[Jim_Kennedy]

Kirk,
Historically, branding brought recognition and made it easier for a company to gain acceptance and drive sales in far flung markets where their product had to compete with local brands.

It's no different when developers use 'name' player/architects, their 'brand' is recognizeable far and wide and therefore more readily accepted, and saleable, in a local market. The play act is part of the brand.

There's a course just over our border with NY that's going to be totally redone, no one as yet has ever mentioned the architect's name but everyone does know the player (Ernie Els) who is involved.

I could be wrong, but the spectre of EE sitting over a drafting table or scratching around in the dirt eludes me, although I don't doubt that the end product will live up to his 'brand', in much same way as Monty's.

So yes, I would say that lots of people are susceptible to this type of arrangement.

[Kalen Braley]

I've always seen these things along the lines of celeb/atheletes having thier own line of shoes, clothes, cologne, makeup, etc.

Most people are sheep and don't do thier homework on things to determine the effort or the quality of the product.  They rely on a recognizable name and think well this must be good because such and such person endorses it, or such and such company made it.  An example to illustrate this that many in here can relate to is beer.

Have you ever noticed how most beers are advertised?  The vast majority of them are some funny joke or otherwise catchy 30 second TV clip to make you laugh, while they never even talk about the actual product and only appeal to how "cool" you'll be if you drink it.  Think Budweiser, Miller, Coors, etc, etc.  And when they actually do try to talk about "quality indgredients" or "rocky mountain spring" water its all a bunch of horse-bullocks.    They mass produce the crap for the best profits possible and don't think one second about whether its a quality product.  In my mind, its the equivilant to making 1 or 2 site visits and just getting the sucker in the ground to meet your contractual obligations.

For beer purists like myslef and others, we wouldn't be caught dead drinking this stuff, much less spend a penny on it.  To boot it gets openly mocked in beer afficiando groups, just like pro players names being attached to courses gets mocked here.  Why most continue to buy this swill when there are so many better options is beyond me. Especially given that the vast majority of beer that people consume world-wide is only sightly better than fridge-chilled cow-pee.   

So as it relates to this, no.....I don't find it surprising in the least bit that most people just buy in to whose name is on it, and come to the conclusion the course must be good because <insert pro players name> showed up for the grand opening to play a round as the alleged "co-designer".

[Forrest Richardson]

I do not think anybody believes that Jimmy Buffet cooks burgers, actually engineers or assembles margarita blenders, or screen prints T-shirts — but his brand is outstanding.

There is a difference when a professional golfer gives the distinct impression that he or she has actually created something and is responsible for the design. It is one thing to say they had some oversight or maybe influence — but to claim design requires one of the exceptions noted here.

---

Doesn't the outlandish claim diminish the role of any and all professional golfers when it comes to golf design? That may be the best way to try and correct this, if anyone is interested,  

[Kirk Gill]

Forrest - that's why I mentioned Elway's restaurant in my post above. Sure his name is a "brand," and invites interest. This particular restaurant has a pretty good reputation. Elway's name might get people in the door, but the actual restaurant has had to live up to it. And there's no illusion about his involvement. He's part of the ownership group, but he's not broiling up steaks in the back, and no one thinks he does. The difference to me, as a consumer, is if a product is going beyond branding and is instead asserting that the "name" is the creative force behind the product. That assertion, frankly, creates more interest - particularly in our celebrity-obsessed culture.......but for my money the interest is gone if the the assertion isn't an honest one. Still, from reading this thread it seems like a lot of the time there are many shades of grey in these situations.........

[paul cowley]

A lot of people who argue about "credit" and "principle" are really arguing about the money, but doing it in a roundabout way so that they don't have to admit they're arguing about money.  (Maybe that's why both are monetary terms.)  The main value of credit is that it gets you another job at a higher fee -- but it won't get you one of those jobs where they want to hire a "signature" player, anyway.  Those people are buying something different; they don't even really care about design.

Ally is right, at the end of the day the person who should be happiest is the person who knows deep in his heart that he really did the work ... although, sadly, some delusional people think that if they got paid the most, they were the primary designer.

All the people who are trying to "right these wrongs" should understand that the only thing that really matters is whether the work endures.

I want to first say that this is a very good thread....thanks Forrest!

I like what TomD says about being happy in your heart....and also his appreciation for his staff and their individual needs for recognition....food that feeds their souls and fuels their efforts.

