Does an Architect Age Well?

[Ken Fry]

I was recently looking through Joel Zuckerman's current book on Pete Dye.  The question that came to mind looking at the great courses Pete has done over a long career is does an architect produce better work later in his career?

My first reaction would be that as experience and years increase, so too does an understanding of what may or may not work for different projects.  An architect's "style" seems to evolve over time while maintaining a certain "identity."

How would this simple question apply to the Golden Age architects and today's active architects?

Ken

[Neil_Crafter]

When I looked in the mirror this morning I would think that the answer is no!

However, I think that the answer to your question is definitely yes, better work later in one's career, with accumulated knowledge and experience. Whether the passion still remains quite like it was is another thing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

many here point to Crump, and a few others who had success early in their brief "amateur sportsman" careers as evidence to the contrary. 

Most younger gca's take on lesser projects to get started and start building from there. I think the typical gca career might look like a standard bell curve, with lower quality courses at the beginning, and the best quality somewhere near the middle.  Later, whether because they are too commerical (as Matt Ward suggested in a recent thread) or just have lower drive or more responsibilities, or perhaps just because people are always looking for something new and the now younger gca's get the prime jobs, etc., their product - or opinions of it - withers ever so slightly.

Ask yourself if Pac Dunes would be better had TD gotten it right off the bat.  For that matter, is Bandon Dunes as good as DKM's more recent work?

Ask what gca hit the home run on his first project, or for that matter, his last?  A few, perhaps, but not too many.

[David Stamm]

Ask what gca hit the home run on his first project, or for that matter, his last?  A few, perhaps, but not too many.

One could make the claim that RTJ's work was better in the early stages and Peachtree was one of his best. More times than not however, it usually gets better with experience.

[Tom_Doak]

As we progress throughout our careers, we are balancing two phenomena:

1.  We are getting better at our ability to build things, due to practice and experience and accumulation of talent; versus

2.  Our ideas are less fresh and less original with each course, and we probably have less personal time to pursue each one.

Where the combination of these two factors will peak depends on the slope of the two lines, which would be different for each architect.  Some are quicker learners; some hold their enthusiasm for the job better than others.

Usually, it's the case that the "one course wonder" talent has had a lot of behind-the-scenes help to help him overcome the mistakes inherent with being low on experience. 

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

What sort of external factors are there?

Are we in an era where an architect can age well? Do the external golf market factors that existed when you designed High Pointe and those that exist now have any influence on your work?

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

External factors have a lot to do with how MUCH work you might get to do, but they only have an effect on how GOOD the work is, if you let them. 

There are always a few good clients to be found out there, if that's what you're looking for, although the competition to find them is fierce and timing is everything.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

You mentioned in your book Anatomy a Golf Course than many architects best work comes early on in thier career because they have that passion, zest, youth to go along with few projects to work on.

Do you still believe this to be the case for most archies?

Kalen

[rjsimper]

I think many here would posit that Nicklaus certainly did/is.

[Anthony Gray]

   I think it is all about the land. As the architect's reputation grows the oppurtunities on ideal sites increase.

[Mike_Young]

I think it is really a case by case study.  I do think experience and time in most cases allow for better sites and budgets but in the last 20 years the growth has also allowed for larger staffs that will not be present in the coming years.  What this did was allow much of the work of the "name" architect to be designed by the members of the staff as the name grew and it was not really the work of the original.  This could be good or bad. 
I would bet much of what PD does today would be PB .

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Good points, of course.  Every life is different.  Some guys lose energy, stay interested, etc.  and others don't.  There are always personal and health issues.  What if a guy had the opportunity of a lifetime but also had health problems and couldn't visit the site as often as wanted once that op came?

I am sure that many of those facts are lost to antiquity for the old guys.  Of course, now with all the "expert researchers" on and formerlyon golf club atlas.com, future gca buffs will know if a particular green came out the day after a gca bender, missed plane connections, etc.  There will be no more mysteries any more!

