Architects vs. Production Houses

[Jeff Dawson]

In an effort to stop Ran from begging me to post on GCA....here you go....

Architects are like lawyers....... we have too many of them. Or do we?? I would argue we don't, but we may have had too many producers of golf courses and not enough architects over the last 30 years. Lets divide them into two categories

Architects
Coore Crenshaw
Doak
Hanse....

Producers
Nicklaus
Fazio

America doesn't need more golf production house courses but it does need more great ones. I have never walked on a Producers golf course and had my emotions stirred, but give me Friar's Head or Bandon or Cypress Point or Cruden Bay and the blood starts running.

[Ed Oden]

Jeff, good to see you finally take the plunge.  While I generally agree with your premise, don't underestimate the ability of the "Producers" to create inspirational designs with superb architecture.  Clearly they can do so, although maybe not with the same frequency or to the same degree as the "Architects" you reference.  I look forward to showing you at least one example.

Welcome to the board!

Ed

[Mike Nuzzo]

wow
welcome aboard
what is the outpost club? - site looks nice

I agree with you that playing it safe doesn't lead to greatness
why did you name the list of architects?
I ask because I can easily see some picking and placing names where they belong

I will guess that sometimes a producer firm may create something stirring
We'll see what Ed comes up with

[John Gosselin]

What catagory is Ross?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the better measure would be courses per architects on staff.  Fazio and JN have many ASGCA members and other experienced personell and designers on staff.  So, if they did fifty courses when busy with 20 qualified architects their production rate was the same as Bill Coore by himself, at about 2-3 courses per year per gca on the staff, no?

While I could probably name a few production type gca's none of them would be name architects and I seriously doubt that many clients would hire big name guys without lots of personal attention from them, or they wouldn't justify their fees even with the marketing buzz their names produce.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, having 20 ASGCA members on staff would produce umpteen great designs, there are innumerable examples of firms like that.  

Then again, Jeff D., I was surprised to see myself listed as an "architect" and not a "production house".  I think the main difference in how our jobs are organized as compared to Nicklaus or Fazio's firms is that we put multiple people on site at each project to ensure the course is built exactly as we would like it, whereas they are happy with the Name Designer making 5-10 one day visits, a "lead associate" visiting once a week or so, and perhaps a non-ASGCA "site coordinator" baby-sitting the project on an everyday basis, plus one of the big golf course contractors actually doing the work.  In the boom, even those "lead associates" were responsible for 4-5 projects at the same time!  [Jeff B., have you ever tried to do that much work at the same time?  Do you think it's practical?]  Personally, I think that talented CONSTRUCTION people are more important to the finished product than "design associates," so it is no accident that my own guys are both at once.

Even so, Jeff D., I think you are confusing great sites and great designs.  Anybody was going to build something that looked exciting at Sand Hills or Cape Kidnappers [which is not to say that everybody would have built something as good as those courses turned out].  To say that Renaissance Golf or Coore & Crenshaw have a superior approach, you have to say it about our more modest projects, like Common Ground or Sugarloaf Mountain.  I don't really know if you can make that case or not.  On the other hand, I don't know how many $40 public courses Tom Fazio has built lately for $4 million all-in.

Over the past ten years I have heard many young associates at big firms say they wished their firm could approach jobs more like we do.  The truth is, the only thing stopping them is that their bosses want to make more money, instead of wanting to build better courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

My ratio of projects to people on my staff never exceeded two courses per qualified/talented designer.  If JN or TF ever got to 4-5 per person, I agree the quality would suffer a bit.  Even then, as time went on, I did all my own field work, even allowing for the fact that when busy, if an associate would get 80% or more (up to maybe 125%) of the quality I would like, then I was happy.

For my best projects, I have put in up to 60 hotel nights each, which translates to 90 days of my time.  Just out of curiosity, how many days do put in on a range of jobs?

I always have trouble comparing either design or construction "talent" at various organizations, whether Tom Doak, Jack Nicklaus, or Wadsworth, LUI, etc.  For some reason, all firms claim to have the best! 

I know there is a lot of talent out there at nearly every golf company that does design or construction regardless of affiliation with ASGCA, GCBAA, etc.  I also know a lot of the talent has worked for more than one organization.  I believe experience and varied experience helps, although many here seem to think that some young kid building his first project is always more qualified (or at least more "pure of heart" than someone who has been at it a while as if time in the business somehow automatically jades someone. 