In my own situation.....working with Love Golf Design....I can be content because we are very much a design team....Davis and his brother Mark, Bob Spence and myself.

We all contribute in different measures.

Does Davis' professional status allow him to garner more of the public credit? Most definitely.

Does Davis' professional status help in public recognition of our product, and thereby finding more work? Most definitely.

Am I content to be part of a team that combines to produce a quality golf course and helps to provide compensation for my families needs in doing so? Most definitely.


What is important to also recognize is that we are not a "sell a name brand and show up at the opening" company.

Far from it.

[Randy Thompson]

My dislike on this subject is sufficient to write a small book, but bottom line, WHO CREATES THE DEMAND FOR the PRO GOLF DESIGNERS Formula to be successful = JOE Q GOLFER! I beleive its a short term formula and a passing fad, eventually joe q golfer will become educated and will demand quality golf and playing conditions for his money and will not pay in the near future, for a name association. God if your listening, let me live to see that day!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Randy,

I think a lot of studies show that women, even if they don't play golf, decide where the home is bought, not the male golfer in the family.  Thus, the male golfer might join anywhere he enjoys (only 3% care about the architect, according to an NGF poll) and inadvertantly, for housing courses, the names of JN, AP, and even Fred Couples - who women love - sell to them.

Let me know if you come up with a plan to change women!

[Tony Ristola]

Doesn't the outlandish claim diminish the role of any and all professional golfers when it comes to golf design? That may be the best way to try and correct this, if anyone is interested,  

Yes.

So long as the press and TV act as propagandists, then it's one way left. Paint with a broad brush and let each defend their actions on their own. Put them on the defensive. It seems to be the only way to get any traction, and reaction from those participating in the deception.

The mathematics of their participation speaks volumes. In most cases it couldn't be considered a part-time job. Hell, my brother comes out, looks around my stuff, comments about the work accomplished and work underway, asks questions about photos of work sent by email... with the bar set so low, perhaps he's a golf course architect too?

I've waited for some "journalist" to ask even one of these celebrities during a press conference if they really believed they were the architects. It's a vein of golf journalism that's wide open for exploration. It virtually virgin territory.

Forrest: You were searching for examples a'la Monty. Brad Klein had an example of a tour pro not knowing where the first tee was of one of his "designs". It's in his Master's of the Links article; When Golf Design Becomes Big Business.

There was an article in Golf Magazine some years ago about Whiskey Creek, where the owners, a couple golf journalists if I remember right, hired MJP and Els. I found it a humorous read.

My dislike on this subject is sufficient to write a small book, but bottom line, WHO CREATES THE DEMAND FOR the PRO GOLF DESIGNERS Formula to be successful = JOE Q GOLFER! I beleive its a short term formula and a passing fad, eventually joe q golfer will become educated and will demand quality golf and playing conditions for his money and will not pay in the near future, for a name association. God if your listening, let me live to see that day!!

I wouldn't hold my breath. The only way this circle of chicanery can be stopped is by aggressive action. Exposing the fraud and deceit. Until that happens,it will continue. How do you stop the slide when the magazines and TV networks propagate the misinformation?

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

I don't remember what of the Whiskey Creek story was printed, but it's better than that.

The original partners, a developer and a journalist, had hired a relatively unknown designer ... named Lester George.  But after much preliminary work, they couldn't raise enough money to get the course built, so they brought in Kemper Sports to be a financial partner to help manage the place.  Kemper's first bit of advice was that "you need a name architect attached to this," and they selected Ernie Els.

I don't know if Lester was given the chance to work with Ernie or not, but either he wasn't or he didn't want to, so Kemper started interviewing architects to work with Ernie (who didn't have a partner yet).  I only know all of that because I was one of the architects they interviewed.

This was pre-Bandon Dunes, so I had no "in" with Kemper.  [Well, for that matter, they've never hired me on any of their other jobs since, so maybe I don't have an "in" there.]  We were already kind of busy and I was heading toward my divorce, so I didn't really want the job, and I quoted a high design fee for myself at that time -- $300,000, instead of the $200,000 they offered.  When Kemper offered to split the difference, I responded that I would just do the job for whatever they were paying Ernie Els!  I don't know how much that was ... but they wouldn't discuss it, and it ended our negotiations.