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Yep those future GCA buffs.....I pity the guy that talks to me in some of my future seances.....I am really gonna mess with his mind.....internal contours and all.....

[Dan Moore]

This question made me think of movie directors many of whom are one hit wonders while others get better with experience.  Welles or Eastwood;  Crump or Dye. 

[Rob Rigg]

One would think that there must be a strong correlation between a GCAs style and their longevity.

This topic was touched on in Matt's thread.

As stated previously, the benefits of youth tend to be on the creative side because they are painting the canvas for the first time and determining what their "style" will be.

A good GCA will get better and better land over time, along with better funded clients I would imagine. This is a vehicle for producing better and more compelling work.

There are several options here for the architect after receiving recognition:

1) Churn and Burn - aka - Mail it In and maximize profits while focusing on building your brand via "marketing"

or 2) Be selective and spend the time on site to really push yourself on each and every hole and build your brand through your work. This will allow the architect to leverage past experience and maximize that experience on every project.

I would argue that the former will not age as well as the latter.

Of course, that is strictly based on the opinion of someone interested in an architect's legacy because they actually care about GCA.

For the masses it is probably irrelevant because their opinion of an architect is based solely on a round by round experience, if they even care who designed the course they are playing to begin with.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rob,

In some ways, "churn and burn" could produce better results.  If the gca takes on eager and talent associates, and the designs become as much theirs as his, there is a better chance of fresh new ideas coming forward than if the old guy limits work and does it all himself.  That is to say, unless the top dog is one of those exceptional gca's who continues to grow with age.  (and who among our ranks doesn't think we are one of those types! I know I do......)

It takes some work and the right atttitude of keeping the basic brand style while branching out.  And, it might answer the question of whether design firms can age well rather than architects, but it can work.  Of course, the most talented associates eventually leave anyway.  And, even at the top -say Wright's Taliesen- I think the public perception is that the work of those who carry on is inferior to the original master, who they tend to remember for his top projects in his prime.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ken - some random thoughts. It's a mystery. In ways that I can't put my finger on, some architects strike me as 'younger' than their ages - Jeff B, Tom D, Jack N, and Pete D (just to name a few); while some strike me as 'older', e.g. Mike Devries, Mike Young, Coore and Crenshaw. Going back in time, Dr. Mackenzie and Fowler strike me as 'younger', while Maxwell and Ross strike me as 'older'.  Colt strikes me as his exact age. No value judgements there, just a half-baked observation.

I think there are stages - along the lines of an Indian-Hindu schematic of life I once read: from birth to 25, a period of learning and absorption; from 25-50 a period of intense work and adding to the world; from 50-75, a period of caring for others and teaching and passing on the wisdom; and after 75, all the obligations to the world are done, and it gets very personal -- one gets to wander in the woods and find their god. I think there may be a 'creative' parallel, and one applicable to golf course architecture...except in gca one needs the land and the client and so is not as free to follow this eternal pattern

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

That may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me......I will confess my sig pic is a tad dated, which may add to your confusion!  That, and perhaps my near infantile sense of humor.......

I would be interested to hear it, if you could noodle on it a while and "put your finger on it."  The younger than-older than is, to me, a completely new way to analyze architecture!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks for the encouragement. I will noodle on it a while (I have been, but nothing more tangible yet). And by the way, it isn't the dated tartan blazer...

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff - thanks for the encouragement. I will noodle on it a while (I have been, but nothing more tangible yet). And by the way, it isn't the dated tartan blazer...

Peter

So it must be the infantile sense of humor......D'OH!

[Matt_Ward]

Ken:

Jeff B was kind enough to mention a similar thread I posted on a topic that's akin to what you posted.

I personally believe it's possible for architects to "reinvent" themselves through their careers -- but it does require an internal admission that previous work which may have been unique and even outstanding -- might need future adjustments. I see what Jack Nicklaus has done to be a good example of that type.

