Wrong Man for the Job?

[Lloyd_Cole]

In Pat's current 'handcuffs' thread Tom D responds that he has, occasionally been asked to 'tone down' his designs by the employer.
Do any of you architects out there recall any projects when it became apparent that the employer wasn't interested in what you consider your design strengths, and they had effectively employed the wrong designer? (Tom -  you have mentioned the Legends, I think, in this respect)
I appreciate that like most of the rest of us, most of you have to work for a living, so if there is only one commission on the table, you'd want to take it.

Obviously no need to name names.

And, I've been thinking about this for a while now - do you think your work would be better, or more enjoyable, if there were intermediary entities, GCA consultants so to speak, that potential employers went to before meeting with GCAs, who might be able to point them in the direction of the type of designer they actually wanted, rather than the last 5 they had read about in Golf Magazine?

[Tom_Doak]

Lloyd:

Most architects are happy for whatever work comes their way, and are willing to take on jobs with some restrictions.  But, when you can afford to become more choosy about which jobs to take, the question of how good a relationship you think you will have with the client rises ever higher on the list.

Once or twice, I have read the client wrong and found that I had to make compromises I did not like.  Most times, however, the handwriting was clearly on the wall when I signed up for the job, and I signed up anyway because I was willing to see it his way in return for getting the commission.

As for intermediaries ... there are often intermediaries.  There are people who act as agents for Asian clients, and p.r. people who pretend to be neutral but may be helping one or more specific architects find work.  There are magazine panelists who profess to be experts on the subject and who influence the choices of developers they know.  Lots of people need a reference.

[Jeff_Mingay]

When interviewing for jobs recently (with Rod Whitman), I've found myself thinking: the prospective client is interviewing us, but we're kinda interviewing the prospective client too.

In other words, just as Tom infers above, the first few meetings with a developer gives the golf architect a sense about the working relationship with may or may not ensue.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

One of Pete Dye's "interview tactics" (at least back when I worked for him) was that unless a project sounded really special, he didn't bother to return initial calls about potential new projects.  He figured if somebody didn't call him at least a couple of times before they gave up, either they didn't really want him, or they weren't the kind of person he wanted to work for.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The short answer is its a matter of degrees, not always black and white. Most of us are comfortable working in a range.  Sure, its possible that a low budget client might go seek out a Nicklaus signature,  and a few others have chosen low budget gca's or newibies for very important comissions, with mixed results. But those things usually sort themselves out early. Sometimes they don't.

Just as not all golfers don't really care about architecture, not all owners do either, and are making selections blind, and without true research of the best work of each candidates.  (I was once in an interview process where the committee refused to go see the work of the architects, saying it might unduly influence their decision!)  I have been in numerous interviews where the end result was that they chose someone who I felt was the worst possible candidate for them.  

Personally, I like it when a client challenges me to do something with a twist or outside my normal comfort range. I usually end up with 55-75 bunkers on my couress, but have a current client (two actually) who have imposed 40 bunker limits.  As a result, I have come up with some neat ground contour ideas (I think, but they all haven't been built yet) as alternatives.  Even if these two courses don't rank as my best ever (and I am not willing to concede that quite yet) I have been forced to learn/add something new to my architectural "bag of tricks" which will make me a better architect in the future.

The challenge of thinking of something a new and different way is on the whole better than being given a free hand in some ways. As my father often said, some guys have 20 years experience, and others have 1 year experience 20 times over.

[Lloyd_Cole]

As for intermediaries ... there are often intermediaries.  There are people who act as agents for Asian clients, and p.r. people who pretend to be neutral but may be helping one or more specific architects find work.

Gentlemen,

Are there respected professional (ie. their sole fuction is to represent clubs, resorts, potential developers etc) intermediaries that you know of?

[Tom_Doak]

Lloyd:

There are a couple of fairly established "golf consultants" who have often helped clubs find and hire a golf architect ... they also offer feasibility studies for new courses, consulting on the practicalities of new clubhouses, etc.

It would be hard for any such person to be universally respected, though, since for every new golf course there is one happy architect and several unhappy ones who think they should have gotten the job.