Designers , Architects or have we confused ourselves as well as the world...

[Melvyn Morrow]

… by calling our golf course designers, Architects?

I have preferred to use the word Designer when discussing who designed the lay out of the holes on a golf course. I have never been happy with the term architect as in my past life I dealt with many who seemed to know a little about a lot. Where as I knew a lot about a little in my field of design and project management.

I or my company in the past have been commissioned by the clients to design and build sub-sections of their projects where the architect’s knowledge was limited. We became part of the Design Team then oversaw our own Build phase(s). Therefore, my experience is that the Architect heads a whole Design Team of Specialist bring the whole project together under his supervision. Some architectural firms are big enough to employ many specialists, but also have to call in additional expertise for specific projects. In fact, I recall one major Hotel in London being built, with the Architect forgetting to site and design the commercial kitchen, but remembered the Restaurant. The discovery was not noticed until the building had been erected. A ship without its engines being noticed prior to its being launched, it was a rather major problem that was finally overcome with some interesting compromises.   

However, with a golf course do we need architects in the true sense of the word or are we just borrowing a name? I presume as in the old days there are the commissions to design only a course on a given section of land as well as the complete Design and Build of a golf course. Yet I wonder if using the term Architect is right. From my understanding, Tom Doak is not keen and prefers the word Designer, which I totally agree with when relating it to golf.

Do you prefer to be called an Architect or Designer and can you give the reason why, because it has on more than one occasion been slightly confusing. Golf Course Architecture I understand, but does that really mean the title of Architect is correct?

Melvyn
   

[TEPaul]

I don't think we have confused ourselves or the world much at all by using the terms designer and architect interchangeably.

[Philippe Binette]

golf designer to me is somebody who brings in a idea input in a project

a golf architect is somebody who brings ideas in a project but has to technical knowledge, whether on site or on plan, to execute them...

PGA tour pros are designers for most part with that definition

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are lots of good arguments for Design being a subset of Architecture... There are lots of good arguments for Architecture being a subset of Design....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

A rose is a rose by any name, no?

In this day and age, using designer rather than architect is an attempt to downgrade ones own qualifications and hope that it downsizes expectations.  This is tied to many licscencing laws, etc. that prohibit one from using the term architect (or landscape architect) unless you have passed the state exam for such.

There are many, many threads on this topic over the years. It seems to come up every year as regularly as the tulips.

[Dan Herrmann]

Melvyn,
Is golf course architecture a subset of landscape architecture?  (I think it is)
Therefore, I think the terms are OK as-is.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

I know and agree, but thought it an idea to get off the Tiger subject for a short while

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

Well played sir, and my apologies!

[Forrest Richardson]

Good points....I just prefer to be called !

[Anthony Gray]

  So what is the politicaly correct term?

  Anthony

[Bill Brightly]

My dictionary stays this:

Architect: one who desidns and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.

Seems to me that if you call someone a golf course designer, you are saying he did not oversee the construction. I bet there are plenty of Donald Ross "designs" and far fewer courses "built by" Ross, would you agree?

[Melvyn Morrow]

I prefer to know who actually designed the course. I am not that worried as to who built the course taking it from design phase into a finished course.

I am interested in the guy who put the game on the board, who set the challenge, the reason why I would want to play that course. The construction is I suppose with modern courses just of secondary importance unlike the natural course of the 19th century and of course not forgetting Askernish.

The designer for me is the guy I follow, if indeed I was into following, but I expect it’s like your favourite author, his name attracts your attention in the first place. Therefore, The Designer needs to be highlighted and accredited for his work.

With no disrespect to anyone give me a plan and I can get a team together (with enough money, that is) and build that design. It may not be that good but it would greatly depend upon the specialist I employ.

So sorry to all architects, I seek the designer.

No, I will not be drawn into the Castle Course after all we are talking about proper golf courses, aren’t we 

Melvyn
   

[Sean_A]

My dictionary stays this:

Architect: one who desidns and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.

Seems to me that if you call someone a golf course designer, you are saying he did not oversee the construction. I bet there are plenty of Donald Ross "designs" and far fewer courses "built by" Ross, would you agree?

It seems to me that "supervises" the construction is a key ingredient if we are to take the above definition at face value.  What does supervise mean?  IMO, "one who designs and is responsible for construction" is a better way to put it, but then I believe the construction part of the project is very important because the potential greatness of a course is in the details.  Ideally, if I were paying for a course to be built I would want the designer on site and responsible for the construction for however many days it takes to ensure the design comes to proper fruition. 

So far as the terms,"designer" and "architect" go, I don't think it matters much so long as the responsibilities of the person are clearly delineated.

Ciao

[Michael Blake]

I'll take the person who can design AND build the course.  
The debate over their title is just semantics.

[Ally Mcintosh]

My dictionary stays this:

Architect: one who desidns and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.

Seems to me that if you call someone a golf course designer, you are saying he did not oversee the construction. I bet there are plenty of Donald Ross "designs" and far fewer courses "built by" Ross, would you agree?

