Architects, uniformity and their communication skills

[David Stamm]

As a spinoff of Matthew's thread on how much time an arch spends on site, if an architect has a uniform look to his courses within a very prolific portfolio, is that a sign of great communication skills? For example, MacKenzie was quite prolific and his work was spread from the UK, to Auz, to South America and to various parts of the US. While there were some distinguishing looks to these various locales, there was no mistaking that they were his courses, despite the fact that he never saw some these in their completed form. To my mind, this was a testament to MacK's communication skills and his ability to convey to those he entrusted what he wanted. Is this an underestimated ability that does not get talked about enough? What other architects have been able to do this at a high level? For those that have a body of work roughly the same size as AM's, if their work does not show uniformity, does that mean they weren't good communicators, assuming that they couldn't be on site more than once, if at all?

[Tom_Doak]

David Stamm:

Yes, a golf course architect has to be a good communicator, if he's not going to do all the shaping himself.  Whether you do it by verbal instruction or plans or sketches, you've got to do have a knack for it.

Certainly, though, it helps when you are communicating with someone else who is also talented.  Much of MacKenzie's success was due to finding the right people and/or bringing them with him.  In Melbourne he found the right people locally (or Royal Melbourne found them for him) ... in America he brought the guts of his construction team from Ireland, led by Jack Fleming.  By contrast, in Sydney and Auckland where he didn't stay long and didn't bring anyone with him, his courses did not live up to the same standard.

So, you could equally well say that communication skills are second to surrounding yourself with the right people.  One thing I've always disagreed with the ASGCA about is the notion that you can draw up plans for a course and then any good construction team can build it.  Not many of the great courses were built by just any old contractor ... there was usually some serious talent around.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

The last part of your post is confuing for several reasons. 

First, I think you misinterpret ASGCA on the matter. I think we say that a complete set of plans allows you to get a good bid.  That doesn't translate to "architect can go away and we still expect a great course."   We all agree that it takes a GOOD construction team to build a golf course, which you mention in the second sentence.  By the third sentence, that morphs to "any old contractor."  I agree that the good to top gca's have a lot of input to the construction team, no matter how that is handled contractually. 

We all know of some gca's working on low budgets who allow far too many bidders with far too little experience (and experience with that architect) to bid, but those kind of projects were never destined for greatness anyway, by virtue of client, role of course, and budget.  And probably, the low expectations of all involved!

[TEPaul]

DavidS:

This is a very good and very interesting question on your part, particularly with Mackenzie.

Obviously if he was on site he was going to get what he was thinking of with his contractors but if he wasn't I'd sure endorse what Tom Doak just said about the way he went about it.

But take that Irish crew of Fleming, Cole et al that did Cypress and probably some of Pebble and Monterrey Peninsula. They were known as the American Construction Co. and Robert Hunter and his son seem to run the company out there.

If it is true they actually tried to copy  the shapes of clouds in their bunker formations where do you think that idea and look came from? If they didn't get it from Mackenzie I can't imagine where else they came up with it.

And don't forget, it was Mackenzie who came up with the idea of applying camouflage principles to GCA which was basically to make what was man-made look like nature made it.

Communication skills in getting what you want is really important but I have to think a lot of the earlier architects just weren't around long enough to even begin to communicate with anyone about things like the look and shape of greens or bunkers.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Paul:

Interesting that you brought up the "cloud" story.  One of the old construction workers at Crystal Downs (who was later the superintendent) said that Perry Maxwell had told them the same thing, to shape the bunkers like clouds.

MacKenzie and Maxwell had met prior to Cypress Point, but hadn't spent much time together before Crystal Downs.  It had to be the idea of one or the other.

[Bradley Anderson]

This may sound like a really dumb question, but doesn't every architect have a franchise look or style? I would love to hear Tom and Jeff's view on this.

To clarify my question let me say that I don't use the term "franchise" in the pejorative sense at all. All I mean by that term is that an architect has to distinguish his work from the work of other architects. What they used to call "stick to the knitting."

A year or so ago we were discussing why Raynor did not graduate to a more natural style. And I felt that he had no reason to evolve because his work was so distinctly his own work. Why is that as a bad thing - to cultivate one's own idiom?

[Bradley Anderson]

If it is true they actually tried to copy  the shapes of clouds in their bunker formations where do you think that idea and look came from? If they didn't get it from Mackenzie I can't imagine where else they came up with it.

And don't forget, it was Mackenzie who came up with the idea of applying camouflage principles to GCA which was basically to make what was man-made look like nature made it.

What I see in Cyprus Point are lines that tie in with the way the trees grow there, and the way the rocks jut out. I had never heard of the cloud story.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think this cuts both ways.

When some of us complain that an architect like Rees Jones builds the exact same course in the swamps of Florida to the wilderness of northern Michigan to the dunes of Oregon, are we subliminally saying he's the best communicator since Ronald Reagan? 

Or, is it only a positive when we like the style?

C&C have virtually patented the ripped bunker, Maxwellian-poof greens, and we all love that but does it work everywhere that it's been applied because if I have a complaint with their work it's that it's too self-consciously derivative and repetitive of itself. 

If Mackenzie's work looked more like, say, Tom Bendelow's, or something much simpler, much less artsy, would we be applauding the fact that he applied it de rigeur across the globe?

