Why don't owners use their architects more?

[JESII]

I'm not thinking about the ability to grow grass, but rather how the ball reacts on the ground.

Isn't that the key to bringing out the architecture?

Who is the link between how an architect envisions his courses playability and how the superintendent/membership actually prepare it?

[Joel_Stewart]

Yes it can.  last year at the Golf Digest panelist summit, all of the architects (even Tom Fazio) asked that the conditioning category be removed from the rankings.  Golf Digest is still considering it because of the inconsistent conditioning say one panelist rates it in February, another in June and another in October.  To me it has nothing to do whith the integrity of the golf course.

[Jim Franklin]

Great point Joel. I have a hard time detracting from a course's rating if the conditions are not "perfect". You are absolutely right in that GD should remove that category for the exact example you gave. If I play a course in the winter and you play it in the summer, that can throw its rating off a lot.

[Mark Pearce]

Great point Joel. I have a hard time detracting from a course's rating if the conditions are not "perfect". You are absolutely right in that GD should remove that category for the exact example you gave. If I play a course in the winter and you play it in the summer, that can throw its rating off a lot.

Surely when they are rating a course they are rating the playing experience.  If a course is poorly maintained to the detriment of the golfing experience that should be reflected in the ranking.  Rankings are about more than design.

[JESII]

I guess my end point would be that I think architects should be more involved in the ongoing maintenance considerations of a golf course.

When put in the context of magazine rankings I feel even stronger about this opinion. An architect should be recognized not only for the visual presentation, but also (and I'd argue it deserves more weight) the playability factors.

You build the greatest looking hole in the world from a strategic perspective and if it holds water like a sponge and is always soft and receptive the strategic values are awfully diminshed, don't you think?

[A.G._Crockett]

I think judging architecture and compiling rankings are very, very different things.  Judging architecture, no matter what we like to think here SHOULD be true, is but one aspect of what goes into the rankings.  Rankings tend to include the "total experience", whether they should or not.

In making a ranking list, conditioning probably has to be considered.  If you are considering architecture purely, conditioning should be irrelevant.

[JESII]

I think I agree AG,

Why would one (or possibly more) or the architects lobby for a ranking based on non-playing concerns?

Are the architects of today not willing to help their courses be presented in the way they (the architect) intended?

[cary lichtenstein]

Not only should conditioning be removed, but the club house, locker room, pro shop, staff, etc.

It's about golf course architecture, and crappy conditions found at Yale, Highland Links, etc., should not be considerations as ultra high conditioning at Double Eagle and others should not elevate a courses status.

[JESII]

Cary, and everyone,

Let me be clear that I have no interest in how this relates to Golf Digest ranking golf courses. I want to know why architects are not more involved in the playing characteristics of their golf courses.

If I need to start a different thread with the question worded differently I'll do it. I sure don't want a ranking argument thread tagged with my name on it.

[Doug Wright]

...I want to know why architects are not more involved in the playing characteristics of their golf courses.

If I need to start a different thread with the question worded differently I'll do it.

JES,

I'd suggest you change the thread title to read "Why Aren't Architects More Involved in the Playing Characteristics of their Courses?"   A good question, by the way. The poster child for me is Apache Stronghold, the architecture of which I can and have judged as worthy despite its poor playing characteristics (which I thought was what you were getting at when I read your thread title).

[JESII]

Done!

[Jeff_Brauer]

While it sounds good, is it really our area of expertise? In some ways yes, when we recommend soil amendments, design irrigation (now through a consultant usually, but we have input) and other things.  

However, other than telling a course owner how I would ideally want things, the fact is that over a season things happen and a superintendent may have to make some half art/half science decisions on nearly a dailey basis.  We can't possibly be there every day for those kinds of decisions so its best not to get involved.

From a legal standpoint, BTW, my agreements specifically state that I am in NO WAY responsible for the turf maintenance from the day the seed is dropped.  If I made suggestions and the turf died after they followed them, I don't have the money to, nor would my (soon to be former) E and O insurance policy cover the losses for those suggestions.

