"looks busy..."

[Joe Hancock]

Is it possible for a high fee architect to "get away with" designing a course that doesn't generally have a busy look to it? The pat answer, of course, is that a great architect will not clutter a course with unnecessary features, be they bunkers, water, mounds, whispy rough, etc., no matter what his/ her fee. In reality, though, a client expects a certain amount of pizzazz from the big buck designer...right?

Any examples of subdued, not overdone, not too busy golf courses that have a high profile, high dollar designer?

As a side question, do you think there are architects who's design style feeds off this desire for "pizzazz" so they can make a little more? No need to name names on this one.....

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:

Since I used that phrase earlier today I'll pick up on the topic.

I think you are right that many clients believe that if they are spending big bucks to build a golf course, they ought to see a lot of action for their dollars.  Some also think they need to see all this stuff to have a good chance in the rankings, which are important to many clients, whether they say so directly or not.

We've done two or three courses recently where we tried to build them deliberately more subdued, usually because the property they were built on was not excessively undulating and we thought it would look silly to load it up with features.

Cape Kidnappers was one of those, and the client was offended for some time that we had only put 12 bunkers (or something like that) on the back nine, even though it featured 400-foot cliffs and panoramic ocean views.  Eventually, he came around to thinking that a lot of bunkers weren't necessary, and of course the raters enjoyed the views enough that it didn't matter.

I am equally pleased with Tumble Creek -- which has some fabulous views, too -- but I do believe that our choice to build fewer and less over-the-top bunkers has held it back in the rankings, even if the client was fine with it at the time.

[paul cowley]

I think that has definately hurt Love Golf Design as well....but I don't see a change of philosophy in the future when it comes to incorporating excess bunkering for market appeal..

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe,
Too many entrepreneurs and not enough artists.
I suppose it's a result of the current market, but I fear it's really about "show me the money".

[Peter Pallotta]

In the golf business, does the 'balance of power' ever reside with the artist (i.e the architect) and not the entrepreneur (i.e. the developer)?  

Could it there reside, one day and at least for a few architects? Has it ever resided there in the past? (And if so, what kind of courses were produced?)

I ask because in the book publishing, movie and music businesses, I think there have been periods when the power resided with the artists; I think some artists in books and music still have it today. Very different businesses/business models, I assume, but I'm just wondering.

Thanks
Peter

[Joe Hancock]

Interesting questions, Peter.

A painting artist buys his canvas and paints, takes it to the studio and does the artistic thing. Then, they try to sell it to someone.

Given the economics of golf, it would be difficult to expect the golf artist to operate similarly.  Not only that, the golf artists' creation requires constant input before and after it's completion.

I don't think it's realistic to think that the artist and the entrepreneur can be separated, entirely.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

As Joe points out, when the artist is paid in advance, the situation changes a bit and the client usually has something to say about the finished product.

However, the truth is that all of us still have control over what we design.  Early in one's career, the client has few expectations about one's style, so we are free to experiment.  Later, there are more expectations, but we don't have to work for those people if we don't want to.  We are only bound to listen to them once we accept larger fees.  

For example, our new course for the Colorado Golf Association won't have nearly as many bells and whistles, because it's not in the budget.  It won't win "Best New" either ... and that's fine with me because that's not their goal.  But if I took five more jobs like that one out of my next five, I wouldn't get to compete for the best sites anymore.

[Jerry Lemons]

An interesting topic.

IMHO there are too many architects (with clients endorsing the idea) building courses just to get ranked in the top (you name the list).

Too busy usually means many things to the project. Higher  up front and  long term operational cost of the golf course are immediate thoughts of mine.
Bunkers are expensive to build and maintain compared to turf. Steep slopes/faces require hand maintenance.
Remember who pays for the cost- the golfers that play them!

We are trying to reverse the concept of building a golf courses for photographers and raters/list.

Our designs are to be fun, challenging  and allow a bad shot to be recovered from. Those 100 list.. we in the south say... frankly I dont give a ... Do you think all the ODG thought about list?

Every client is different of course and if we were given the charge to build then next Ryder Cup course, we could make it busy(better?) to make the pro's life more difficult. As Kiawah has proven to me, there is a market for that. But until Finchen calls....

As TD says, some clients projects will not ever have the chance to make the list. Who cares?. Some of use just want to make the many million other golfers happy by providing a course they can play day in day out and have tons of fun (at age 55+.  

Jerry