Just some honest stream of consciousness coming from an inherent, gut-level uneasiness at the idea that multiple applications of the same paint and brushstrokes on different canvases is inherently a good thing, much less reflective of some inherent genius at communication and education...

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - thanks. I was trying to put into words what I questioned about the basic premise, but couldn't.  Your post said it all. But strangely, it also got me to thinking my first less-than-loving thoughts about Mackenzie and C&C....

I guess a philosophy is enduring instead of outdated only as long as one continues to agree with it...or maybe, only as long as it continues to agree with ME!

Peter

[David Stamm]

When some of us complain that an architect like Rees Jones builds the exact same course in the swamps of Florida to the wilderness of northern Michigan to the dunes of Oregon, are we subliminally saying he's the best communicator since Ronald Reagan? 

 

Goodness no!


In all seriousness, keep in mind in alot of instances MacK never saw the course built that he left instructions with. In Spirit of St Andrews, 2 of his most lauded courses, Crystal Downs and Royal Melbourne are not mentioned. Why? He never saw them finished. In addition, let's take a look at the fact that Alex Russell, whom AM left instructions with in Auz, carried out his work so well, that when he designed some courses of his own, they were mistakenly attributed to AM becuase of the similarities. What finer example of communication can there be than that.

[Bradley Anderson]

Well said Mike.

I guess the thing about MacKenzie, Ross, and Tillinghast is their respective styles were more adaptable to multiple environments than Fazio is.

Fazio fits better in the Midwest and Florida than it does on the eastern seaboard. But many of the architects who honed their style out east cultivated a method that seemed to fit well everywhere.

[TEPaul]

"C&C have virtually patented the ripped bunker, Maxwellian-poof greens, and we all love that but does it work everywhere that it's been applied because if I have a complaint with their work it's that it's too self-consciously derivative and repetitive of itself."

Mike Cirba:

I've got to pick up on that one but it's not like I haven't heard it before about C&C.

I think I know those guys well, and as you know and I've talked over this kind of thing with them. They are undeniably honest about what they think they want to do and that really, really seriously does include the idea of DIFFERENCE but for some reason some just don't think they've exhibited any real difference in their architecture.

This is important, at least it is to me. I'm going to call Bill at least and ask him about this. I think this is something he'd be glad to talk about. It's philosophical and I've never seen him really shy from that at least in discussion.

This just might be where the rubber really hits the road. He's always talked about the benefit of a wide spectrum in architecture but maybe we might learn if and where an architect feels he may need to limit himself and where he just doesn't want to go. The good news is he probably has a reason for that which is incredibly valid and which the likes of us very much need to know.

You know what I think? I think subjects like this are totally opened ended right now and that's pretty exciting!

[Tom_Doak]

Bradley:

I disagree with your premise that all of my courses should have a "franchise" look to them.  Why should they?  Why shouldn't I do whatever seems to fit best on a new site?

I love Cypress Point.  I love National Golf Links.  I love Garden City.  They're all way different in terms of style, yet I wouldn't mind building a course in any of those styles.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Hey, lets face facts. We wouldn't mind building any course anywhere right now!

[TEPaul]

Man, there are some really good posts on this thread from about #7 on.

Mike Cirba:

Your #7 self proclaimed "stream of consciousness" post is one of the most provacative I've ever seen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!

Given what you said on it what do you think you're looking for from an architect site-wise or regionally----some versatility that you're not able to even articulate?

If someone asked me who I thought was the most versatile architect ever given varying sites or styles or whatever I'd really have to think on that and I might even come up empty on real versatility!

But again, you're talking stream of consciousness tonight and I like that as I feel I've always been way too timid in saying what I really feel on here.

But maybe I should hold off on that for the moment until we can define our parameters for discussion or criticism sake. But I guarantee you if we move at all in this context the very first golf course and architecture I'm going after is Seaview!

[Tom_Doak]

How's this for a merging of threads:

One of the concepts I learned at Cornell that stuck with me was the idea of a "local vernacular" in architecture ... that (in architecture, anyway) sometimes an architect's style needed to yield to local customs and local materials ... for example the shingle-style Cape Cod house.  You could make the same case for Philadelphia-style flashed bunkers.

[Of course today's golf course clubhouse architects have taken the Cape Cod style to the Carolinas and Florida, and the Tuscan style to California, and other ridiculous transplants probably egged on by their clients ... but THAT is another rant.]

Anyway, I took that education into the world and saw all the faux-links of the 1980s and decided that was all wrong, that my courses should incorporate native vegetation as a kind of local vernacular.

Likewise, there is a huge difference between a PHILOSOPHY of architecture and a STYLE.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. Doak,

I guess I have to get out more and be more exposed to your work. I've only played Onwentsia and Shoreacres, and at Shoreacres you have mostly restored. So I can only comment on your work at Onwentsia:

Onwentsia is one of my favorite courses to play, but I don't think it was vernacular to that site at all. Now I don't know how much of that course is your wish verses the wish of that club, but I felt that it is was not congruent with it's setting or it's place in the Chicago golfing tradition.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

That post #29 is just TOO alluring. Come on, Pal, you can't just leave it at that. Would you PLEASE eloborate and elucidate?? Do it. DO IT! If you do nothing else at least elaborate and eludicate on that last line!