[Mark_Fine]

What is the ideal number of courses for an architect to be working on at any one time?  At one point Donald Ross had over 3000 people working on dozens and dozens of courses for him.  Is that too many?  

On the other hand, you would think working on only one course whould be ideal because the architect could give every bit of energy to that project.  Even when he is waiting for others to do the work they need to do, he could be out scouring over the site looking for every last little feature that could be incorporated into the design.  

So what is the right number?  

[archie struthers]

ONE

[Mike_Cirba]

In a perfect world, one.

Unfortunately, not too many modern architects are independently wealthy like George Crump.

[JakaB]

Crump seems more like a perfect owner than an architect to me.  He had the vision the financial backing and the good sense to die before completion....a common trait shared by many of our great leaders.

Owners are far more dangerous than architects.

[Mark_Fine]

How much should the $$$ or income from designing courses weigh into the answer?  Designing golf courses as a hobby is one thing, designing them as an occupation is another!  

[Craig Van Egmond]

I don't think there is a number that is ideal for everyone. It really depends on the philosophy and goals of the architect. I'm sure Coore and Crenshaw turn down some jobs because they only want to do 1 or 2 courses at a time, but I doubt if Nicklaus or Fazio ever turn down jobs.  Does quality suffer because of excess quantity?  

[John_Conley]

Mark:

I was going to say two is great and more is ideal, but then I read your thread was about something else.

[archie s.]

Mark, I was answering the question strictly from the "ideal" for the golf course, not from the business perspective of the architect. Obviously that question begs a much different answer. My feeling is if you were the owner, and had the undivided attention of your architect for your course, you would be very fortunate! If he was there every day, with the shapers, construction foreman, irrigation guys, drainage crew etc., etc. you would have 100% effort, anything less than that might be acceptable, but not ideal!

[TEPaul]

Read Bill Coore's interview on this website!

[jglenn]

Mark,

Using the term "architect", are we talking about a person or a company?  There's a big difference, obviously.

We all know that a golf course is rarely designed or supervised by the person who is given credit for the work.  Does this mean that the golf course will suffer?  Of course not.  

That's what delegation is for!  

"Hire good people", as they say.

[Tony Ristola]

I believe it is possible to do one at a time...it is something I have committed to for the past 5 years.  Yes there can be times where you're idle, especially at the start, but fees today aren't $30,000 like Dye joked about charging 20-25 years ago.  With the inflated fees today (Jack charges $600,000 plus and never visits the site, charges $1.5 million for a handful of visits) you can do one and charge a decent fee because on-site involvement speeds the effort due to timely decision making (saving time and money), and improves the quality of the product because direction is coming from "the horses mouth"...many developer/investors see the benefit in this and are willing to pay for it, especially in markets where a big name's fees and construction methods/costs would make the project's financial survival very challenging.

If permanent staff is hired though you've got to keep them busy and this creates a potentially viscious cycle of more projects, less time on-site and more time managing away from the field.  The architect becomes less and less involved with his projects.

If you have a solid staff committed to you, something which cannot be created overnight you can do one or two more like a couple offices do very successfully, but these offices are the exception, not the rule.

[Mark_Fine]

Tony,
But what happens when you pick up your latest issue of one of your monthly Golf Magazines and find out your most recent design was voted "best course of the month or something" and your phone starts ringing off the hook with new clients offering almost any fee you want to charge to design their dream golf course?  You've got seven kids to put through school and a wife who loves expensive jewelry.  Now what do you do  
Mark  

[redanman (Guest)]

For at least one modern architect of note I can think of, the correct answer is zero, null, zilch, nada.

hahahahahahaha

just kidding.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I guess what you do is start building a bunch more courses to pay for all those kids and that expensive jewelry and in the process spend much less time on each course which inevitably results in shittier courses! So what's new with that?

Coore & Crenshaw have loads more calls than they can handle and just turn it down to stick with their two course per year modus operandi! I hope that doesn't make me sound unnecessarily biased cuz it's just a fact!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tony,

I have to say that I respect your approach and find it very refreshing and idealistic.  I worry about the logistics that might be difficult.  After all, you can only turn down so many projects because you're working on one without creating the perception that you're either unattainable or inflexible.  

I wish you luck and hope that the timing works for you, because your ethics of on-site devotion is something that history suggests often produces the best courses.

