How many architects regularly revisit their finished courses?

[Matthew Mollica]

I continually hear of golf courses "evolving" and to some extent, that's either desirable, inevitable or both. Yet, when maintenence practices undermine the design intent, these evolutionary processes can detract from a course's quality.

How many architects go around to courses they designed years ago, to ensure that the ground staff are presenting the course as it was intended? Is this something they should consistently do?

Matthew

[John Moore II]

Well, I know Tom Doak has stated on here that he has played all (or most all) of his courses, many of them numerous times. So, I would say that it is possible. Now, for someone like Fazio or Nicklaus, they have so many courses it is not practical for them to do so. I should say with them having so many, its unlikely they return very often, other than to places like maybe Shadow Creek or Victoria National (for Fazio) or Muirfield Village or Sebonack (for Jack).

Now, on this same note, even if they do return often, why should the course owners/superintendents worry about it? I mean, what is the designer really going to do? Tell them to take his name off the course? I just don't see the designer being able to make much of a difference at how the club works and maintains the course once he is done with the design and construction. (Exception being a course like Muirfield Village where Jack is fairly active in the membership)

[Forrest Richardson]

They are our children, only less costly.   

[Matthew Mollica]

I get the feeling some are orphaned not long after birth Forrest,
and that these children suffer as a consequence. 

MM

[Mark_F]

Matt,

I am sure Tom Doak doesn't think much of the maintenance practices here:



Trying to limit the run of the golf ball through fairway grassing strategy is one thing, but this is a step too far.

That green looks far too small to stop a ball coming in from that grass.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

That one is fenced off, isn't it?

Matthew:

A good question, but you'll probably be disappointed in the answer, which is that our associates usually have more time to get back to the courses they worked on than we do.

Think about it.  I'm on the road +/- 150 days per year for work.  I've designed 30 courses all around the world.  And there are other good courses to see, too.  So, I'm lucky if I can make time to visit 5-7 of my own in any given year.  [Random sample:  last year I went back to Cape Kidnappers, Stone Eagle, Pacific Dunes, Aetna Springs, Apache Stronghold, Rock Creek, High Pointe, Beechtree, and Sebonack.  But it's been years since I saw Quail Crossing or Barnbougle Dunes.]

Now think about Jack Nicklaus who has designed 300 courses, and is working on 20 per year.  Jack's associates go back to those courses occasionally, I'm sure, but he only goes back to play in an event or when they pay him to look at redesigning something; although he did stop in and play Sebonack with someone last year.

I do have some experience with looking at one of my old courses which isn't being maintained well ... but even then, what am I supposed to say?  It's the owner's course; I can't really complain that they are making me look bad.  I will certainly offer our help when asked, but I don't want to be a nag ... and to tell the truth I would really prefer just to play the course and enjoy the day instead of nitpicking little details.

[Ronald Montesano]

What right does an architect have to make such demands on ownership?  I'm fairly confident that an architect could do no right in such an instance.  My guess is that contracts stipulate delivery of product, end of matter.  If the architect returns and makes some suggestions on the down-low, groovy.  Pads the letter of recommendation that she/he will receive from ownership.  If the architect is unhappy and makes a public stink, she/he comes off like Monty or Nick or some other petulant child.  Buck up and move on is really the only recourse...unless the ownership stakes a claim to faulty design as the cause for the crappy conditions, the architect/designer should pull a Pilate and wash her/his hands.

[Jeff_Mingay]

The best scenario is when ownership want you back, and continue to invite you back for advice, etc.

Rod Whitman and I have enjoyed this scenario at Blackhawk GC, in Edmonton, for example. We've returned to Blackhawk on numerous occasions since the course opened for play to tweak things (and play golf!). I think this is one reason why the course continues to get better and better each year. It's like a Ross at Pinehurst; Wilson/Flynn at Merion; Macdonald at National GL situation.

However, in such a case, you've got to be careful not to change too much! Blackhawk was recognized as pretty good out of the gate. We don't want it to go down the Crooked Stick path!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ronald,

Contracts usually do end 60 days after final completion of construction.  From time to time, I have added one to three annual site visits just to answer any questions, etc.  Those calls for the visit usually get forgotten in years 2 and 3 by the Owner. Its really just best to make a clean break.  And remember, the owner side often changes hands, which can change the relationship between gca and course.  Its not personal anymore at that point.

