.  

The common lineage that many of the great new breed of young designers do share though, is that they worked under some of the greats of the previous generation.  I think everyone knows there are many great shapers/designers working for the big names today which will excel on their if they choose to take that path.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you Andrew - my newest and bestest partner...  

I'd give me a chance any day, as I would many others, if I didn't already know me.    
As an owner I'd also be trying to make the best course possible - definately not every owners goals.  Some just want to hang out with Jack or Arnie.

As for the fee - I'd guess you're over on the high range of his fee - his recent average would be significantly less.  He has posted he has been desiging for equity - some day it might be substantially more.

I would hope his fee is that high.
It would help increase the value of an architect - see his recent article in Golf Architecture - Europe.
Also the higher fee would create a greater separation from my fees - not that I've competed with Mr. Doak.

Did the $950k take into account the $50k deduction for no cart paths?  

Jimmy - I'd like to hear your numbers when you say a big name "drastically" improves home sales.

[Jim Thompson]

I think those who want an John Q. Bigname style course would still be best served to go with the turn key approach of a big name provided they brought their checkbook and could stay the hell out of the way.  I say that for two reasons; the first being that the public has an expectation or standard of a John Q. Bigname course and secondly if the guy writing the checks fiddles with it too much it will not meet the expectations of the target market and fail.

On the other hand, if a guy wanted to be involved and had some vision of something unique or something he hasn't seen before but wants as the finished product, I think he would be much happier with a lesser known architect as they don't bring any or nearly as much stylistic baggage with them.

Those two points taken I think the fee is the last thing that should be taken into consideration.  The fee can be a deal breaker but it should never be the deal maker else both parties start off in an advantagous approach to a project which may lead to resentment by the end of the project by one party or both.  I'm particularly fond of one lower tier architects work, but could also easily see myself working with a handful lower tier guys we all know.

Cheers!

JT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()