Incidentally, I don't think that having Ernie Els' name attached to a public course adds anything to the green fee that can be charged.  What it DOES do is a)  generate a lot of free publicity from local news outlets and golf magazines who suck up that kind of stuff, and b)  help sell lots for more money to people who think they might get to come in contact with Fred Couples or Jack Nicklaus as a result of buying early.  And there's nothing a developer likes better than early sales.

[paul cowley]

Along the same lines of what TomD was just noting....I think its reasonable to state that the vast majority of Pro Designer courses are part of a residential or resort real estate development.

As such their fees are relegated the same as any other line item development cost....the same as water, sewer, tennis courts etc.

I've even seen them on under sales and marketing expense.


So.....say you pay a Pro Designer 500K as one cost in developing a 500 unit project.
You plan to gain 100K per lot after all is sold and paid for.....for a net profit of 50M for your efforts.

That 500K paid to the Pro Designer represents one one hundredth of your net profits.....and a lot smaller fraction when compared to your overall development costs.

So if you wanted to save 300K and hire a no 'name' for 200K, are you really saving that much by giving up the 'marquis' name and its sales appeal?

I'd go with the Pro Designer as a form of sales insurance, and I can assure you that many developers see it as just that.

I know this business philosophy doesn't make the up and comers happy....but its an economic reality.....just like Polo/Ralph Lauren.

....and even if that 'name' appeal only lasts a few years, that's just fine... because that's the time you need it.

[Randy Thompson]

Jeff,
I agree you can never under estimate the power of the p....y! Chris rock did an excellent take off on that recently. However the entire formula that has been working for years is now in danger. Big name golfer and big fee's..big budget...earth mover makes hugh profits, irrigation installer hugh profits...general contractor hugh profits...developers hugh profits and home owners a decent increase in property values through the years. Some say fifty percent of the world wealth has disappeared...I am not sure I would go that far...wealth is like energy, more of a transfer process. Anyways I think we can all agree that the world economy has hit hardest on the wealthiest. I, similar to Pete Dye fifteen or twenty years ago, do not believe there is a living architect alive worth more then 300,000 dollars. Two point five million, five million and fifteen million design fee's. Please! Twenty million construction cost? Whats the average for a PRO named architect over all construction cost...I bet its more then 10 million. these cost inadvertly get passed on to the consummer or end user. That market is currently saturated and prices will come down. For twenty years I have been hearing it impossible to earn a living as a golf architect if your last name is not Fazio, Dye, Nicklaus or Jones. Tom has showed its not impossible and his formula for sucsess is admirable and in my opinion, ONE of the factors in his overall sucsess has been finding properties or participating in properties where a quality product can be produced at a reasonable price and I would bet not one of them has gone over ten million and more likely in the five million dollar range (minus the project he co-designed with Jack). There will be less projects in the future,,more competition which will likely result in lowering fees...all over..no more 30,000 a month shapers either or fifteen for that matter.

[Randy Thompson]

Paul,
Your thread explains past sucsess. Would you buy stock in Polo/Ralph Loren at this time? Rolex? Private jet companies? Four Seasons? Any product with a branding asociation targeted towards the super wealthy??

[Mike_Young]

Eddie Bauer Ford Explorer or Landcruiser?
And note you no longer have signature golf clubs...spalding ad the Robert T Jones Irons,  Ben Hogan company is gone, no compnaies that I know have top quality clubs with signatures....and probably the best out there for irons....Mizuno...rarely has endorsements.....

But I did buy the Beyonce Karaoke machine after seeing TAKEN last nite....
(and I have a George foreman Grill)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

For some reason I had never thought about that - since even the 50's pro named clubs weren't generally top of line stuff - I started with Patty Berg and then Sam Snead Wilson clubs. AP and JN clubs have never really been top line - MacGregor had their MT irons, etc.

I guess those guys just were putting too much time in their golf course designs to be fully engaged in clubmaking, too!

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I think the next round of signature stuff with these guys is WINE.....or if JD was smart he would get a signature beer......how many of these guys now have vineyards....

[paul cowley]

Paul,
Your thread explains past sucsess. Would you buy stock in Polo/Ralph Loren at this time? Rolex? Private jet companies? Four Seasons? Any product with a branding asociation targeted towards the super wealthy??

Shit Randy....insert George Foreman for Ralph Lauren if you want.

