Is an architect's most difficult task the

[Tom_Doak]

Rich G:

What is it exactly that you do for a living?

I get paid ridiculous sums of money by people who want to build an outstanding golf course.  To justify my high fees, the clients expect (and should expect) that I try diligently to do my best work on each of the 18 holes and to be sure that I'm satisifed with every aspect of each hole before I approve them to be planted -- because CHANGING holes after they're grown in is a lot more expensive than changing them in the dirt.

Would you want an artist to come into your house and modify the painting you bought?  Or would you call him to come in and change it because you don't like the chin of the subject?

Or would you be happy if your doctor kept refining his plastic surgery until your nose was right?

I am not suggesting that any golf course architect is perfect.  I am suggesting that we try.  And, at the end of the day, we both know that the judgment of our success is 100% subjective, so on what basis can it be certified that a suggested "improvement" is anything more than an attempt to get paid twice for the same work?

[David_Madison]

Pete Dye would sure be a good person to ask Pat's questions. I don't know if he'd admit to errors per se, but he's sure done a lot to improve TPC-Sawgrass and The Ocean Course among others. Both are/were pretty notorious when first opened, with lots of acclaim and criticism, but now there's a lot more comment on the plus side.

[Ian_L]

I get paid ridiculous sums of money by people who want to build an outstanding golf course.  To justify my high fees, the clients expect (and should expect) that I try diligently to do my best work on each of the 18 holes and to be sure that I'm satisifed with every aspect of each hole before I approve them to be planted -- because CHANGING holes after they're grown in is a lot more expensive than changing them in the dirt.

Would you want an artist to come into your house and modify the painting you bought?  Or would you call him to come in and change it because you don't like the chin of the subject?

Or would you be happy if your doctor kept refining his plastic surgery until your nose was right?

I am not suggesting that any golf course architect is perfect.  I am suggesting that we try.  And, at the end of the day, we both know that the judgment of our success is 100% subjective, so on what basis can it be certified that a suggested "improvement" is anything more than an attempt to get paid twice for the same work?

Tom, while I realize the economic side of your opinion, don't you think you could make a better golf course (at least slightly), if you had the chance to see your courses played and modified them accordingly?  I'm sure there are holes you have designed that did not play as well as you intended?

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

Sure, it would be great if we could play-test our courses as we're building them, to see whether the ball will wind up where we think it should after a certain shot.  But visualizing those results is supposed to be what we're good at.  You don't always get it right, but you shouldn't often get it wrong.

Plus, I would think the results you might most want to modify would be how certain shots react when they hit the green ... and of course, with USGA greens, modifications are VERY complicated and expensive.

David M:  Yes, Pete Dye has tinkered with his own courses a lot, but generally only in the context of hosting professional events, which for most of us is not an issue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The "Dilema" as I see it is as follows:

Do architects achieve perfection with their initial design ?

If not, at what point do they recognize the imperfection/s ?

Can the imperfection/s be corrected ?

Isn't "fine tuning" a recognition of the imperfection ?

Why does "fine tuning" have a negative conotation with some architects ?

I view GCA in the same general vein as medicine, both are arts based on science.  In many cases "perfection" is achieved through trial and error.
Is that such a terrible thing ?

I understand the cost element, but, if the ultimate goal is perfection, doesn't that come through improvement (fine tuning) ?

P.S. I'm contexting this issue solely through the work of the original
      architect.

[Tony Ristola]

Do architects achieve perfection with their initial design ?

Perfect is as perfect does.
Nobody is perfect, nobody can read minds.

If not, at what point do they recognize the imperfections ?

Daily involvement reveals imperfections, and if an architect doesn't lead construction and lacks the authority to make alterations to the original scheme, lots of opportunities will be missed.

Can the imperfection/s be corrected ?

They can be as the product is being built... or some can be after it has been built in the architect's absence "according to plan".
One nails all opportunities, the other usually used to put out the hottest fires... and misses masses of opportunities.

Isn't "fine tuning" a recognition of the imperfection ?

It's a recognition we are human.

Why does "fine tuning" have a negative conotation with some architects ?

They believe their plans are omnipotent.
It is how they have operated and to admit otherwise would be to admit their method is inferior and has serious shortcomings.
Not every builder is equal, and not all builders can read plans well.

I view GCA in the same general vein as medicine, both are arts based on science.  In many cases "perfection" is achieved through trial and error.
Is that such a terrible thing ?