However, even after many years, I usually get treated with great deference even many years later where I have worked. At the same time, the superintendents sometimes get a terrified look in their eyes.  They probably feel that they can't maintain a cousre up to the standards the gca would want (usually not true) and know they have made some changes to parts of the design that aren't practical to maintain and that we will be angry.  I usually end up asking for a list of the five worst features of the course maintenance wise, so I can avoid those problems in the future, which really loosens up the discussion. (and teaches me something!)

In the early days of JN's design career, the stories were that his contract allowed him to make changes for a period of five years or so at Owner's expense.  I think even he found that a difficult clause to effect, if true, because I don't hear those stories anymore.

For that matter, a contract needs to stipulate a clean break.  There are a few gca horror stories where there have NOT been such stipulations and the owner trys to keep calling them back without charge.  Or, given the length of time it takes to develop a golf course, call them back to design a course 15 years later at the same fee quoted in the original contract.

I would also suspect that gca's are more prone to see their best courses, either via taking potential clients out there to play, or just taking a "victory lap" around some of their best work.

[Mark Chaplin]

Apparently tour pro DJ Russell who designed Archerfield in Scotland played there as a member for a year to see how the course played. He then finished the project putting hazards in the places where the players were going. That's pretty cool if you have the opportunity.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff B.,

Interesting post.

We're lucky that at Blackhawk, for example, our relationship with ownership/management is more "friendly" than "contractual" (if that makes sense). We're lucky there. And, I appreciate things have developed this way, because I know it's a rare relationship.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff M,

I have been lucky in contracts, too. In fact, I can only recall pulling one out after the job has started a few times.  One owner thought I should pay the engineer to design a dam, but it was clearly not my responsibility.  And, we're still friends, BTW.

But, all it takes for a gca to start refining his contracts is one bad experience that cost him money.  I predict you and Rod will eventually lengthen yours out after similar experience. I mean, Canada does have lawyers too, right?

[Forrest Richardson]

While likely not enforceable, my contracts devote a good paragraph to the fact that courses change and that I will continue to make good faith suggestions and visits while the Owner is expected to extend such courtesies as making time, access and personnel available in the spirit of evaluating and improving the course whenever possible. This, as well as details of name on scorecards, etc., are supposedly transfered to subsequent owners...although that, also, is likely not enforceable.

As Jeff says, the best case is when people want you back to chat and tweak.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff,

You need to approach projects like Whitman (and Pete Dye)... who needs a contract 

[archie_struthers]

 


It would seem to me that most architiects would like to see their courses evolve. Many would have a picture in their mind of how it will look when all the grasses mature and the drainage finds it's natural path .

Some of the big name designers have put "performance " clauses" in their contracts as to maintenance budgets , and  thati no one can tinker with their architecture under penalty of removing their name.

I've never been a fan of architects that designate certain jobs like this , the signature course concept is pretty lame IMHO , although I understand the financial incentives for the designer.

I'm guessing no one is junking up the contracts much these days!


 

[John Moore II]

I was going to say that the only architect off hand who could really force some kind of chance might be Jack. And the only reason I say that is because he certainly owns trademarks on those Bear logos find so prominent on Nicklaus Design courses, especially the Jack Signature courses. I suppose, if irritated enough, he could ask (or force in court) courses not to use those logos unless they make certain changes.

But I would assume that the courses could still use his name (in plain type and such) because I doubt he owns a copyright on his name in all forms.

Jeff Brauer (I only ask you because you are posting regularly on this thread)-If someone does something to a course you designed that you really don't like, is totally out of character, etc., do you really have any recourse other than to just suck it up and move on? (And I don't mean can you complain to the owner or super, certainly you could do that, but probably wouldn't)


Archie--I would wonder how those clauses could work. I mean, how can you really ask someone not to use your name? I would assume that golf designers don't copyright their names (like I said about Jack). So how could the contract be enforced if there is no copyrighted material to remove? Very odd.

[archie_struthers]

 

John , I'm not an attorney , but I'm fairly confident that lots of designers have had contracts that specify some performance guarantees from the ownership, going so far as to designate minimum maintenance budgets for a certain amount of years after construction. I'm sure Tom Doak and Jeff B etc . etc  would be able to comment when they see this question.

Not knowing copyright law, I can't give you a definitive answer but I'd bet a few sheckels that some contracts definitely address use of a designers name and penalties for alteration of his work product.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

My prior club, a Palmer Design, invited Ed Seay and the project architect, Erik Larsen, to tour the course on its 10th anniversary. They were in the area and stopped by for an afternoon. There was probably no contractual obligation to do so and I don't know if they were paid for their appearance.