Its all the same.

Names are 'names'.....or is it....names are 'Names'.

Personally, I don't give a damn.

[Randy Thompson]

Shit Randy....insert George Foreman for Ralph Lauren if you want.

Its all the same.

Names are 'names'.....or is it....names are 'Names'.

Personally, I don't give a damn.
[/quote]

Paul,
I fully understand that a name is a Name and how in today's society that name recoginiton usually associates a PERCEPTION that a certain quality standard will be developed and this leads to a higher velocity of sales and most often a higher vlaue per square foot of future lots. I also totally understand your I don't give a damn attitude, developers are in the busisness to make money and nothing else really matters does it. All I am saying is that I suspect in the future the formula may change somewhat, strong IRR's may not be able to support millions of dollars in design fees and twenty million dollar construction cost. Maybe the formula and the stronger IRR will be about less perception and selling a reality of a more finished product with a true a quality golfing experience in a reasonable price. Just my opinion, some may agree and some may disagree, frankly using your words, "I don't give a damn either"!

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff,
I think the next round of signature stuff with these guys is WINE.....or if JD was smart he would get a signature beer......how many of these guys now have vineyards....

Greg Norman's been selling decent Australian wine for quite some time now.  His name undoubtedly brings a premium to the price.

[Randy Thompson]

Kelly,
Your probably right but their fee's will have to come down, I think we have seen the peak!

[Lester George]

Tom Doak,

We should talk about the time line for Whiskey Creek some day.  I was under the impression that they had talked to you before me.  Interesting.

By the way, I had a SIGNED contract with the owners before they engaged Kemper Sports.  Once they "sold their souls" they tried to get me to understand that they could not go forward without Kemper.  At that point they wanted to break their contract and never offered for me to work with Ernie Els because they (Kemper) had already hired JMP. 

They were in material breach with me and I could have taken them down.  Differnt time, different lawyer, I might have gone for it.  Every lawyer I talked to said they would lose.

Just one of those things I did not want to do at that time.  I know they used a significant amount of my routing plan because I have compared the finished product to my drawings. 

The beauty is that in the last ten years as I have worked on other projects where owners would inquire about management companies, I guess Kemper did not have an "in" with me.

Lester 

[Tim Nugent]

Lester,

we could start a thread on how management companies have prostituted the golf industry. 
What I know of Whiskey Creek is that 2 of my former associates (1 a project manager for Kemper) and one a design associate did most of the work out there.  Both had worked with Ryan Inc  on several of our projects, so they were brought in to do the construction work.  The superintendent was subsequently brought out to Kemper Lakes after Kemper Sports outted long time grounds maintenance company Claus Brothers (they did the entire corporate complex and built the course).  Remember Kemper Sports originally was Sports Marketing Firm. ( Actually, it was the brainchild of my Dad and Bob Spence ( could be Bob Spence or dad of the guy that works with DLIII?) who was the first director of golf at Kemper Lakes when a neighboring Village needed someone to run it's newly acquired 9-hole course but full-time municiple staff would have been too costly.)

As far a the Name thing you guys seemed to have beat to death, my father told me that when he was doing Tucson National (for Robert Bruce Harris) they gave one the first houses built to a movie star (like Bing Crosby) so the sales people could take prospective buyers past it and say "Oh, and that's Bing's house".  Naturally, if Bing thought it was such a great place to live... and they might actually get to hang with their new neighbor, well...

Unfortunately for the suckers, they would have a clause in the agrreement to buy the house off the movie star for market value after a certain percentage of the project was sold out.

So, this has been around for as long as developers have been using golf courses to sell houses.   When one talks about designers selling their soul, I disagree, they are actully getting paid to produce something.  Could it be that the Marquis is selling his soul?

I remember going to a meeting with Dad where a prospective client asked about a fledgling Jack Nichlaus as a designer.  Dad replied that he had all the faith in the world that Jack would be a great designer, after all he was already a great tailor.   Confused, the client asked for an explaination.  Dad opened his blazer and showed him the HART, SHAFTNER and MARX Jack Nichlaus Collection label.  Dad got the job.