I agree that many here confuse great sites with great design. I also think the OP confuses his taste in design with how it gets built.  There is no need really (although some here feel differently) to try to elevate the favored few by knocking others with a quick dismissal as a "production house" just because he likes your or CC's style of design.

[Jeff Dawson]

My point is simple... an architect is someone who creates, spends days or weeks on site routing and building....creating.  I have had the pleasure of seeing Bill Coore do just that.  A production house is a group (Nicklaus) that hits print at the home office and stamps it out on the property.  I think had a production house designed Sand Hills they would have taken a property ranked a 10 and built a golf course ranked a 7.  While Nicklaus or Fazio get design credit for the courses they build, do they really route, create and design or is it done by staff.  A one day drop in does not an architect make. 

My point is... I would rather play a course built by an architect not a production house.  I don't think it depends on quality of site. I would rather enjoy a day at Chechessee than say Berkeley Hall (Fazio).  I truly cannot think of one inspirting design (I beleive Keiser calls it "Dream Golf") stamped out by a production house.

Its the difference between having your shoes made by John Lobb or purchasing ready mades at the mall.

[Michael Dugger]

I think had a production house designed Sand Hills they would have taken a property ranked a 10 and built a golf course ranked a 7. 

Hard to argue here, it's called Dismal River.

[Tom_Doak]

Dismal River was nowhere near as good a site as Sand Hills.  [But it isn't a 7 in my book, either.]

Jeff B:  If you are going to go by days on the road, we all put in about 150 days, so by your math everybody's equal.  Of course, for Old Macdonald, in addition to my days (I think it was 45-50 for the planning and construction), we had [I'm estimating here] 100+ days by Jim Urbina, 80-100 days by Brian Slawnik, 45 days by Brian Schneider, 30 days by Bruce Hepner, and 30 days by Eric Iverson, plus assorted former interns. 

I suppose Landscapes Unlimited would have put in even more days than my guys, which is why they will probably have built 4-5 courses better than Old Macdonald in the rankings this year.

P.S.  I didn't knock anybody as a "production house" ... I did say that many architects were more interested in making money than in building something great.  That ought to be even more controversial than what Jeff D. said, but you didn't choose to dismiss my comment.

[Bill_McBride]

Interestingly, the big move in commercial building construction is toward design/build.  It's cost effective for the owner and allows the architect/builder to turn on a dime during construction.  Other elements take no more time - design and permitting.  Design can be overlapped with construction in certain situations.  Time is money., that's the reason for this movement toward design/build.  Accountability is another, no finger pointing between architect and builder.

The parallel in golf course architecture would be the kind of work Tom  Doak's team performs, and Mike Young as well.  Do C&C get that far into the building?  I know they hire shapers.  Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Point is another excellent example of design/build.  Who else would be considered design/build?

[Brian Phillips]

Over the past ten years I have heard many young associates at big firms say they wished their firm could approach jobs more like we do.  The truth is, the only thing stopping them is that their bosses want to make more money, instead of wanting to build better courses.

They also have a choice of going alone themselves.  If you don't like the way your boss runs the company get off the wage wagon.  I get sick of Associates saying - "...it is not my design, I am just the Associate...". That is biting the hand that feeds you.

The parallel in golf course architecture would be the kind of work Tom  Doak's team performs, and Mike Young as sell.  Do C&C get that far into the building?  I know they hire shapers.  Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Point is another excellent example of design/build.  Who else would be considered design/build?

Every green we have designed has been built by ourselves and nearly every course we have designed has been built by us with local contractors contracted "under" us as our sub-contractors.  We probably take on more risk than any other company on this board and it has bitten us a few times now and I am learning damn fast about being a tough nut with suppliers and the like.  2009 was a damn tough year.

Design and Build is a very tough way to design.  There is a lot of responsibility that a "production" company can just shrug off and point the finger when "they" want to move a green when they feel like it and it is in the contract that they can move stuff as much as they want.

I have been so close to standing up at places like the KPMG conference or the EGCOA conference when people start spouting out about the big "production" companies and how good they are and how much $ they add to a project because of their name.

