When is golf course architecture golf course architecture???

[JMorgan]

Thanks for those thoughtful responses to my questions, Jeff.

A few more questions for the architects:

Since everyone in the business started out without solo experience, how have most gca's earn their eventual status as bona fide architects after WWII?  

Are those gca's who made a name for themselves after minimal on-course construction experience and a head full of golf history the bold exceptions?

I assume that someone with a bachelor's degree in engineering, landscape architecture, or horticulture has a better chance at landing a design job or being hired by a club to put a course in the ground than the guy who knows a lot about Ross, for instance -- or is this a wrong assumption?  I assume that most of today's gca's at the very least come out of landscape architecture programs.  

I am wondering how practicing gca's would advise today's gca enthusiasts who are clearly talented and want to someday see their ideas realized as actual courses.   There are few if any university classes that offer majors in golf course architecture, for instance.  Is the "l.arch. major, underling/associate, own firm" path the best one today?

What do you say to a guy like Kyle who may know a particular piece of land inside out and has put thoughtful and rather excellent design ideas down on paper but doesn't have the design office experience, has never operated heavy machinery, doesn't know the first thing about bidding, contracting, permitting, let alone how to build a bunker, seed a course, etc.?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

Yes, no system is perfect, and of course, saying the system is favoring incompetents may be dependent on ones point of view - whether the teacher passed or not!

We all do the best we can.

JMorgan,

When I become a "bonafide" architect, I will let you know!

Seriously, I came through the LA/apprentice/solo track and recommend it to anyone starting out as a good base. Throw in some (but not too much, or you might get stuck on that side of it) construction exerience and you have the best training you can get.

BTW, with interns, etc. I can almost always tell within a few weeks if they have the innate artistic ability and office smarts to make their way in the field - regardless of degree.  Some just mature faster than others.

Most interns are frankly surprised at how little of the week is spent in design vs other necessary office functions - like grading and drainage, grassing, etc.  While our product is great design, there is so much more to it than a big idea, so yes, those who know history basically know nothing in my operation, although its nice to have that background.

Again, I think what Mike and I are saying is that if you are trained basically that way, you like to think it counts for something and that someone with deep interest or having read a few books can't talk their way in.  Of course, they do, and if they do it enough, voila, they are now bonafide, too.

As to Kyle, its a great start towards his chosen profession, but he needs to continue honing his professional skills of grading, drainage, etc. through school, internships, etc.  At least he got a nice start in presentations, putting things together for review, and design theory, etc.  Again, in my  view, the LA degree would get him the basics, and then an intern in a gca office working like he wants to work (hopefully) would show how to adapt those general skills to the practice of gca.

Of course, I am still learning 30 years into it, so its an ongoing process, or others are a lot smarter than me. I will let others judge.......

 

[Forrest Richardson]

"If a GCA requires no L.A. or engineer's license to build a course, do you think that such a requirement should be considered to build courses in the future?"

Since the ASGCA, the world's most recognized association of golf course architects, opposes the licensing of GCAs, I doubt this will happen. I do not think licensing serves any purpose in this particular art form...golf courses are really created by a coalition of professionals. Some of these professionals are, in fact, licensed.

I do believe there is a genuine advantage to a client in knowing that an ASGCA member has been through a process of peer review and evaluaton. While AIA, ASLA and ASGCA members will all have varying degrees of skill and varying degrees of creative ability, there is an underlying set of values that tags along with such memberships.

It is interesting that even the radical "non-comforming" of building architects are all AIA members. I suppose this is because the AIA has worked hard to make sure of this, and also there is the registration requirement in all states in order to call one's self an "architect."

It is a shame that there is a reality or impression that some here shun or down-play ASGCA membership. It is interesting to me that forced registration in order to design and oversee golf projects would, in essence, "force" membership applications by the few who are qualified and not currently ASGCA members......yet, it is the ASGCA itself who resists forced certification.