When I asked him about Pro Golfers lending their names, he said DO THE MATH.  It's all marketing.  If you need to sell 1,000 homes and Jack (at the time) costs $1 mil, that's only $1,000/house.  Since the developer only makes his profit on the last houses sold, the faster he can sell out, the lower his carrying costs, the more profit he sees.  The best way to generate marketing is to be able to give the marketers a story to tell.  A picture of a well known golfer in an ad will catch the eye.  Remember, only about 20% of those who buy in a golf development are golfers and if only a small percentage even know/care about it, they are marketing to the remaining 95+%.

People preceive quality if someone famous is involved - lest their good name become soiled.  Fortunately, these projects are plums for contractors and the biggest of them (Wadsworth, Landscapes etc.) tend to get them.  They will make the course "better" just with the experience of their personel.  They can also take abstract hand waving and turn it into a viable product.

I don't hold any ill-will for Pro designers.  To me it just signals to the world when they think the end of their playing career is over. Just like coaching in Pro Sports. - a place for washed-up players who need something to do and never had a real job in their life, to fall back on.

What will be interesting to see in the future is - will the company/brand survive after the Name is dead?  What will become of Gary Player Design (although that health nut will probably outlast all of us), Palmer Course Design, Nichlaus Design etc.?  Some have tried to bring their sons into the field, ie Jack Nichlaus II but they seem to be 1) overshadowed by their famous fathers, and 2) caught between celebrity and journeyman.

Lester, all this being said, are you really that surprised that a Sports Marketing/Management company would 86 a (sorry for this)- no-name journeyman who doesn't have a story for the marketers to tell - never mind that in all other ways quite competant to perform the work?  Kemper should have kept you on but after the decision had been made to spend the big bucks on Ernie, all they needed was to find the cheapest pencil they could find (and he was running the family flea market business in Hutchinson Kansas - no lie).  That's why TD was not considered when he wanted as much as Ernie was getting.  Face it, by the time people actually got around to playing the course, the developers had better have gotten their money out of it.  Most Proformas pencil in the cost of the course as an expense that is absorbed by sales.  They don't look at it as a future income producer.  Many times there is even a line item to subsidize the course operation to build-out - at which time they can dump it as it becomes a liability.  This is how American Golf got so big.

[Mike Tanner]

I've been involved in marketing communications (it's not advertising anymore) for more than 20 years and that's how the golf course real estate and, to a large extent, the resort residential community game is played.

Big names and big brands move the market. Well, maybe not so much just now. But it's just human nature to follow the leader, whether it's a famous pro golfer or golf course architect. Developers, management companies and marketers know that keenly and use to their advantage. Always have, always will. 

Unfortunately those of us who really care about the credits for a golf course and its architecture are in the minority. That's why we're here.

Now, after reading a lot of the forgoing posts, I think I need to take a shower.   

[Lester George]

Tim,

I read your post and agree in principle.  Just a couple of comments. 

First, my disappointment in the aforementioned deal was that the "owners" (who came on as purists) originally stated that they had chosen me (remember, I HAD A SIGNED CONTRACT) because EVEN THOUGH I was not a household name, I got what it was they were trying to do.  I had had recent success with similar projects and they liked my work.  It is they who "sold their souls" when they allowed Kemper Sports to dictate the breaking of  their contract with me. 

I completely understand all of the sides of the issue of them needing a cheaper pencil, but I am not sure they got one.  And if they did get a cheaper pencil, it makes me wonder how much of my pencil was used.  You should know that I was all the through the routing, completed E&S and almost complete with grading plans. 

I also felt at the time that I actually had a better rank of "market recognition factor" in the Mid-Atlantic area than JMP.  I had just won a couples of "best new" things and my name was catching on. 

My whole point in telling the story was that at the time in my career when this happened it was a huge disappointment and a huge lesson learned. 

The fact that I had a signed contract and 35% completed working drawings was the part that stung the most. 

I also have no ill feelings towards pros who design even though I have been looked over because of some of them.  It is inevitable that names will get the "marketing" jobs but the way it is done leaves a lasting legacy of ALL parties. 

Lester

[Lou_Duran]

Adam Clayman asked earlier:

"What is it about the real designers that allow others to get credit? 

"Is it a lack of respect for the craft? The art? The work?"

I am not an architect but I think that the answer is economic necessity.


