[Mike_Young]

Over the last 50 years golf architecture has tried to extricate itself from the "build" side of the golf course.  But in doing so a fee must be charged that can allow a firm to survive over the career of an architect and then hopefully into the careers of his associates etc.   But today with the present economy and the cost of golf I am convinced that we are about to go back to a design/build type of market.  We already see many of the contractors doing so.  Many architects refuse....
It stands to reason that if there are only 100 courses being built on average then a practicing architect/builder will need to justify more revenues from the individual project than just a fee or the practice will not survive as a full time business......I think we are about to see much less separation between the team building the course and the architecture firm and vice versa.....
It is happening...I think it is good for golf...and affordable golf....   thoughts?

[Adam Clayman]

Mike. For us less involved in the actual business could you expound on the meaning of design built versus the other?  I assume you mean controling cost by utilizing more natural features. But that's why I'm asking for clarification. BTW. If it is as I suspect I have a new theory on why many golfers don't like the randomness of nature and prefer to have their canvas predictable.

[Mike_Young]

Mike. For us less involved in the actual business could you expound on the meaning of design built versus the other?  I assume you mean controling cost by utilizing more natural features. But that's why I'm asking for clarification. BTW. If it is as I suspect I have a new theory on why many golfers don't like the randomness of nature and prefer to have their canvas predictable.

Adam,
For me design/build means the architect is more involved in the actual constrcution process and may actually have his own group of shapers and finishing people who all work for him in some way/shape/form.....he would give a price to build a project which could be a "not to exceed" price or he may give an estimate.  Some say that this separates the architect's responsibility as an owners representative...but they have to get past that....
I have always had my own people involved in my projects and have eliminated the general contractor in doing so....
I think Pete Dye has often brought his people to the project and allowed the owner to hire them on a n hourly or contractual basis...
From my past experience of working this way you can rest assured the general contractors will "diss" you  But now I think we are seeing more and more GC's building courses w/o an architect or either they hire a guy that was laid off by a firm and put him on the payroll....
For the last 20 years it has been "frowned upon" by the Architectural groups and the builder groups but it is here......I think you can see examples of this on google  ..check out Bob Lohman of Chicago...they do the same thing.....and I think Dennis Griffiths in Atlanta also does such....
OR  you can look some of the larger builders like Landscapes etc.....they have done work for "sgnatures" for years and have pt a quality product on the ground.  Don't think for a minute they can't design a golf course and get it in budget for an owner and give him a good product w/o an architect involved.  Hell many of these guys just need a phone call from a signature saying  " Hey Joe..will you pt green from hole & at course A on the green site for hole 9 on course B  and call me when you need me...I should be back out in a month or so"
TODAY the builder are the ones that have the advantage if they wish to take it.....they got much of this stuff memorized.....

It's going that way.....

[Bill_McBride]

Isn't that what Doak's Renaissance Golf company does? 

In the construction business there are typically two design-build models.  In one model, a really big construction company has a full team of architects and engineers on staff full time and truly design build.  In the other, as practiced by smaller construction companies, the general contractor will hire an architect for a specific project and contract with the owner on a 'design build' basis.

Does Mike Young Golf Design want to keep a crew of shapers and a fleet of equipment on hand?  I don't think so.  Will golf construction companies do the marketing and sales of new projects and have architects on staff to 'design build?'  I don't think so, the architect has been the lead traditionally.

So I don't think it's true design build models that Mike is talking about, but maybe some sort of alliance where he markets and sells the project and then brings in a team he works with on a regular basis and acts as the general contractor as well as architect.

[Adam Clayman]

Mike,  If there's a growing artistic appreciation for what you guys do, why would any artist hand off their plans to someone they don't necessarily know or trust to complete their vision? Maybe some foundational engineering, but not the finish work of the golf course.

The business side of looking at projects has to be looked at differently, nowadays. Don't you think?  There are too many examples of doomed projects out there, right now, to be able to argue for the failed model that came out of the mid-80's rush to build.

[Roger Wolfe]

Over the last 50 years golf architecture has tried to extricate itself from the "build" side of the golf course.  But in doing so a fee must be charged that can allow a firm to survive over the career of an architect and then hopefully into the careers of his associates etc.   But today with the present economy and the cost of golf I am convinced that we are about to go back to a design/build type of market.  We already see many of the contractors doing so.  Many architects refuse....
It stands to reason that if there are only 100 courses being built on average then a practicing architect/builder will need to justify more revenues from the individual project than just a fee or the practice will not survive as a full time business......I think we are about to see much less separation between the team building the course and the architecture firm and vice versa.....
It is happening...I think it is good for golf...and affordable golf....   thoughts?

Kris Spence might like to chime in on this one.

[Trey Stiles]

The design / build scenario looks appealing until you get into the details.

The 1st thing that comes to mind is : " What builder wants to compete with the architects who control the bid list ? " ... If I'm a builder , that's a huge business risk.