Palmer was there for the grand opening to play the course and at least one more visit as the owner/developer was trying to sell memberships.

[paul cowley]

Usually for me....when visiting a course that I had designed and built and wanted to play again....I have to make at least two phone calls to get on.

This is usually due to personnel changes.

I do though, have a clause in some of my contracts that stipulate that any Cowley male with the name Paul as part of his name....has the right to play said course free of charge.

There is a bigger story to this.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John K Moore,

I don't really have any recourse and I doubt anyone else does either.  You can always vow to remove your name but I doubt that is really effective.  As mentioned, for lots of reasons, courses evolve.  These days, a private course may be bought by a municipality as happened so often in the depression.  Who am I to say that they shouldn't remove bunkers that are too difficult, etc. etc. etc.?  I should be happy that my routing and the basics of my design stay intact, I gather, although its always dissapointing to see the course change a lot.

[Matthew Mollica]

A good question, but you'll probably be disappointed in the answer, which is that our associates usually have more time to get back to the courses they worked on than we do.

Not disappointed at all Tom. I suspected that might be the case. You and others will be too busy to go back and look at what's done. And you'll only earn money from what comes into play tomorrow, now what's already in the ground.

I think we all recognise that maintenence is intimately linked with architecture, and that course presentation is central to it's design intent. Why that hasn't been recognised more in this thread is the main surprise for me.

Maybe just a USA-centric thing, but the defence of the owner's perogative to present a course as he/she/they wish, and not be consistent with an architect's wishes, is also a repeated theme in this thread which has me a little surprised.

I know if I went to the trouble and expense of employing a particular architect, I would want to regularly get his opinion on how the course was looking, and what in his mind needed refining. I'd likely meet the expense of that too if I were an owner.

MM

[John Moore II]

John K Moore,

I don't really have any recourse and I doubt anyone else does either.  You can always vow to remove your name but I doubt that is really effective.  As mentioned, for lots of reasons, courses evolve.  These days, a private course may be bought by a municipality as happened so often in the depression.  Who am I to say that they shouldn't remove bunkers that are too difficult, etc. etc. etc.?  I should be happy that my routing and the basics of my design stay intact, I gather, although its always dissapointing to see the course change a lot.

Jeff-I had an idea you would say that. Like I said, in the case of the big firms, Nicklaus, Palmer, etc. who use logos to promote the project, they could likely take a club to court and force them to stop using the logo (Donald Ross Society has attempted to do this sort of thing from what I hear) and other trademarked/copyrighted material. But short of copyrighting your name, I would say there is no way at all to stop them from broadcasting the name of the course designer.

[Mark_F]

And you'll only earn money from what comes into play tomorrow, now(sic) what's already in the ground.

Matt,

Are you planning on becoming an accountant?

I would have thought one way an architect would continue to work, and work on the best sites, would be for their previously designed courses to be maintained the way they were intended in the first place.

Your future home course used to be ranked in the mid-eighties or so in the world, as opposed to today's lofty ranking.

If Soutar was still around and spruiking for work, how impressive would it be to have had the former KH on his resume as opposed to the latter?

Mark:
That one is fenced off, isn't it?

Tom,

It's a pretty easy fence to jump.

It may not be needed for much longer.  Rumour the last few days was that it may become a public course in the near future.

[Paul Carey]

At Four Streams in Maryland, Steve Smyers the architect (with Nick Price) is kind enough to stop by and tour the course and recommends changes when he is in the area.  Approximately 18 months ago we lost a tree that was a key design element of the 13th hole.  On Steve's visit he recommended rerouting of the fairway, different tree plantings and some grassing changes around the green.  It was fun to watch him work with a flags to define the new fairway and tree placements as well as removal of a number of fir trees.  Additionally, he recommended some minor changes in bunkers that our staff could implement.  Steve also speaks with our GM and Superintendent and always has an interest in how our course is doing.   He is a great guy and cares about how his courses evolve.

Price also will stop by when he is in town for a look although that is rare.   Both Price and Smyers agreed that the fir trees had to go!...and they are gone.

[Carl Rogers]

One of my hopes and dreams in life is for Tom D and many of you on this site to make a first tee date to Riverfront, so that many of you will see which a good course it is.