If these guys design as many as they all claim to design on so many great sites that they also boast about then they must be pretty crap when compared to how many "production" companies  actually have Top 100 golf courses.

We would love to get hold of just half the construction budget that many of the "production" companies are given.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak,

No, I didn't dismiss your comment because I know you know what you are talking about.  As for the other Jeff posting here, I am not quite as sure!

Obviously, I can't do the math for other gca's.  In the end, I suspect that they don't get JN for 45 days like you gave at OM but the other time spent by associates is similar, especially if they have a good relationship with the contractors talented people.  So, you win on the 45 days over JN and for the rest its an argument of who has more talent in their organization, only to be settled on how much anyone in particular likes the end result.

It is an interesting topic.  There is always a business side to gca and you have alluded to it yourself recently, saying that building just one at a time IS impractical in terms of generating enough revenue, interest in your firm, etc. to keep you in the kind of projects you want to do (which right now, like the rest of us, might be any kind of project)  Whenever topics like this come up, it seems as if the business side gets used against the most famous gca's, as if Ross, Tillie, Bell and others weren't facing similar problems.  For many posters, it seems that if they like a course, then motives are "pure" and if they don't, it was designed by a greedy SOB

Now, have all of us been offered more and less desireable projects and taken some of the less desireable ones?  Of cousre.  Does JN taking housing courses to make use of his name qualify?  Maybe. Does taking on all comers qualify, if there does happen to be a tendency to repeat designs on the least "important" or most benign site?  Of course.  No question that a firm that has had as many as 55 courses at one time probably gave some more attention than others.

I got the feeling that JN's associates gave Dismal River plenty of attention and tried a lot of new stuff for them.  The results have been rebuilt and its not as highly regarded as Sand Hills, so some discussions as to why might be in order, since they had basically the same opportunity.  Personally, I think most courses built out there will eventually be compared to the original and found to be no better, and thus, inferior to SH.  There is no question that CC and SH was one of the great matches of gca, style, site and owner of all time.

[Eric Smith]

I wonder if we're at the crossing point yet in terms of the # of players who would seek out a new course by Nicklaus versus the # of players who would seek out a new course by Doak?  If not yet now, when?

My dad had a box of old high-8 videos converted to dvds for Christmas this year and we watched a lot of them over the holidays. One in particular that I hadn't seen in 15 years was of me getting on a friends jet to fly back home to Hilton Head, when I lived there. This was at the Crossville, TN airport and the video shows the jet parked next to the one I'm getting on, it's tail number is something like N1-JN1.  It was 'Air Bear' as it's called, and Mr. Nicklaus was in Crossville routing his Bear Trace course!  Back then I thought that was the ultimate, having the greatest of all time designing a course 3 miles from my parent's house!

Sadly, it is a fairly pedestrian golf course on a pretty nice piece of state park property.  I think they're still doing 21-24,000 rounds and it is fairly sought out by out of staters on golf packages to Fairfield Glade, etc. but it is by no means special.

Fast forward to now and I'd love to see what a new course in the area by Renaissance or C&C would do in terms of # of rounds.  I think it would surprise a lot of folks what a great golf course could do #'s wise in the market.

[Richard Choi]

Does it matter if it is Architects or Production Houses? Isn't the result the only thing that matters?

How many days did MacKenzie spend working on Royal Melbourne? In the end, did it matter? If not, why does it matter for others?

[Tom_Doak]

Richard:

Exactly.  In the end, it's the courses which count, not the number of days.  I do think you can tell something from how different people arrive at their end product, but that's still more about the people than it is about the courses.

[Jeff Dawson]

Perhaps you could argue it isnt the number of days on site that matters, but I would love for you to give me an example of a production house course built in the last 30 years where the architect spent much REAL time on the property and produced an inspired golf course.

Perhaps the argument is not the number of days on property, but the number of projects underway at one time.  While production houses can produce NICE courses I cannot sit hear and think of one I would like to play right now.  It is interesting to me that with Nicklaus and Fazio designing hundreds of courses over the last 30 years none of them inspire me to want to play golf.  However I have great desire to play a number of the hand full of courses that Coore or Doak etc. have built.   