One cannot blame the ASGCA for missing out on a few golf architects who have chosen not to become members when looking at the organization with this perspective. I think you will see most North American golf designers eventually become ASGCA members, especially in future decades as many of the older perceptions finally wear off and are forgotten.

[Mike_Young]

JMorgan,
I got into the business without working for an architect but having a plan of how I hoped to proceed.  I went to work for a Tor distributor and called on golf architects, contractors, golf courses, committees, supts...attended all GCSAA shows worked summers on different new course being built either for the supt, irr contractor or the general contractor.  I met all I could meet and worked at the major tournaments.  All the while making a black book of numbers and slides.....when I got my first job I knew how and where to get it done.....and got paid according to my experience.....which was little....
Knowing a lot about Ross or some other Dead Guy has about zero bearing on the matter.....except for one or two people who have really studied the dead guys....most is perpetuated myth that those guys did not know themselves.....
As for getting in this business....I would not recommend that anyone do it for a few years.....I don't know where they will find a job anyhow....
I have hired LAR grads from the university and kept one or two interns for awhile but I have started foinding my best in the turfgrass arena...especially asst supts that want to learn the business.....Also, i don't hire them f they can't play golf a low handicap....
I now I keep learning everyday as do most........however if some consider what they read on this website learning....well...maybe a few tidbits but not much more.....OH and in the end this business is al about selling......however you do it.....

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,

Do you think AIA and ASGCA are fair comparisons?

Mike

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes. But like anything compared, it is just that — a comparison. If you are looking for sameness, you will not find it.

[Mike_Young]

Yes. But like anything compared, it is just that — a comparison. If you are looking for sameness, you will not find it.

Forrest,
Not to get things stirred but I cant see a fair comparison....
Anyone with an architectural degree can join AIA and all segments of the industry can join at different levels......fairly objective criteria
ASGCA seems subjective to me.....oh well....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

As I opined recently on some other thread, I think when AIA was formed, there was large numbers of architects and also state licencing and degrees in the chosen profession.  Standards other than achieving a degree and license weren't and still aren't necessary.

When ASGCA was formed (and now) there was no licensing and no college degree specifically for golf design.  My theory is that these factors led to the difference in admission processes between the two organizations, in that ASGCA felt the need for self differentiation that didn't exist as it did with other professions of the time.

Again, just a theory.

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike — If you believe it is subjective then you believe wrongly. That doesn't mean you are bad, just that you are wrong in this particular belief.  

I do not know the specifics of your connection to ASGCA, but I can attest that anyone with credentials, good business practices, AND the will to endure the membership process in a professional approach would never be excluded unless they could not meet the criteria. There big "if" here is that the process must be endured. It is no more easy than it is simple.

I will agree that, in the past, ASGCA was more a club  and less a group of professionals with very diverse aims and backgrounds — yet all with a common way to make a living. Today it is just that: A group of professionals with very diverse aims and backgrounds, yet each committed to golf architecture and the pursuit of sharing, learning and bettering our art form.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Forrest,
I'd guess the voting part makes it subjective.

Mike,
As someone in a similar situation to your early career - how did you present yourself for your first job?
I'd say my client had an understanding of my experiences.

Is someone who works for an architectural firm for 15 years but is never the one most responsible for a course or any of the diciplines [he starts a routing, but the lead finishes, he details the construction drawing, but doesn't create them...] an architect?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I would say so, but I guess you never know how someone will do without back up until they try.  Some assisant coaches make it big as head guys, and most others fail.

BTW, I went to my first interview in my Honda, but a competitor showed up in a rented Lincoln.  I got the job.  It never pays to show up and present yourself as someone you are not.  You (or at least I) can't keep up a charade long enough, even if I can keep it up during an interview.

I won't go into the ASGCA thing again.  Won't go there, not gonna do it.  As Casey Stengal said, "You could look it up."

[Forrest Richardson]

You guess it makes it subjective? Guess?

