[Tim Gavrich]

The thread about desired green speeds relative to contours had me thinking...

Beyond the process of designing and building a golf course, how much say does an architect have in course setup and things like that?  I assume it varies pretty widely.  Are there circumstances under which an architect may remove his name from a course?  I had heard something like that about Pawleys Plantation a couple years ago: that if the club was going to build condos beside the 18th fairway, the Nicklaus company would remove the "Signature" designation from the course.  I was just wondering what the post-opening influence of architects typically is.

Cheers.

--Tim

[Dan Herrmann]

Tim,
We went through a period of a few years where our architect wasn't too involved with our course (a lot had to do with previous management).  But that was rectified, and we see him or folks from his firm from time to time.  Of course, it helps that it's a local firm.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

It's entirely dependent on the architect maintaining a good relationship with the client, so the client will want to consult him about set-up and potential changes.

Nicklaus often puts in his contract that he can pull his name off a course if he doesn't like a change.  I don't know the mechanism, exactly -- perhaps there is a licensing fee for using his name payable annually, which he can refuse based on changes.  Anyway, there are not many architects who could present a contract like that at the beginning of a job and not get the boot!  And why would we even try? -- it's basically a sign of weakness to say that you anticipate the client making changes to the course you won't agree with.

[bstark]

Tom,

  What is the situation over at Sebonack? Are they going to redo some of the green complexes?

[Lou_Duran]

Tim:
Anyway, there are not many architects who could present a contract like that at the beginning of a job and not get the boot!  And why would we even try? -- it's basically a sign of weakness to say that you anticipate the client making changes to the course you won't agree with.

This sounds contradictory to me.  On the one hand Nicklaus has the strength to demand a concession that is seen as harmful or too restrictive to the owner.  On the other he is too weak because he anticipates the desire by someone else to tinker with his work.

An alternative explanation might be that Nicklaus is protecting his brand by retaining some influence on future changes, something that ALL courses experience.  A more sinister view, which I DO NOT hold, is that he is trying to line his pockets for future renovation work.

It is too bad that more architects don't have this barganing power.  Crown Colony, an excellent vonHagge/Devlin course in east Texas, has been greatly damaged in my view by the surrounding development the owners allowed.  On one tee, there is probably not much more than 10 yards separation from some rather unattractive patio homes.

A friend, who is doing very well despite this terrible business environment and with but a fraction of Nicklaus's or Doak's marketing power, takes a very intense client oriented approach.  His goes several steps further than being available to the owner, working closely with the superintendent and his staff, the club pros, and the managers.  He even goes well out of his way to be attentive and nice to the restaurant people, the cart girl, the waiter and waitress.  Most of his relationships are long term and he gets any number of referrals as a result.  Many of his jobs are too small for some of the bigger names, and perhaps not individually profitable.  He is a very competent gca and a decent golfer, but, from my perspective, what separates him from the pack is how he deals with people.  He is involved in many aspects after he finishes a project- course setup, ongoing maintenance, long range plans, etc.   

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:

Your friend is to be commended but I don't think his approach is all that rare.  Most architects I know go out of their way to help their new courses with whatever they need ... helping find a superintendent, answering questions, making follow-up visits, writing marketing materials, doing interviews to get the course in the press, making recommendations on hole locations, etc., etc.  It's part of being a parent.

[Anthony Butler]

Tim:

It's entirely dependent on the architect maintaining a good relationship with the client, so the client will want to consult him about set-up and potential changes.

Nicklaus often puts in his contract that he can pull his name off a course if he doesn't like a change.  I don't know the mechanism, exactly -- perhaps there is a licensing fee for using his name payable annually, which he can refuse based on changes.  Anyway, there are not many architects who could present a contract like that at the beginning of a job and not get the boot!  And why would we even try? -- it's basically a sign of weakness to say that you anticipate the client making changes to the course you won't agree with.

The other way to maintain your influence at a course is to be a really famous ODG. At some point, someone like Tom Doak will be handed the job of restoring your original design so your work can be appreciated all over again. 

Of course, if the world doesn't end in the next 60 years, GCA.com (run by Ran's grandson) will be hosting arguments on what the original architect's intent was at Highpointe as some architect adds 300 yards onto each nine to recapture the Doak 'shot values' .

[Lou_Duran]

Lou:

Your friend is to be commended but I don't think his approach is all that rare.  Most architects I know go out of their way to help their new courses with whatever they need ... helping find a superintendent, answering questions, making follow-up visits, writing marketing materials, doing interviews to get the course in the press, making recommendations on hole locations, etc., etc.  It's part of being a parent.

I once had dinner with a young architect who made the interesting observation about a rather sycophantic acquaintance that all it took was giving this guy the time of day.  I've been around quite a few architects and it is true that most are nice enough, but those who "give the time of day" to someone not perceived as having an impact on their bottom line seem somewhat rare.

I can tell you that when I was a rater with Golfweek I was treated much differently than now that I am not (e.g. a well-known architect who learned that I was playing a course nearby one of his projects came out to meet me, but when I followed up a couple of years later to play his completed work and I disclosed that I was no longer on the panel, he could do nothing to help me play his course- it took me one call to someone else to gain access to the private, but not so exclusive course).  You would be surprised how often I hear from owners or managers that the designers of their courses never visit or make contact.

Things might change in these dire economic times out of necessity, but my friend has been that way since the day I met him.   

[Mike_Young]

Lou,
I am gong to treat you the same whether you are a rater or not.....
I have met some pompous ass architects....I have met some pompous ass golf professionals....I have met some pompous ass professional golfers.....I have met some pompous ass golf supts.....there are people that treat people differently based on what they can get from them....and then there are those that don't.....it's a character flaw that spans the human race.....don't you agree?

But I try my best to help my golf courses as much as I can.....Like TD says...it's like being a parent.....

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:

Is your friend a local architect with most of his projects close to home?

It makes a huge difference.  While I've always been around to offer a hand at High Pointe and Black Forest, and while I've made steady return trips to Bandon and to Stonewall, it's just not possible to keep up with that once you have built 25-30 courses in far-flung places, and are continuing to add to the list.  I haven't been back to Barnbougle Dunes since opening day [and I would love to go].

Likewise, some architects are so busy worrying about 1,000 panelists for the various magazines that they do not have time for everyone else.

I have done my best to keep up with people from the beginning, because I remember how disappointed I was that so few golf course architects bothered to respond to my letters when I was 18 [even though EVERYONE else in the golf business responded with advice].  But I already spend way too much time here, and there are still plenty who slip through the cracks.  I can't imagine what Tom Fazio must try to keep up with ... and I've seen what Jack Nicklaus has to keep up with and I'm glad it's not me!

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, any architect ought to leave a club with a set of detailed "instructions" when he pulls out of town after the job is done. Those "instructions" (intentions, whatever) could be as detailed as he wants to make them and they should definitely include some maintenance instructions, setup instructions (including maximum greenspeed etc).

[Mike_Young]

In my opinion, any architect ought to leave a club with a set of detailed "instructions" when he pulls out of town after the job is done. Those "instructions" (intentions, whatever) could be as detailed as he wants to make them and they should definitely include some maintenance instructions, setup instructions (including maximum greenspeed etc).

TP,
I think most do as you describe above..BUT who is there to enforce such f the supt or owner or golf pro wants different AND for most of us..our projects don't have the budgets to keep us too much involved.....JMO

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()