News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

A question for architects
« on: May 04, 2006, 08:01:58 PM »
Would you prefer to route and design an 18 hole, 27 hole or 36 hole complex ?

Why ?

Which is easier ?

And what are the pros and cons to each.

Thanks

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 11
Re:A question for architects
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2006, 08:22:04 PM »
Patrick:

Generally speaking, 18 holes are simpler to lay out than more, because you don't have to worry about getting so many holes back to a common starting point.

However, if you have 500 acres to choose from, picking the best 18 may be harder than routing 27 or 36 because you have to make more choices about which holes NOT to build.

Scott Witter

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2006, 08:29:18 PM »
Okay Pat, I'll bite, but I won't hang on for very long.

Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me.  I would be happy to have the work and honored to work with a good client and do my best effort.  I know you said prefer, but since I have never been put in such a position, I have never given it any thought.  When put in a corner it would really depend on the property, and whether or not 27, or 36 holes should be placed there, or did you mean simply from a practical or financial/selfish point of view?   I'll say this, the challenge and excitement of designing a 36 hole facility would be one whole lot of fun fun fun to keep me awake for many nights, hell, I'd have to set up camp on that piece of land and tell the wife to send the mail!

To me, there are too way many variables and issues, sociological, environmental, ethical, business, marketing, resort, private, public, hell, where do I stop... to be addressed before this can be answered in a thoughtful way.  As you are aware, there are many many issues that should and need to be considered, but then again you may be looking at this from simplier means...? and I don't want to assume where you are going with this.  Shit, you could write a white paper on the philosophical impacts and business strategies for pros and cons alone.

Thats it, I'm going back to swim...your not taking me home to the frying pan tonight.

Scott Witter

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2006, 08:30:10 PM »
Crap...I knew Tom Doak would beat us all to the punch on this one

Patrick_Mucci

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2006, 08:34:38 PM »
Scott Witter,

I have NO opinion on the matter, only curiosity and questions.

Sorry to disappoint you. ;D

Scott Witter

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2006, 08:45:21 PM »
Pat,

No problem, you didn't disappoint.  I thought you were fishing for something, but I also have you pegged for being deeper than that too.

I do have plenty of thoughts on such a scenario should it ever be presented, but I'll save them for when it really counts.

Chris Kane

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:A question for architects
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2006, 09:05:32 PM »
I'm sure most architects would prefer 36, so they can charge more  ;D

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 11
Re:A question for architects
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2006, 09:09:08 PM »
Chris:

Funnily enough, I had an argument with one of my associates recently about what the fee should be for a 36-hole project.  He said it should be MORE than twice as much because routing 36 holes together is harder than routing two separate 18's.

He's probably right, but I really doubt we could get a prospective client to see it that way.

Scott Witter

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2006, 09:17:25 PM »
Tom Doak:

Did you REALLY have an argument?  I hope you didn't make a scene and embarass anyone.  If it was all about where to place the decimal point, or how many zeros to add, I'm sure you'll make the best decision...thankfully, I don't have that problem.

Ryan Farrow

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2006, 09:41:00 PM »
Chris:

Funnily enough, I had an argument with one of my associates recently about what the fee should be for a 36-hole project.  He said it should be MORE than twice as much because routing 36 holes together is harder than routing two separate 18's.

He's probably right, but I really doubt we could get a prospective client to see it that way.



I think all you needed to say was when you go to Costco or Sams Club buying in bulk is always cheaper.  Aren’t your costs lower for working with a 36 hole site rather then 2 18 hole sites on opposite ends of the country? Even things like aerial pictures and contour maps would be cheaper to produce right?

Don_Mahaffey

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2006, 09:45:51 PM »
Kelly,
Cut him some slack...he attends ASU.
Bear Down!

Ryan Farrow

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2006, 09:48:51 PM »
Tom Doak goes to ASU? This is news to me, maybe we can go play Karsten and have a few drinks ??? Frat Party ;D

Don_Mahaffey

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2006, 09:55:30 PM »
Ryan,
Ooops ;D
I flunked proof reading :)

Ryan Farrow

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2006, 10:07:55 PM »
hahaha. I had to jump on you for that after disrespecting my school. Sorry, it’s not usually my style. ;D

paul cowley

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:A question for architects
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2006, 11:01:21 PM »
Ryan ...have you finished your homework?
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2006, 07:06:02 AM »
Pat,

Sorry, to your question, routing 36 or 27 would be an enjoyment, if the land were spectacular then designing 27 or 36 in the field might be equally as fun and fulfilling creatively, but to have to bring about 36 holes of golf on a less than spectacular piece of land might be a little taxing on my limited creative resources.  You would hate to think you didn't give it everything on the last few holes because you were reaching.  

And yes Chris I would do it anyway because I desparately need the cash!!  You never know what you can do until you're pushed and your back is against the wall.

Pat I deleted the thread jacking posts I made.  A sense of guilt overwelmed me.  
« Last Edit: May 06, 2006, 09:45:51 AM by Kelly Blake Moran »

TEPaul

Re:A question for architects
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2006, 07:55:02 AM »
"Quote from: Tom_Doak on Yesterday at 09:09:08pm
Chris:

Funnily...,
 
 

thank God you're not an English teacher."

Kelly Blake;

Are you kidding? "Funnily" is one of the better old fashioned quirk words in English. Lots of little old aristocratic ladies used the word during tea and crumpets. It's a delightful word---say it about fifty times real fast and your buccinator muscles get so exciting it makes you smile involunatarily.

You can find "funnily" in the dictionary---it's the adv. of funny.

Futhermore, Doak is the mysterious boy genius of golf course architecture and his brilliance with the English language is just about on par with his golf course architecture.

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 11
Re:A question for architects
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2006, 09:54:19 AM »
Kelly:

I will ask my wife if "funnily" is okay or not.  She is the daughter of a high school English teacher and she gets even more pleasure out of pointing out my mistakes than you do.

Ryan:

Most of our contracts are a fee "plus expenses" so I wasn't factoring the lower expenses into the picture.  Yes, there is some time savings relative to travel time if you sign up 36 holes to be built in the same location AND they are built consecutively.  However, the only two times I've signed up for more than 18 holes, at The Legends and at St. Andrews Beach, the second course was delayed so there was no time overlap at all, and the discount we applied to the design fee came back to bite us big-time.  If I did that again, the fee for the second 18 would be contingent on the timing.

Peter Pratt

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:A question for architects
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2006, 02:36:20 PM »
Tom,

I love golf course architecture but am by no means an expert. On proper English I have much more training. While it may sound odd, "funnily" is the correct word....

Peter