1. Applicant provides representative projects and demonstrates compliance with the application process.

2. Committee reviews such and creates a report.

3. Members in good standing review the application, hear from the committee and confirm the applicant.

Frankly, AIA might be a much better organization if the members truly understood who was applying and who was being considered for membership. But, with tens of thousands of members that is not practical. Fortunately in a smaller group, it is.

[paul cowley]

An Architect is the person who is most responsible for the entire course design and all facets of its construction.....from routing through grow in.

He or she does not have to personally perform all the tasks required to build a course, but they must have a thorough knowledge of their functions....and they should also have ability to direct and control the process.

In my opinion anyone who doesn't meet these requirements are just parts of the equation....design and planning apprentices and support staff, skilled field operatives, superintendents and agronomists, engineers and system designers, various consultants for specific purposes related to the design.

An architect should be able to implement and coordinate the entire design process of course construction.....and possess a knowledge of the Game and its history....and its strategies and aesthetics....he must be able to ford streams with a roll of tape in his mouth....survive on site overnight with little more than a bottle of wine, either with, or without, female companionship.......oh, there are many other skills too.....like napkin drawing and the ability to create an office setting in drinking and eating establishments.

I could go on [and on]......but I'm not going to.

[paul cowley]

.....and if an architect is able to bring these same skill sets to a renovation or a restoration....then they should be given the proper amount of credit on their resume....but commensurate to the amount of changes and involvement by the person in charge versus the courses design predecessor.

....which is were the rubber meets the mush....in the grey areas.....IMO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

Please send the first two pp of post 38 to the membership chairman for inclusion in ASGCA guidelines.  As to subsequent pp's, well not so much need there.......

Seriously, that is a good definition - not too restrictive and yet fairly well defines who is responsible for the look of the golf course.  So, if a historian or Tour Pro has an idea, but needs someone else to implement it, then I guess he is not a gca, right?

[Mike_Young]

Mike N.
My first job....I bugged the hell out of the guy and then did it for no design fee....

As for who is an architect....for me it is simple....whoever ends up with his name on the course, excluding most tour players or billionaires, is the architect of record....

Forrest and Jeff,
We agree no gettin into ASGCA stuff  BUT
would like to define subjective and objective for myself....
OBJECTIVE....Say if Little Johnny was in a class at school and tseveral of his teachers gave him a multiple choice test on classroom behavior with questions such as ,"How many times have you been sent to detention? a(1) b(2) c(3) and he answered correctly......there would be no disputing....
SUBJECTIVE.....the same teachers have Little Johnny write an essay question regarding "Why kids misbehave in the classroom".....Little Johnny has placed a tack under one teachers seat during the year and sent candy to the other.....they may give Little Johnny different grades....
Do you agree???
Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

In reality there is objective and subjective aspects to it.

Five courses - Objective

References - Both, since there is usually some interpretations to be made (I once got a great reference given with a hidden (to the applicant) wink.  What the hell was I supposed to take from that?)

Ethics - Did you (figuratively) put a tack under RTJ's chair at some point - Both. Subjective in many cases.  Of course, years ago, there was an applicant who was idicted on kickback charges about the time his application came up, and we felt that was fairly objective.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,
I tricked you...ha..ha..ha.......you said you ere not getting into the ASGCA thing again....I was speaking of Little johnny....and you bring up RTJ...it would definitely have been subjective as to whether he felt the tack or not....

[Forrest Richardson]

Little Johnny only had four completed courses. His fifth was a dog track (litrerally).

[Michael Blake]

Fortunately or unfortunately the client's definition of 'who and what is a golf course architect' is the only one that matters.

Not other architects who have lost out on a job for whatever reason(s).

[Forrest Richardson]

Michael — Firstly, why is that fortunate? I am not disagreeing, but I would like to know more about your comment. Secondly, I think it may be more complicated, that is why this topic was started.

[paul cowley]

Paul,

Please send the first two pp of post 38 to the membership chairman for inclusion in ASGCA guidelines.  As to subsequent pp's, well not so much need there.......