In regards to Pete Dye -- I'd have to say that The Ocean Course at Kiawah represented his absolute zenith as an architect. A number of top works that came afterwards were just simply a cut'n paste of what Pete did earlier. Mike Y makes a good point that the PB of yesteryear is really embodied by the work of PB today.

Other architects simply glom onto the "hot style" that's driving eyeballs and as a result you get a fad akin to what you see w Hollywood movies -- churn out one more sequel after the next because the audience / fools will simply show up and purchase tickets / play golf rounds there. The TF syndrome has been well documented here on GCA as you get plenty of courses that "look" gorgeous for pictures and the like but are really duds from a strategic vantage point.

One other thing to consider -- when someone becomes successful the "art" aspect is balanced against the commercial desire to keep using the same thing time after time after time. Heck, it's often the reason why developers choose certain architects in the first place. For architects the internal battle becomes how to turn down the $$ even when the reality is that so much of their work later on is nothing really innovative and is close to being a mail in job -- even though they would deny / hate to admit as much.

The difficult thing for architects is to realize that their "legacy" can be narrowly defined as a one trick pony show or much wider as a full "three ring circus" act capable in entertaining different styles and outcomes. It's OK to be seen as limited to one style - candidly I see much of what C&C have done recently as falling into this scenario -- but it's really awesome to encounter an architect fully capable in going against the grain of what they have done before to do something totally different but clealy unique. It's akin to certain directors in Hollywood being able to handle an action film -- but then are asked to do a romantic comedy.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Nearly all of Pete Dye's best courses are the ones where he and Alice rented a home and lived there for most of the construction process.  Kiawah was one of the last of those ... the only ones I know of since then where he has spent a lot of time are Dye Fore and Whistling Straits.  Tim Liddy may correct me there ... I've been too busy on my own projects to keep track of Pete's whereabouts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Using JN and PD as your examples reminds me that taking on the responsibility of providing for your family and expecting them to extend the business affects things, much as it probably did for RTJ, Maxwell, Bell and several others.  That noble goal is contrary in most ways to the idea of always being a fresh artiste, but that is also real life.  For example, I believe (granting its none of my damn business) that the JN legacy would have been better served by doing a few select courses, rather than creating three of four levels of JN design from signature, to sibings to associates, to other tour pros, etc.

Lastly, while we all do similar things over time, I will again debate whether its all about the ease of it, even if some is.  Most of us wouldn't turn down a job, believing we could do something better than the next guy, even if doing an average design and not a masterpiece.  With that mindset, why turn down a job that is offered?

For the record I have no children interested in the least in becoming gca's....of course, my "gravy train" is really a local switcher vs. a speeding intermodal freight.....)

Your Hollywood analogy also brings up the question of comfort zones, which I believe we all stay in far too much, gca's included.  Is an analoby that if your favorite football team finally makes the playoffs by being a dull, defensive oriented team that runs on offense and tries to open it up once in the playoffs, is that the best route to success, or should they continue to do what they do best?

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Let me attempt to address each of your points ...

I don't doubt the responsibility of taking care of one's family is an important element to any architect or frankly any person who is in business for that matter.

I look at the finished products that architects create -- pure and simple.

Too often success in the design area early on will mean a desire to crank out similar or close to similarly designed projects that further the "brand" identity and continue to reap the inevitable attention / dollars that go with it. As I mentioned previously, such a situation can happen with the mega designers like TF and I frankly have seen recenty indications of a similar outcome with C&C -- although they don't handle the sheer number of designs that TF can crank out.

You can see this with a whole host of architects -- RTJ is the most notable because of the scale and range of his fingerprints in the design world. Jack Nicklaus did start in one particular direction and as hard-headed as the Bear is known to be -- he made a conscious decision (likely prompted by business reality) that continuing with his high maintenance / high demand shotmaking courses with their one-way style of play was not going to really widen his impact on the overall golf course development arena. Jack clearly has provided different types of courses for the last 10-15 years and while there are a few notable courses he designed at the outset (Desert Highlands, Muirfield Village, etc, etc) I see the best of what he has done to be in the more recent times.