It seems to me that "supervises" the construction is a key ingredient if we are to take the above definition at face value.  What does supervise mean?  IMO, "one who designs and is responsible for construction" is a better way to put it, but then I believe the construction part of the project is very important because the potential greatness of a course is in the details.  Ideally, if I were paying for a course to be built I would want the designer on site and responsible for the construction for however many days it takes to ensure the design comes to proper fruition. 

So far as the terms,"designer" and "architect" go, I don't think it matters much so long as the responsibilities of the person are clearly delineated.

Ciao

I think that definition of an architect is woefully simplistic and quite false.

The Architect is never the Project Supervisor of the Construction Phase... The Architect may fulfil that role but he fulfills it not as the Architect but as the Contractor or the Construction Manager...

If the Architect is not hired on a Design-Build contract, he will more often than not still be retained to provide Design Supervision in the Construction Phase (Note - not Construction Supervision)... This will often not be a full-time role. A separate contractor will have been hired to manage the Construction.

Sean, as a Client stumping up the money, you can either hire a Design-Build firm or you can go the traditional separate contract route (i.e. one for Architect and one for Contractor) and pay the extra money to the Architect to ensure he has a full time presence on site - Preferable of course... but extra cash.... As for the potential greatness of a course is in the detail, absolutely! But you could argue that the best "technical architect" is the one that provides those details in drawings and specs and then tenders for a contractor to build that course exactly as he designed it... Architects who design this way will argue that there is also better cost certainty (i.e. budget management) and ethical reasons that this is their preferred approach... Of course, Architects who go the Design-Build route will argue that they have more "creative control" and that because Golf Course Design is not an exact science, there must always be the scope for creative change in the field.

As for Design versus Architect... Jeff argues that Design is only part of Architecture... and of course there are many arguments why this can be said... But also consider that Architects are only one part of the Design process where there are also Civil Engineers, Irrigation Consultants and others employed, all who contribute in "Designing" the golf course....

[Sean_A]

My dictionary stays this:

Architect: one who desidns and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.

Seems to me that if you call someone a golf course designer, you are saying he did not oversee the construction. I bet there are plenty of Donald Ross "designs" and far fewer courses "built by" Ross, would you agree?

It seems to me that "supervises" the construction is a key ingredient if we are to take the above definition at face value.  What does supervise mean?  IMO, "one who designs and is responsible for construction" is a better way to put it, but then I believe the construction part of the project is very important because the potential greatness of a course is in the details.  Ideally, if I were paying for a course to be built I would want the designer on site and responsible for the construction for however many days it takes to ensure the design comes to proper fruition. 

So far as the terms,"designer" and "architect" go, I don't think it matters much so long as the responsibilities of the person are clearly delineated.

Ciao

I think that definition of an architect is woefully simplistic and quite false.

The Architect is never the Project Supervisor of the Construction Phase... The Architect may fulfil that role but he fulfills it not as the Architect but as the Contractor or the Construction Manager...

If the Architect is not hired on a Design-Build contract, he will more often than not still be retained to provide Design Supervision in the Construction Phase (Note - not Construction Supervision)... This will often not be a full-time role. A separate contractor will have been hired to manage the Construction.

Sean, as a Client stumping up the money, you can either hire a Design-Build firm or you can go the traditional separate contract route (i.e. one for Architect and one for Contractor) and pay the extra money to the Architect to ensure he has a full time presence on site - Preferable of course... but extra cash.... As for the potential greatness of a course is in the detail, absolutely! But you could argue that the best "technical architect" is the one that provides those details in drawings and specs and then tenders for a contractor to build that course exactly as he designed it... Architects who design this way will argue that there is also better cost certainty (i.e. budget management) and ethical reasons that this is their preferred approach... Of course, Architects who go the Design-Build route will argue that they have more "creative control" and that because Golf Course Design is not an exact science, there must always be the scope for creative change in the field.

As for Design versus Architect... Jeff argues that Design is only part of Architecture... and of course there are many arguments why this can be said... But also consider that Architects are only one part of the Design process where there are also Civil Engineers, Irrigation Consultants and others employed, all who contribute in "Designing" the golf course....

Ally

I think that is rather the point - the simpler the better.  However, I didn't say I want the archie to be supervisor, I said responsible for construction - that is a very different thing.  I would want to deal with one man for the bottom line and that means he must also be in control of the construction from the PoV of being responsible.  Who better to implement the ideas and make necessary (and unnecessary) changes than the architect?   For sure I can accept that not everything is going to run through the archie, but I would want the archie to be responsible for the lot.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

My dictionary stays this:

Architect: one who desidns and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.

Seems to me that if you call someone a golf course designer, you are saying he did not oversee the construction. I bet there are plenty of Donald Ross "designs" and far fewer courses "built by" Ross, would you agree?

It seems to me that "supervises" the construction is a key ingredient if we are to take the above definition at face value.  What does supervise mean?  IMO, "one who designs and is responsible for construction" is a better way to put it, but then I believe the construction part of the project is very important because the potential greatness of a course is in the details.  Ideally, if I were paying for a course to be built I would want the designer on site and responsible for the construction for however many days it takes to ensure the design comes to proper fruition. 