Seriously, that is a good definition - not too restrictive and yet fairly well defines who is responsible for the look of the golf course.  So, if a historian or Tour Pro has an idea, but needs someone else to implement it, then I guess he is not a gca, right?

Jeff....in our situation [Love Golf Design], we describe ourselves best as a design team, which consists primarily of Davis and Mark Love, Bob Spence and myself.
I produce all the plans and author most of the routings, but everyone else has open and direct input in them.

Client contact and coordination is headed by John McKenzie, but all of us are involved as needed.

Bob and I generate budget estimates and coordinate costs in the field.....we also share responsibility for the direct design coordination of different courses in the field and during grow in.

Davis and Mark provide design input and overview on all the projects we are involved with....Mark has more time to spend in all areas. Davis has another 'day' job that has other time constraints......but as some of these lessen, I expect Davis will be able to spend more time with the design side, something he truly enjoys and is very good at.

I call myself an architect because I have the ability to take a course through all the levels it takes to get it built ....from conception to completion.

Davis does not use this label personally....although he is occasionally described as one, primarily because our courses are designed under his 'label'.
I think he is more comfortable being referenced as a designer and design team member.





 

My

[Michael Blake]

Forrest,

I am just trying to play devil's advocate.  But I am not in the business so I feel I'm able to have an objective view.


If I were a client, I wouldn't want an outside body outlining for me the definition of a golf course architect.  I don't need someone telling me who is eligible to be a golf club architect.  I'd like to be the one empowered to make that decision myself based on my research of the potential "architect's" work and based on how that person clearly communicated their ideas to me, in addition to other things.  I wouldn't want anyone else trying to narrow the field down for me based on their "definition."

Maybe the accomplished architect would.  They are the ones in danger of losing jobs to what Jeff describes as "B.S."  But I consider that an extremely important aspect of any business, having the ability to sell yourself.  And I don't treat that as B.S.  Being able to effectively communicate to a potential client is a skill that is not easy.  And I know some in the golf business that take it very seriously and work very hard at it.  

There are a couple of architects on this site that write very well.  They clearly express themselves, have correct sentence structure and grammar, and project themselves as professionals.  After perusing though a few architect's websites I feel there are only a couple that are easily navigable, have well-presented ideas, and are extremely informative.  Some sites are just the opposite.

These things matter.  

Sorry to go off on a rant... but I think the problem is not the embelleshing of resumes.  It's not unique to this business. People do it in every single industry.  And the ones who hire usually do the proper research to expose it.  The problem I feel is that some architects can better communicate than others.  It is a skill that I think is overlooked, neglected or simply taken for granted.  And if you can't do it well, you cannot get new work....In any business.  So creating a definition of golf course architect is not the answer, I believe.  It is becoming better at presenting yourself.
















 

[Forrest Richardson]

Interesting point of view. If you were a client building a building, however, both the AIA and your government would be telling you exactly who an architect is...and isn't.

Still, it seems very interesting to me that the ASGCA is exactly of your opinion...that licensing is NOT (should not) be a requirement. Instead, the ASGCA is a body of members who each meet certain criteria and have gone through a tough peer review protocol. It is not meant to tell you who is and isn't a golf course architect — but rather which men and women have joined together, meet together and have a network of contacts, ideas and interests.

[paul cowley]

Forrest.....you seem to have it about right [as usual]. In my few years as a ASGCA member I don't remember any real promotion or even discussion of what constitutes a golf course architect. A lot of stuff about promoting our work or image maybe, setting standards etc.
I think the Societies name itself is its biggest promotion....but who knows, the name just as easily could have been the ASGCD [it stands for the American Society of Golf Course Designers.....for those of you who couldn't guess, and were going hmmm D?....is that for Developers?....Detailers?.....Donkeyherders? ].

....and then this whole thread would be about what constitutes a 'designer'.