The 2nd thing that comes to mind : " What architect wants to ( A ) maintain bonding capability ?  ( B ) Live and die with the risk involved with golf course construction ?

The 3rd thing that comes to mind : " What developer wants to hire an architect and give him / her a blank check without bonded hard bids ? " ... The checks and balances that come with the current system are pretty good.

There are plenty of other " potential issues "

Having said that , I think there is significant business potential for joint ventures between architects and builders. Having been involved in a few of these type deals , they can be wonderful , provided that the developer , architect and builder are all on the same page with the same agenda ( typically significant ownership in the project )

Final thought : It's a small world ... never burn your bridges ... even in a down cycle. 

[Bill_McBride]

Final thought : It's a small world ... never burn your bridges ... even in a down cycle.  "

ESPECIALLY in a down cycle!

Trey's thoughts are what I was mumbling about above.  I do think in a regional market, on affordable golf projects, loose affiliations driven by the architect can be a really good thing, and I think Mike has worked well in that model in the past.

Mike Nuzzo pretty much did the same thing to great advantage at Wolf Point as well.

[Trey Stiles]

Bill , I agree that there is potential for this type deal to work on small scale or closely held projects.

I remember a few years back , there were a few guys selling the concept of , " I'll design / build you a golf course for a million bucks "  ...  For a client that just needs to have a plain vanilla course to build the value of the surrounding real estate or a rural community project.

Of course that's just the start of the full development process , but there a lots of golfers out there who play on affordable courses that were developed just like this.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike Young,

Ralph Plummer designed or remodeled some 100 courses, mostly in TX prior to 1970, and until the last decade of his life, he built what he designed.

When I tried to develop a budget-concious course in the early 1990s, I settled on a local architect because I believed that being on the site frequently and having responsibility for the entire project were very important.  The fact that there are well-educated, highly qualified architects capable of doing and/or managing all aspects of building a golf course makes this design/build approach feasible and practical.  So long as I had the right architect with the requisite skills, and work and business ethics, I would rather have one central point of responsibility and accountability than to have to deal with a half-dozen contractors.

A relationship such as the one responsible for Wolf Point makes a lot of sense.  Much of the work was done in-house with local labor, some specialty work was contracted out.  The architect and the superintendent worked very closely together, designing, moving dirt, shaping, etc.  While the schedule was long by today's standards, the finished product is outstanding and the project costs were reduced significantly.    

[Mike_Young]

Bill. And. Trey

There are mo large scale golf projects.   The scenario mention is all over.   And yes I have had my own equipment for years.  That is finishing equip and small shaping doziers.  But nowdays one is crazy not to rent.   

[Niall C]

Ignoring for a second the business/economic aspect of going design/build, does doing it this way give the architect more of a chance to work in the field, more control and more leeway to modify his plans than the traditional procurement method, thereby producing a better golf course at the end of the day ?

Niall

[Trey Stiles]

Looks like what we are recognizing in this thread is that there is no such thing as a cookie cutter approach to developing a golf facility.

If I were going to do my own facility and had the luxury of : knowledge ( of course that's debatable ) , relationships , time , and the financial meter not ticking , I would seriously consider a partnership with a local architect , local subs , ect.

Yes , Ralph Plumber did lots of courses this way. I'm playing one of this this afternoon.

Yes , there were lots of courses built this way. I own one. It's not the greatest piece of architecture , but it serves it's purpose.

Yes , I love the thought of the architect being on site ... Especially when it comes to finish work.

From my perspective , I looks like a wonderful way to develop a closely held project , but unlikely to meet the needs of most developers.

[Brian Phillips]

All our projects are pretty much Design and Build.

[Tony Ristola]

Ignoring for a second the business/economic aspect of going design/build, does doing it this way give the architect more of a chance to work in the field, more control and more leeway to modify his plans than the traditional procurement method, thereby producing a better golf course at the end of the day ?

Niall

In spades.

More time means more observations, discussions, preemptive improvements, real-time editing, opportunity seeking. It's faster, better, cheaper and produces the best courses for the budget.

.

[Mike_Young]

From my perspective , I looks like a wonderful way to develop a closely held project , but unlikely to meet the needs of most developers.

Trey,
IMHO there are no more golf developers....and one of the reasons is that their needs were not met.....Why did they build golf courses?  They did not care for the golf...it was to sell housing lots and the more hype and expense they could add to the course..the more they could market the "exclusivity" of their development....but that is over.....Signature architects were the best thing to happen to golf architecture and the worst thing to happen to golf architecture...they helped increase fees for all of us and they were used by developers to develop unsustainable projects n many cases.   So IMHO the developers could care less about the architect/contractor relationship. 
While we hear all of the talk about the housing industry and how many homes need to be sold...what we don't hear much is how many undeveloped lots are in the market place.  there are over 10 years worth...so it will be a long time before "developers" not builders of homes are back with big time projects.....plus they care not to be maintaining all of these exclusive courses and clubhouses f lots and homes are not selling....that's done also.
Now let's say that you and your family decide to build a home and choose a plan from Southern Living or some magazine...order the plan......get a construction loan and hire a builder to build the home.....are you uncomfortable with such a situation because many many homes are built in just such a way......