So far as the terms,"designer" and "architect" go, I don't think it matters much so long as the responsibilities of the person are clearly delineated.

Ciao

I think that definition of an architect is woefully simplistic and quite false.

The Architect is never the Project Supervisor of the Construction Phase... The Architect may fulfil that role but he fulfills it not as the Architect but as the Contractor or the Construction Manager...

If the Architect is not hired on a Design-Build contract, he will more often than not still be retained to provide Design Supervision in the Construction Phase (Note - not Construction Supervision)... This will often not be a full-time role. A separate contractor will have been hired to manage the Construction.

Sean, as a Client stumping up the money, you can either hire a Design-Build firm or you can go the traditional separate contract route (i.e. one for Architect and one for Contractor) and pay the extra money to the Architect to ensure he has a full time presence on site - Preferable of course... but extra cash.... As for the potential greatness of a course is in the detail, absolutely! But you could argue that the best "technical architect" is the one that provides those details in drawings and specs and then tenders for a contractor to build that course exactly as he designed it... Architects who design this way will argue that there is also better cost certainty (i.e. budget management) and ethical reasons that this is their preferred approach... Of course, Architects who go the Design-Build route will argue that they have more "creative control" and that because Golf Course Design is not an exact science, there must always be the scope for creative change in the field.

As for Design versus Architect... Jeff argues that Design is only part of Architecture... and of course there are many arguments why this can be said... But also consider that Architects are only one part of the Design process where there are also Civil Engineers, Irrigation Consultants and others employed, all who contribute in "Designing" the golf course....

Ally

I think that is rather the point - the simpler the better.  However, I didn't say I want the archie to be supervisor, I said responsible for construction - that is a very different thing.  I would want to deal with one man for the bottom line and that means he must also be in control of the construction from the PoV of being responsible.  Who better to implement the ideas and make necessary (and unnecessary) changes than the architect?   For sure I can accept that not everything is going to run through the archie, but I would want the archie to be responsible for the lot.

Ciao

And for that Sean, you would most definitely have to go the Design-Build route... But in contractual terms, you no longer have an "Architect" - you only have a "Design-Build" firm...

I wasn't actually questioning your definition.. It was the dictionary definition of "Architect" that I find to be false...

[Michael Blake]

There was an interesting article in Golf Coure Industry a few months back about design/build written by Bob Lohmann.  Can't find the link but the exact article is from his site here:

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs091/1102470517087/archive/1102777954117.html

[Brian Phillips]

And for that Sean, you would most definitely have to go the Design-Build route... But in contractual terms, you no longer have an "Architect" - you only have a "Design-Build" firm...

I wasn't actually questioning your definition.. It was the dictionary definition of "Architect" that I find to be false...

Ally,

You have a Design and Build firm with an in-house Architect.

Just like Niblick Golf Design... 

[Ally Mcintosh]

And for that Sean, you would most definitely have to go the Design-Build route... But in contractual terms, you no longer have an "Architect" - you only have a "Design-Build" firm...

I wasn't actually questioning your definition.. It was the dictionary definition of "Architect" that I find to be false...

Ally,

You have a Design and Build firm with an in-house Architect.

Just like Niblick Golf Design... 

Sorry Brian,

My use of the word "only" when referring to Design-Build firm was misleading... I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense (if you even took it that way)... I'm just playing about with what the words "Architect" and "Design" can actually mean... Trying to show that certain terms are used depending on the contracting strategy of any one project - and therefore making a mockery of any differentiation between them...

e.g. In your example, you refer to an individual "Architect" as opposed to the contractual "Architect" which is the company...

Maybe we could say that you have a Golf Course Architect firm with an in-house Designer?

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn, I may have misled you in our earlier conversation on this topic.

I do not really care which title anyone uses for me, because I am proud that I am involved in all phases of the operation.

Some designers do not want to be called architects for liability reasons (certainly more than for giving someone else credit for the routing!).  Some like to be called architects because they think being seen as a builder is less professional.

I think the most important parts of the job are the routing, the plan for earthmoving, and the shaping of greens and bunkers, so those are the parts I spend my time on, whatever anyone calls me.

[Dan Herrmann]

[Steve Burrows]

Certain post-modern critical theorists, notably Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes, might suggest that this is the wrong question to ask altogether.  For them, it is not really a matter of the words "designer" or "architect," but rather why we are so fixated on having a separation between designer and golfer in the first place?  Read the passage below by Barthes, trying to replace each mention of an author/scriptor/writer with the word "designer," and each mention of the text/book with "golf course." 

"...the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, is not the subject with the book as predicate; there is no other time than that of the enunciation and every text is eternally written here and now."

What he is saying here is that the so-called designer is not special; he/she is simply part of an on-going, cultural process.  A golf course, then, is "designed" every time that a person plays it; it is a fluid occurrence, not something that happened 10, or even 100 years ago, but something that is ALWAYS happening. 

Ultimately, we are all designers...some just get paid to call it their profession.

[Jon Wiggett]

Why not go for Golf Course Creator