Golf Architect Selection

[Slag_Bandoon]

  I am curious as to how, generally, an architect gets selected for a job?  Is it reputation?  In the Yellow Pages?  Clients that want to rub elbows with ex-pros?  Best hairdo? Site visits? Lowest bid?  Open Doctor status? Most enthusiastic "Yes!  This site shouldn't have anything less than the best attention of ME for this land which God made for golf!" Able to talk and relate with respect for the land?  Agrees to owners ideas and best interest? Or is it something else?   Please don't tell me it's something simple like "buys the most drinks" or I'll I've thrown my life away in the wrong career.   I'm not looking for a sales pitch or ideals, just what is it that gets an architect his foot in the door and the contract?  

  I remember Brad Klein stated that he wasn't upset with Tom Fazio so much as the people who hire him for the wrong reasons.  

  I suppose Anonymous posts here are understandable.  (But I'm not the boss)

[Tim Weiman]

Slag:

Definitely go with best hairdo.

[Scott_Burroughs]

What about "I will give you a Top XX" course." or "I want a Top XX course."

[Slag_Bandoon]

Scott, I had to read your post a couple of times as I thought you were implying some sort of porn golf.  I caught on to your meaning but I like my first impression better.

 Tim, I've decided it's not the hair.  Fazio's always got a crooked hat on and Rees' is always squashed. Pete Dye throws that best hair notion right out.  And Tom Doak always seems to be working.    

Do most owners or corporate agents take bids and interview several architects?

[Craig Van Egmond]

It probably depends on the money men.

My guess is that budget, intended market and prestige of the job are all factors on who bids on jobs.  My guess is that Fazio, the Jones boys, Nicklaus and Palmer do not bid on many low budget, low prestige jobs. And if you want to sell a lot of high priced housing then Fazio, Nicklaus, Palmer and in certain locals Weiskoff should be high on your list.

[SL_Solow]

When we decided to do some significant work on our 1921 Colt & Allison course which had been subject to some "modernization " over the years we decided to interview several architects. Some were unavailable due to prior commitments.  Eventually we decided to interview 3 architects.  We informed them of our budget and our goals and then paid each to spend a day and give us a proposal outlining their vision for the project.  Ultimately we selected Mark Mungeam who did a terrific job.  I hope to post a long thread on the project as another example of how clubs deal with these issues and what can reasonably be accomplished.  In our case the investment in time and money of meeting several architects and getting their views in a more than cursory fashion paid off.

[Tim Weiman]

Slag:

Sorry for the hairdo comment!

More seriously, my experience with this topic is limited, but I would guess a large percentage of project sponsors fit into two categories. Either they really have one particular architect in mind or they create a "short list", maybe three to four candidates.

I can't imagine interviewing more than three or four, especially if serious thought has been given to creating the short list in the first place.

Now, what about criteria? I would have to think a great deal depends on the type of project. One of the "brand names" probably has a big advantage where there are serious marketing issues at stakes, e.g., real estate or high priced membership. The choices open up where other project objectives have greater priority, e.g., building a certain quality course or working within a given budget.

Were the decision mine, great weight would be given to the overall project vision and what kind of course best fit within that vision. I think you want to hire someone with whom you share common values and architectural interests. Keep in mind that for many project sponsors, the project may be the only course they build, a once in a lifetime experience. You really do, then, want to feel comfortable with the individual you hire.

FYI, Dusty Murdock once told me that he considered only two architects for the Sand Ridge project: C&C and Fazio. In the end, marketing concerns and project management expertise gave the nod to Fazio.

[ed_getka]

SL,
 I would be interested in reading about the process of how your course was redone.

[willhammer (Guest)]

My father was responsible for hiring an architect a long time ago. It was not a high profile or large budget job. Just a middle of the road muni job. The factors weighed were (in order):

1. Prior success on similar scope project.
2. Fee.
3. Proximity of their office to job.
4. Regional, perhaps national, recognition of previous courses.

The process was quite thourough and in the end the course slightly exceed somewhat modest expectations and was built under budget without any construction problems.

[ian]

Can't talk for most offices, but we get almost all work on reference. I always assumed the word of mouth, or recommendation of others would be the number one source. I could be wrong.

[Tom Doak]

Slag:  We've gone after several jobs where the client made a "short list" of 4-5 architects to interview, the only one of which we ever got was the original course at Stonewall.  (I'm not much of a salesman, I guess.)  

Nearly all of our work has come via personal recommendations by people I knew.  Pacific Dunes was the only one where I pursued the client before he had contacted me; three different friends knew about Mike's purchase of the land, and I asked one of them to introduce us.

For the record, here's who else was interviewed on the jobs we did get:

High Pointe:  Jerry Matthews.
The Legends:  none
Black Forest:  none
Charlotte:  none
Stonewall I: Bill Coore, Bruce Devlin, Bob Cupp, after the founders parted ways with Tom Fazio.
Quail Crossing:  none
Beechtree:  Ron Garl; Bill Coore turned it down and recommended us.
Apache Stronghold:  none
Lost Dunes:  Steve Smyers
Riverfront:  none
Atlantic City:  Rees Jones, Gil Hanse
Village Club at Sands Point:  Gary Player
Pacific Dunes:  none
Texas Tech:  Andy North (before the donor became involved)

[Steve Sailer]

Clients are constantly asking building architects to participate in open competitions. Some young architects have made their reputations with losing entries - some of the unchosen entries for the Tribune Tower in Chicago are still well-known after 80 years are so. Presumably, these competitions are popular because designers don't have to visit the site and can reuse their designs later in their careers

Has there ever been a similar competition in golf course architecture? One hole contests like the one won by Mackensie (forgive my spelling oh mavens) and built by MacDonald at Lido, or Ron Whitten's at Golf Digest are known, but what about full course contests. It's pretty silly to think of swarms of architects wasting their time clambering over a couple of hundred acres of hills and forests, falling in creeks and getting bitten by snakes. Still, for a purely manufactured course on a featureless site like Shadow Creek, this doesn't seem totally implausible.

Another question - do design teams ever specialize, the way songwriters teams divide up into composer and lyricist? For example, are there any teams where one guy does the routing and the other the green complexes? Designing green complexes requires 3-d mental visualization skills that a lot of people don't have, while routing is mostly a 2-d process that requires a lot of mental sweat, but less of a fairly rare mental gift for 3-d imaging.

(I suspect Fazio has terrific 3-d skills, but perhaps doesn't work as hard on his routing or on tying his routing strategically to his beautiful greensites. In contrast, RTJ Sr. said that Nicklaus has poor visualization skills, but is a great critic once he can see the hole in the ground -- which is an expensive way to work.)

[Michael Dugger]

I imagine that some of the groups like Renaissance may have 'designated hitters' who are better at routing or greens complexes.  BUT....I think what angers so many people on this site about a lot of the golf course architects practicing today is that they leave SO MUCH of the design of the course up to the SHAPERS.  There is a lot of 'wiggle room' between plans on paper and actual shapes in the dirt.    

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

mdugger,

You're angry because you spent the cash to play such a course.  Can you imagine the disservice done to the clients that pay the fee and the construction costs, or the members that pay the initiations and dues, paticularly if they do so based upon the architect's name, the architect who only showed up every couple of weeks or so.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Is it normal for an archie to actually design a course before he is hired?

From the stories I heard about the meetings to determine who would build Spanish Bay it sounded like that was the case.

How far off the wall am I?