Ad for those of us in the golf business....it will evolve into the same.....let's say architect fees go to around $200,000.....ok...good for one job but what if you only get one every couple of years?   doesn't work.....I say 2/3 or s will be in something else as will shapers and contractors.....Unless they can convince clinets that they bring more to the table and can generate a project that works .......a few post back Bill McBride mentions :

"The design / build scenario looks appealing until you get into the details.

The 1st thing that comes to mind is : " What builder wants to compete with the architects who control the bid list ? " ... If I'm a builder , that's a huge business risk.

Well......that very thing is what scares many from getting into this scene....

But the market is going to overide much of tis as they search for a project that works.....
All of the "dissing" and talk from general contractors toward design build and the same back at the GC's from architects will not matter.....I mean if there are guys that have been practicing this way for years and they continue to have clients then they must be doing something right. 
At the end of the day...we have to have a product for golf that works and the present scenario is lacking.....

[Brian Phillips]

We have had Niblick Golf Design going for 5 years now in Norway and Graeme my partner has had Team Niblick going for about 15 years.

In Norway we do not have one unhappy client when it comes to budgets being met or quality of construction being achieved.

In the end it all comes down to usual business principles honesty, integrity and giving 100%. All of the work we get these days is by word of mouth and that is our strongest marketing point.

If anyone out there is worried about using a Design and Build team due to costs or unsure about trusting them then just talk to the references provided by the D&B company.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
We have completed four projects that were design/build including a driving range and short game area at Irem Temple, an elaborate drainage improvement program at Brookside CC (outside Philly), a multiple hole short course at Marvine in Bethlehem and a private golf practice area.  We've also bid numerous other projects as design/build and are waiting for clubs to pull the trigger on spending.  Not every client likes the model but in certain situations, I think it has many advantages.  I like the concept.
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

My model has always been that if times got tough, we could pull back and put everyone to work building just one golf course at a time ... as long as we have even ONE to build.

I have never done "design-build" as a contractor with a firm price for the entire construction ... I prefer not to take on the risk of all that, so we just do design - shape - (and sometimes) manage.  It used to be hard to get paid as much as we ought to get paid for the construction work, because there's always some contractor around insisting he could do the shaping for less; but now that we get paid pretty well on the design end, it all works out in the end.

Some clients are resistant to a design-build architect, but they seem less resistant to a design-shape deal, especially after we built Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle that way.  And, the golf course contractors stopped arguing about it once they realized our guys really COULD shape the whole course, so they could send their "A" shapers to other jobs.

I was with an old friend yesterday who said he thinks the greenkeeping business will swing back in that direction, too ... that it will be the guys who are willing to go out and get dirty and do their own irrigation fixes in the off-season who will thrive, while the hot-shot managers will struggle when their budgets are cut 30% and they can't pay assistants to do all the work.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
Sounds like our model is about the same.....I have never set it up where we took the risk on a guaranteed price but we have managed jobs where we gave the owner the estimated cost.

Funny you mention the supt. situation......I agree 100%....and you are going to see mowing equipment etc drop back a little.....the problem I see is that so many of the younger supts have never ever seen it done this way and cannot believe it can be done when you tell them...they have been taught top notch conditioning at all cost for so long that they cannot fathom any other way.......Now take it a step further and watch the golf professionals that change back to golf pro form Director of golf.....with two class A's and a shop merchandiser under them.....

[Bill_McBride]

When you combine the need to reduce maintenance costs with our long term water shortages, what are the chances of a new fast, firm and drier maintenance meld?  It's going to be hard for a lot of privates to change, but it looks to be becoming necessary.

[Jim Thompson]

Mike,

Design build is the way to go, especially if your goal is to produce not only an affordable end result but a long term profitable one as well.  THis is the best way to avoid the dreaded "no one makes the course work until the third owner" scenario that has become so common over the last twenty years.  Tow great maxims over the years: "the only reason someone pays retail for a course is because they can, not because they have to" and my favorite "no body ever paid Rodin for his drawings".  The unpealing of the onion of the construction / development onion si the first step in returning golf to its affordable everyman roots!

Cheers!

JT

P.S.  Where do I sign up???

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
We worked with the Williard Group at Brookside, George Ley & Co. on the private facility (along with a Toro irrigation consultant), also George Ley at the Irem Temple project and a combination of firms on the short course including a local shaper named Dave Wigfield. 
Mark

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike,
There are also several examples of design then build to print that are also successful.
I don't think it is the method that relates to the issue you are describing.
Which brings us back to how to get to superior and affordable. 

[Ryan Farrow]

Does design build save enough money to make a project financially viable?  Is a golf course's success at the mercy of the business plan, not the golf course design?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()