Generally, its best if the designer designs, the owner owns, the super grows grass and the pro in the shop smiles at everyone.......

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  I would love to be more involved in the playing character of our golf courses, but I can only be so involved when the client and the superintendent ask me.  I learned the hard way on my first course that it's very easy to step on other people's toes, and that as much as we have invested in our projects emotionally, we don't own them physically.

We've had the best results on those courses where the superintendent was involved directly in construction, and we got to know each other well in the heat of battle.  They understand our intentions, and they'll call us if they have a problem with something.  We keep our fingers crossed that they want to stay at those courses for years to come, but that's not our business, either.

[cary lichtenstein]

The link, unfortuately gets further and further removed as the green chairman change very often.

[JESII]

The link, unfortuately gets further and further removed as the green chairman change very often.

I guess there is no arguing that Cary, especially at a club like my home course being about 80 years old. Short of bringing in Wayne Morrison and having him tap into the cosmos and discuss this topic with William Flynn directly we are simply making assumptions.



Jeff and Tom,

Thank you for chiming in here, another disclaimer though. If my wording sounds accusatory to the architect that is also not the intent. I'm just trying to identify the roadblocks to improving the overall golf experience in this time of segregated or isolated specialists.

I'll try to go point-by-point through your posts.

Jeff,

Your response is really closely tied to liability and expertise concerns. I can understand the liability concerns, but if there were an incentive to develop the expertise (even if at just a basic level), so you might be available as a resource to the superintendent in an ongoing capacity wouldn't you agree everyone would be better off. The client has two sources attempting to solve problems with a clear hierarchy between the two. You as the architect would be a consultant and not be asked to deliver the final cure on those days you mention in which the super may have to work up a half art/ half science potion to make it through the specific period. Why wouldn't it be advantageous to that super if he were able to bounce an idea or two off you (the creator) to see if anything rings a bell one way or another.

 

Generally, its best if the designer designs, the owner owns, the super grows grass and the pro in the shop smiles at everyone.......

I agree that, in general, keeping people secluded in their own field of expertise is a better course for success on a project than everyone trying to solve every problem.....so long as communication remains strong. Owners are understandably high strung about the project and I can see that being a huge obstacle, one which is worth avoiding at all costs on the back end, hence your contract language, but these are also usually smart people. If they see a formula succeeding in one environment they are likely apt to adopt a similar approach.


Tom,

I think your second paragraph says alot about what I am driving at. It actually identifies the real heading this thread should hold. I'll rename it accordingly.

As far as stepping on toes, I imagine that would be the most difficult part of the process I'm recommending. It would be unavoidable, even under the best circumstances. In my opinion it would come down to communication and the understanding that each and every one of you out in the field (including the owner) want that specific project to be a success and that you each bring something valuable to the table. Here's the hard part, and the most vital. The super needs to be able to tell you, or the owner, that they know how to solve a specific problem. Or that you, or the owner, are wrong with your recommended solution. This confidence is probably difficult to cultivate because of the nature of the position. The demand for a very high success rate with very few mistakes being forgiven seems to be a recipe for complacence, especially when you consider what Jeff referrenced as the half art / half science performance needed quite frequently.

Am I dreaming?

If a client approached you with this model would you be interested?

Would you be capable of writing down your thoughts, from a maintenance perspective, that could be archived for a specific course so in 80 years the green committee has something to work with?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

We've tried to write down our maintenance objectives a few times, for different clients, both consulting and on our own new courses.

It's met with varying success.

At High Pointe, so much has changed surrounding the course and regarding the turf, that most recommendations are now moot.

At Black Forest, a couple of the recommendations we made were poorly thought out, yet they are enshrined in a document for future generations to laugh at.  

At Cape Kidnappers, we did make recommendations, but they weren't paid much attention to until the owner brought in an outside maintenance/management consultant to look at the place and make some of the very same recommendations.

I think it's difficult for an architect just finished with a project to have the perspective about it to write such recommendations, other than boilerplate stuff such as "keep the greens and fairways firm", "topdress the approaches", and so forth.  It would be better to make the document 3-5 years down the road, after any initial problems are dealt with and considered by all sides.