[JMEvensky]

Its the difference between having your shoes made by John Lobb or purchasing ready mades at the mall.

I think I understand the point you're making.An architect who personally oversees each/every decision will presumably produce a better golf course than one who delegates.

However,isn't it possible that a production house could instill close to the same quality?You might not get an architect's sole attention but you do get the benefit of that which he's taught his associates.

After all,Lobb makes the best ready-to-wear shoes money can buy.

[Ryan Farrow]

As long as an architect is on site enough to make the right "big" decisions and you have some talented shapers you are going to get a fine golf course.

Production house or not.


The problem is the big decisions are more often then not, wrong.

[Tom_Doak]

As long as an architect is on site enough to make the right "big" decisions and you have some talented shapers you are going to get a fine golf course.

Production house or not.


The problem is the big decisions are more often then not, wrong.

Funny, and all too often true.  I have seen design associates just wince at the decisions their bosses make on a one-day swing through a project.  My own guys might even do it from time to time, although I'm usually there for at least 2-3 days to try and talk them down from their opinions.

[Kyle Henderson]

As long as an architect is on site enough to make the right "big" decisions and you have some talented shapers you are going to get a fine golf course.

Production house or not.


The problem is the big decisions are more often then not, wrong.

Funny, and all too often true.  I have seen design associates just wince at the decisions their bosses make on a one-day swing through a project.  My own guys might even do it from time to time, although I'm usually there for at least 2-3 days to try and talk them down from their opinions.

Do your associates ever talk you down from your opinions?

(No barb intended. I'm genuinely curious about the processes employed by your firm.)

[Tim Nugent]

I find it interesting that some feel that getting an Associate from a Production house is inferior to getting the Name. Would you really want Jack or would you rather have Jim Lipe or Chris Cochran?  I've alway felt that it's the final 10% that makes or breaks a course.  Then again, when with a Production house, I was a field guy, not an office guy.  Having an experience "eye" in the field is critical - whether that eye is in the head of an architect or a builder.  One of the reasons builders like Landscapes or Wadsworth got the Production jobs was that the Name was confident in the quality control.  In fact, one of the slams on design-build is that the fox is watching the hen house.  I think this is changing as owners are getting more involved.
Jeff relates the business side that purest want to pretend doesn't exist.  The Catch-22 in golf design/construction is it isn't a steady flow of work or income.  A production firm or big contractor may take a less-than-desirerable job just to keep trained, experienced personnel on staff so they have them for the next job.  You see this know where the big contractors are buying piddly jobs that they wouldn't even bothered with a few years ago, and forcing the little builders out of existance.  Architects are taking over the construction because they can.  They have the time.  And, with the trend in design being "less is more",  the need for capital intensive fleets of equipment isn't as great, so barriers to entry have been reduced.  Need a dozer, go rent one.  Need laborers, hire a grounds crew.  Need a foreman, hire a superintendent.  It's cheaper in the long run plus the overhead is lower and profit disappears.

[Mike_Young]

KBM,
IMHO...Ross was producer.....with templates

_____________

I think the future is going to see more of a hybrid...a designer/builder  and as TD says above the talented construction people are more critical than design associates....market will dictate....an architect will be paid what his services are worth and hype will melt away....

[Tom_Doak]

Do your associates ever talk you down from your opinions?

(No barb intended. I'm genuinely curious about the processes employed by your firm.)

Yes, they do.  When they have good ideas, I let them run with it ... they don't even have to call me to change the plan if they are certain it's the right thing to do.  But they know I'm going to have another look at it, so they'd better be right.

While walking around in Florida last week, we changed five holes significantly from the plan that Bill Coore and I had come up with the month before, as a result of Bruce Hepner and Brian Schneider chipping in with ideas [or by me asking them what they thought of a different alternative].

The only problem with this is that they get to thinking they're always right, and occasionally I have a hard time getting them to give up on their idea and do what I want them to.  But eventually I get my way.

[Tim Nugent]

Tom, I had a Soils Mechanics professor who used to say "when you get the sweet ass, you lose all objectivity".  I finally got up the nerve to ask him what he meant by that (he was pretty scarey - brillant, but scarey) he said, "when you fall in love with your idea or design solution, you run the risk of not being able to see the merits of any other solution".  Some of the best advice I ever got.