It can be if you have operated this way as a SOP.
It is standard, but somehow golf course architecture has used the same poor management model for over 60-years.

I understand the cost element, but, if the ultimate goal is perfection, doesn't that come through improvement (fine tuning) ?

The goal for many is not perfection.
If perfection was the goal they would work differently and admit plans are only the starting line.
In the real world perfection comes through improvement... this requires time... the one thing architects have little of.
Even three projects concurrently makes it tough for the architect to visit weekly; unless they are clustered closely together... which is rare.

The business is far different from the days Nicklaus was charging 100,000 and Dye 30,000. You can work in any manner you like today.

The choice is the architect's.

.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony,

Then, is it safe to say that the ideal arrangement is a visionary owner/developer with a passionate designer where both are in it for the long haul ?

Is the concept of crafting the best living legacy valid ?

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,

Then, is it safe to say that the ideal arrangement is a visionary owner/developer with a passionate designer where both are in it for the long haul ?

The owner need not be a visionary, though it's nice. The owner has to be in it for the long haul or somebody to defend and protect a design; otherwise it goes the way of the whims of The Committee.

The architect is the driving force; it's his vision that requires interpretation and who better than the architect himself to communicate with each individual, modify in real-time, motivate and monitor personally?

The architect should be in it for the long haul during construction, and as the course matures. That is ideal. Most claim they don't have the time, others simply don't have the time for new work being accomplished under their name.

Is the concept of crafting the best living legacy valid ?

Today more than any time in the history of the game.

I don't see why this business is any different from any other. One where there is open competition, frank talk, aggressive advertising all in an effort to produce the best for the client. In the process standards are elevated as well as service to the client for their multi-million investment.

Only in golf architecture (and Microsoft Windows) is it acceptable to treat a multi-million dollar investment and work of art as a part-time job.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony,

Doesn't the law of diminishing returns apply where you have a skilled architect ?

Would the finished product be exponentially better if the architect slept on property during construction.

Or, once the design has been completed, doesn't the ability to communicate and deligate the tasks at hand seperate the architect and his crew from other architects and crews ?

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,

Doesn't the law of diminishing returns apply where you have a skilled architect ?

Perhaps.
It depends on how you calculate "returns". Short term or over the long haul?
If it means fewer projects, then yes. If you are talking about cash... that is a case by case situation.

I don't think a developer would complain, or see it as diminishing returns, but maximum commitment; an insurance policy for his investment. The chance to attain something exceptional at a fair price.

Money has its limitations; while it may buy quantity, there is something beyond it and that is quality" Frank Lloyd Wright

The additional problem is when an architect becomes popular, is spread thin and thinner, has to delegate, has to train staff and then come complications; at worst staffers leave during a wave of work. Then what? New staff, more training, less time. I don't think this is the recipe for consistent results over the long haul.

I think Obama's meddling in our daily business will be interesting. How many shops will turf out staff or close up? I'd recently read about the state of golf in the 1970's, the view of the game by the public and Obama is recreating this ill sentiment towards wealth and the wealthy. It's not at all good for the development of the game; so it will be interesting to see what will transpire.

Would the finished product be exponentially better if the architect slept on property during construction.

Like George Crump?
Here again are a mass of variables, but I would say in  short... Surely.

Focus, commitment, communication, monitoring, training, motivation and the like are all better when the architect is camping out with the crew and intimately involved. All manner of conversations are sparked up, and communication cuts across all levels; it becomes less and less a job and more a pursuit. People are willing to go the extra mile; A stark contrast of attitude compared to the architect showing up infrequently and editing "work built according to plan."

Or, once the design has been completed, doesn't the ability to communicate and deligate the tasks at hand seperate the architect and his crew from other architects and crews ?

Yes and no, and then it brings into question who the architect really is, if the crew is running with the design in the architect's absence.

Few crews stick with their architect for an extended period.
Architects with multiple projects don't have the time to communicate the direction for each course. This is where standardization comes in.

For those that don't have that type of crew, what is the best way to generate one?
Daily involvement, communication... building relationships... and when they leave after years of working together the hard work starts again. (Just pray you don't have scores of projects to attend to).

I look at it as an owner would. I want the best for my investment of millions.
How has it historically been accomplished? How will the architect accomplish this for me?
These and all the questions related to achieving this goal would be asked.

Normally multi-million dollar projects of any genre are not left in the hands of those that treat it like a part-time job. My goal would be to figure out who the fakers and real work horses are. Do they have the vision and how will it be accomplished without wasting a ton of cash.

.