But, if you maintain a good relationship with the client and his superintendent, whether this needs to be formalized on paper is irrelevant until you no longer have time to keep up with your old courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel Stewart & Jim Franklin,

Would you therefore ignore soft, lush conditions that have a negative impact on playability at Garden City, Sebonack, NGLA, Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills, in August, in the midst of a two month drought ?

How would you evaluate the architecture and playability of the 4th at NGLA, the Redan, if the course was soft, spongey and lush, despite the existance of a prolonged drought.

Surely, when ranking a course, "conditions of play" have to be a critical factor, especially for courses where the ground game was intended to be a viable option by the architect.

Is NGLA the same golf course when it's fast and firm compared to when it would be soft, spongey and lush ?

Would it play the same ?

Is some, or a good deal of the architectural interfacing with the golfer rendered useless by lush conditions ?

If so, why would you want to reward a golf course that has shelved some of its most important architectural features vis a vis conditioning ?

[Mark_Fine]

To me, conditioning is a part of the architecture.  I don't have time right now to type up a long explaination but things like bunker edging - have the bunkers receded, lost their shape and size, what do the faces of the bunkers look like (sand flashing), have the greens shrunk, are the fairways consistent with the design intent and the hazards, tree plantings and growth, and so on.  I think all things conditioning factors impact the quality of the architecture.  I remember downgrading Pine Valley several years back because of the "loss of sand".  The place was getting overgrown but fortunately that has been changing for the better the last few years.  Doesn't all this impact the architecture for better of for worse?  

If the greens are punched or the grass on the fairways is sparce or the place is soggy due to recent rains, time of year, etc. no problem.  That doesn't bother me nearly as much as some of these other conditioning factors when it comes to "rating a golf course".  

[JESII]

Jim:

We've tried to write down our maintenance objectives a few times, for different clients, both consulting and on our own new courses.

It's met with varying success.
Could certain aspects of the method used be enhanced to increase the odds of future success?

At High Pointe, so much has changed surrounding the course and regarding the turf, that most recommendations are now moot.
But could a general principle be carried forward so that if you are not around there is a blueprint to follow?

At Black Forest, a couple of the recommendations we made were poorly thought out, yet they are enshrined in a document for future generations to laugh at.  
Also a good thing, on occassion.

At Cape Kidnappers, we did make recommendations, but they weren't paid much attention to until the owner brought in an outside maintenance/management consultant to look at the place and make some of the very same recommendations.
And to think, if you had positioned yourself well, your firm might have recieved that contract.

I think it's difficult for an architect just finished with a project to have the perspective about it to write such recommendations, other than boilerplate stuff such as "keep the greens and fairways firm", "topdress the approaches", and so forth.  It would be better to make the document 3-5 years down the road, after any initial problems are dealt with and considered by all sides.
Fair enough, and obviously you would know better than I. What I am envisioning more is an understanding of the evolution the course will experience and lend a guiding hand as a reminder to avoid certain pitfalls, and let others happen.

As greens mature, how does the different playing surface change the way the hole is played?

As people hit the ball further, do youwant that bunker to be carryable, or not?

Those are the type of things I think are appropriate. Agronomic knowledge as well as strategic principles that should ideally endure for the life of the course. When operating under this premise the course could evolve over a long period of time and still be considered authentic.

This seems to be a problem for alot of courses.

WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE ARCHITECTS INTENT?

But, if you maintain a good relationship with the client and his superintendent, whether this needs to be formalized on paper is irrelevant until you no longer have time to keep up with your old courses.

[JESII]

Written by Tom MacWood on the Ross manuscript thread:

Is it a manual for building a golf course or manual for designing a golf course?