Jeff Brauer,

The story I wanted to tell you was of a conversation I had last month with an avid senior golfer at Ridgeview Ranch.  He didn't know who you were, but was very conversant on area courses (he liked Ridgeview Ranch, though he thought the greens are over the top).  As background, the guy used to own a golf shop and came out of retirement to work as a partime clubmaker in one of the big box golf stores.  Apparently, being "in the industry" he has access to most courses, typically through professional courtesy. 

Of the relatively new courses in far north Dallas, he didn't care for Gentle Creek at all, thought Trails of Frisco was too hard and tight in spots, liked Frisco Lakes quite a bit, but really raved about the "new Freddy Couples" course north of Dallas in Gunter.  He described how Freddy did this and that, how he designed some holes like a long par 5 on the back side from the perspective of his own game, forcing a carry over the hazard on the drive and the subsequent shots, and requiring both length and precision.  The only things he doesn't like about the course are the greens, which he thinks are excessively contoured (and I thought you said earlier that you are past that particular phase!).

He was so enthused about Freddy's great architectural expertise that I had to be very delicate in telling him that Freddy could very well not have set foot on the course until well after the routing and major design features had been completed.  Of course, he didn't believe me and I may have him do some club work for me in the future, so I left it at that.

I did read the following quote from the developer in a news release “Bluegreen is proud to have worked with Fred Couples since 1997 and we have created an outstanding golf course that we successfully maintained and enhanced the natural look of the land, all while offering maximum playability,”.  I suppose it is a fact of life that a "Freddy Couples Signature" course generates greater real estate and green fee revenues than a "Golfscapes/Jeff Brauer Design".  It may be unfair, perhaps somewhat deceitful, but it is not unusual.

I wonder how many high volume popular authors really use ghost writers to assist in the process.  Perhaps the Thomas Kinkade art production method is more analogous to golf design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

Glad to know your buddy liked the Bridges.  Actually the yardage book at the Bridges and such do have it listed as a collaboration, but much of the advertising has it as just Freddie Couples, such as the ads over the urinals at the American Airlines Center I look at every time I go to a hockey game......

As to co-designs, yeah, its economic necessity, no doubt.  Nice offers come along to design a course but often with strings attached.  As alluded to by Tim Nugent, it is a hard thing for a developer to really think about, care about or know about good design.  I see a lot of crappy housing plans, too. 

They generally don't care about golf course design and want the "cheap pencil" but are willing to spend anything on whatever marketing bang a Tour Pro brings.  The ghost writer thing might be a good analogy.  I also gather marketing budgets probably get a lot of attention as compared to design budgets.  I can argue all day, but that is the way its always been done so there must be some merit to it.

I understand the desire or percieved need for a pro name, although I will guess that in this economy as many of those will go tits up as those designed by us non- pro types.  At least, in 1987, DFW courses and housing developements like Fossil Creek (an Arnie cousre) slowed down in sales as much as every other real estate development.  For that matter, I don't think Freddie is spurring sales in Gunter right now - things are just that bad out there right now.

Ridgeview Ranch did quite well real estate wise, although I have no reason to believe that the nearby Palmer Course (Twin Creeks) did not.  They were both in the hot real estate corridor.  The overall ambiance of TC is probably better in the subdivisions and houses bigger.  I think RR gives off about the same ambiance golf wise and costs less (half to build, and formerly half to play, altough I think fees have adjusted a bit.  That makes RR a great owners course- just as good as the high dollar course for less money.  They still play 60K rounds there.

BTW, if Ridgeview's greens are off the charts I just don't know what I can do.  I don't recall them being all that contoured......I don't play there because of the other 60,000 golfers who don't seem to mind them. 

Recently up at Weeks Park, in Wichita Falls, I built greens mostly as flat as I can build them - under 2% in most cases. When I followed up after their first season, they said many golfers still thought the greens were quite tough!   At Gunter, there are a few greens that can get you.  Holes 1 and 2 were built right on top of bedrock and ended up having to leave some slope in I didn't want to.  I did a Road Hole green that some complain about.  Like my earlier Valley of Sin efforts, I still say that if I put a bunker their instead of a green hieght swale, the hole would be tougher yet for average players.  For that matter, the hills roll so nicely up in that part of town, I just really hate to plop a really flat green surface down there as it looks so out of place.

The architects here are really missing the beauty of working with a pro.  Here is how it works.....When you play Gunter, if you like something, I did it.  If you don't, that damn Freddy made me do it!  That's my story and I am sticking to it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()