I do agree with you that Nicklaus clearly expanded the pie of $$ to his entire family and as a result you get involvement from a whole set of people -- many of whom simply attached themselves to the Nicklaus name and for those developers unable to afford Jack himself they got one of the sons or even his son-in-law.

Jeff, you keep using the qualifier -- "while we all do similar things over time, I aill again debate whether it's all about the ease of it, EVEN IF SOME IS (my emphasis added)."

Jeff, I've played a fair number of courses throughout the globe and been most fortunate to have played a solid representation of the key architects who are most active and used for their services. I can clearly see the repetitive elements I have mentioned previously. There's more than just the "some" admission you grudgingly put forward.

I firmly believe that ingrained habits are just as present for architects as they are for so many other people in the creative arena. It's hard to go in another new direction when comfort and $$ say to keep on cranking them out -- albeit with a tweak here or there.

I never said an architect should turn a job down if offered. I simply said that as one critic I will be watching to see if anything really meaningful comes from such new jobs. Architects have a tough assignment -- they must convince prospective developers / owners on their vision coincides with that of the person hiring them and the actual site they will have to work with. No doubt the desire to please a client is a top consideration and as I have said for upteeeeen times the reason many architects are chosen is because the developer / owner has seen a previous design model that they would like to see replicated with the site they have.

The "art" side of the business can be pushed further down the list of key items when people simply want what's been done previously.

It's very easy for an architect to simply follow the Hollywood metaphor I mentioned previously. If the original move (design) worked -- then simply create a sequel that walks in a close lock step to the first one. RTJ did this very well and it brought him name recognition throughout the globe and plenty of $$ and contacts too. Unfortunately, the "art" side of RTJ is really lost and you have, even from his own book admission, a very select few of the hundreds of courses he designed, that are indeed special.

Jeff, you raise a good point about "continu(ing) to do what they do best." I agree that an architect can be a very successful at putting forward the same, or nearly the same, one trick pony show / design. No doubt that may be the niche that separates him from others. I see that with people like C&C and a few others who have tried to lock up the "classic design" school of courses. Unfortunately, the broader issue for me, and a number of others, is whether that same architect has the capacity / talent / will, to go beyond the same tried and true courses and bring forward something outside the box.

Commercial success can be a difficult thing to handle and I don't begrudge any architect for turning down serious $$$ if future clients simply want more of what's been done previously.

No doubt many architects will not have the sheer array of different design opportunities that the top tier people have -- as a result, they will need to create what the developer / owner seeks and make the best of the "art" side as one can in such situations.

Thanks for your detailed replies.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Please understand that I am not disagreeing with you, but simply trying to put some more meat on the bones, or grey on the black and white.  There is really no need to retype your thoughts once again.

I agree that gca's can be a creature of habit, as we are all human.  I think it has to do more with human nature - kind of like your movie analogy - we are good or better at certain things and we find a comfort zone.

Why?  Because like you, I can see that same cycle of exciting and new, turning to mainstream, turning to predictable and old.  I am fearful of becoming the latter, and presume most gca's are, too.  Any gca who truly thought that the best route to success was to become repetitive is frankly nuts.  There is something to being predictable in the sense that the client has comfort levels that you will produce a good course. 

Beyond that, see above.  For a while, CC got a lot of projects I could never get, based on their classic american style (and frankly personna)  But, America is nothing if not about changing trends and tastes and the desire for something new.  I know GD and Golf Mag much prefer a newer gca like Engh to win the Best New simply because its a better story than "Fazio Wins Again." 

So, it makes sense for any gca to keep some elements of what made them successful and add new elements, so their style evolves with the times.  Not to do that is a big risk, much like a musical artist or actor who churns out the same style album or movie.  If they don't change, its not because they think that brings in the big bucks, its because for some reason of personality, they can't.

Just MHO