This ties into what I am thinking. I have not heard the answer to this question yet, but I'm intrigued by it. It seems that in todays world of magazine rankings (which I really do not want this thread to be about) that some architects would prefer the latter while I feel the golf community will benefit in the long run by more focus on the former; from all parties involved in any particular project.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jes,

I think you should buy the book, not ask about it!  Like all the books of the era, it contains mostly design, but morphs over into things like spreading manure (of course, some would say anything we gca's write constitutes spreading manure )

As to the general idea again of the gca being involved, I recall meeting a building architect in one of his clubhouses for lunch.  Like FLW, he immediately began re-arranging the furniture which they had moved from his original concept.  The club didn't like that very much!  Most would say that once that building was turned over, the archie didn't have any right to change the furntiture, and they are right.

Similarly, and for practical reasons, since we tend to work all over the country, how am I going to get back to MN, KS, or whereever to assist them in maintaining the golf course?  It does happen, and we try to get multi year consulting agreements, but no one wants those, and/or golf courses change hands, etc.

Its not that I don't or don't want to assist in keeping the courses in the concept I envisoned, and many courses are kind enough to consult me on changes out of repsect for the original intent, its just that its hard to do, especially since they often think I should do that for no fee!  I hate to be practical, but spending a few thousand bucks to fly somewhere to offer an opinion just isn't in my budget.

[JESII]

I understand the financial issues Jeff, and I feel and operate (in my business) exactly as you feel.

Tell me, if the walls start to crack and and bow on this clubhouse you ate in and there are no engineering plans left around who is the general manager going to call? Would he be better off calling an independent architect/engineer or the guy who built the place and has all the details of what he did?

The lack of interest in signing a multi-year consulting arrangement is understandabe from the clients perspective because they may not be aware of two things: 1)the evolutionary nature of a golf course and 2)the money.

If I can sell him on the need to spend the money can you sell him on the need to spend it on you (the original architect that now has a bit of agronomic expertise)?

[Jeff_Brauer]

......Tell me, if the walls start to crack and and bow on this clubhouse you ate in and there are no engineering plans left around who is the general manager going to call?

Probably a lawyer......

[JESII]

I guess that's why you have your liability clause in your contracts.

Considering the lower personal injury liability concerns for the architect on a golf course as opposed to a building who do you think would be the best contact point for a superintendent and owner to contact to help with a specific problem? I'm not suggesting you become the end-all-be-all in this endeavor, but I cannot see a downside to the pursuit of this.

The course should have increased expertise on the maintenance side. It should also benefit from a continuity of leadership considering how frequently green committees and superintendents change. The architect should benefit from an enhanced base of knowledge as well as increased residual income.

What's the downside?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jes,

One reason I'm a golf architect is because I figured my golf courses couldn't fall down like a building......over the years, though, more and more things have become subject to lawsuits in the golf design biz.  We are no more or less immune than engineers, since we really do engineer a lot of the golf course. I see more lawsuits purely as a result of Owners (and Contractors) not having enough money to weather any risks associated with faulty performance or unexpected delays.

A club might call a gca in to review drainage or safety problems, for example, that become apparent in the early years of a golf courses existence.  Sometimes they call the original gca, sometimes (particularly if a new owner has taken over) they call another, perhaps someone local to save funds.  Sometimes, they just call a contractor, or a consulting agronomist, or a snake oil salesman who says he can help them, or someone who is well known to the superintendent. There are probably more people out there actively selling themselves for follow up consulting at courses (and usually selling a product) than the gca.  

As such, there is no real pattern to ongoing course evolution and problem solving.

As stated, gca's really don't have agronmic expertise in most cases.  Its a full time job and lifetime pursuit in its own right.  Courses usually have as-built drawings (more and more on digital files tied to the computer irrigation control system) which reflect actual field changes and are more accurate in many cases than the gca's original plans, so contacting the original architect is not necessarily the best way to go.  

There isn't a downside for me, it just doesn't happen, and even if the one day consulting fee is paid, other areas of the business have a better chance to pay the bills.  I agree continuity can have some benefits, but sadly, it just doesn't happen.  You are talking 16,000 courses, with perhaps over 50,000 people in charge, and only a few of them either read golf club atlas or even stay in touch with their gca.