[Tony Ristola]

Mark:  I would have more to choose from, plus I could charge more...the supply and demand situation.  I would also direct potential developers to people who obviously love the game and devote themselves to the task in a "hands-on" manner.  I've already spoken with a couple people who have a track record because this will happen...in fact is happening.

In a discussion with another architect on this site I said I would do routings (who knows when permitting comes through) and pass the work onto other committed architects and let them take full credit for the work.  That way they would surely fight like hell to get the best product out of the ground because their name would be on it.  A win-win for the guy responsible on-site and the developer.  Good for the developer and good for the game.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Do you think the number of courses C&C takes on has anything to do with how much time they want to dedicate to golf course design vs. other interests?  Would their courses really suffer if they did another 1 or 2 courses a year?  

I believe Crenshaw views this as a hobby and not an occupation?  He is not in it to make money.  Don't know about Coore?
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

That's actually a very interesting question. I can guarantee you that Bill Coore is extremely full time although Crenshaw never has been. But what if Crenshaw spent as much time on architecture as Coore does?

The way they've always worked would seem to indicate that they still might not do more, but if they did they might change their modus a bit where Ben would do a bit more on his own--maybe a little like Austin C.C.-with maybe Bill putting the quick time in on Ben's project that Ben does on the ones they do together now!

I really don't think that Bill would do more than two a year and if you read his interview on here you'd see why. I believe he's very serious about what he said about no more than two a year--and never more than three ever possibly opening in one year although even that's a bit misleading.

But just because Ben has always done other things and not put as much time in as Bill does not mean he treats architecture as a hobby instead of an occupation, if you mean he's not serious about it. No matter how much more time he put in I can't see that he could get much more serious about it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Oh I think Ben is very serious about it.  I just think he is not out to "capitalize" from a financial standpoint.  I look at hobbies as something that are for fun, not profit!  C&C is not out there to maximize shareholder equity!
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

You could not be more correct! If Coore and Crenshaw wanted just to make a great deal more money on architecture they could very definitely do that!

And by saying that, I'm not saying anything at all against those who want to make money in architecture. I'm saying nothing about feeding the kids or even buying the wife expensive jewelry and putting the seven kids through Harvard!

What I am saying is that if you want to do that and go higher production inevitably the architecture will probably suffer!

Coore and Crenshaw seem to want to put real quality architecture first with the way they have always operated and apparently plan to continure to operate. It does look like they put architecture first and money second that way, doesn't it?

Do you wonder why I like them so much and their architecture? Some people call my feeling bias--I just think it's reality!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

My experience is that no more than two under construction at anytime.  I do not send others to the site to do my work, so every site visit every week is mine.  I had one under construction on Long Island this past year to which I traveled every week from April, start of construction, to November, completion, and I look back and wonder if I could have handled one more.  It took a lot of time away from the office.  Construction is the key number.  I can have a few in the planning and permitting stages, but once construction starts, everything else must be worked in.  Proximity to the office is critical as well.  Long Island was an 8 hour roundtrip minimum.  I could have 3 under construction this year but all are within one hour of the office.  That means probably four days per week on site, and one day in the office, but no time lost to travel.  Preparation before construction is key.  Preparing the design well before construction begins by spending several days on the site puts me in a much better position to concentrate on the final greens and surroundings during construction.  

I can not imagine being given someone else's routing.  A routing is a very personal document that should come from several days walking the site.  I remember once being in von Hagge's office when he was having a phone conversation with Fazio.  Tom said the routing was not so important because he could fix a bad routing plan with dirt.  A terrible attitude I think.  The routing plan must come from the architect designing the course, and must come from days walking the site.  Just yesterday, I was invited to a meeting on a project that has a planned course routed by a land planner as a part of a residential development.  I told the owner that for me to be involved, the current plan gets scraped and I go onto the land and find his golf course.  It is too important to me to make sure I have absolute control over how the course hikes across the land.

[Will E]

Kelly,
Thanks for that most informative post.
I wish others shared your views regarding the routing of the course.

I'm curious to your thoughts regarding the routing of Pelican Marsh and Bay Colony. Were the plans to have the courses end up in the state there in today?

I've posted before of my positive feelings of your design at the Hideout did you feel a little cramped working on the parcel for the last six holes?

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Shooter,

Pelican Marsh, Bay Colony were routed in the office, little regard given to first hand site visits, mostly responding to site constraints as depicted on the map.  Residential layout along golf course was very important to WCI, so that had some impact on routing.  The first nine of both courses is what I worked on during construction.  The other nines of both courses were constructed after I left von Hagge.  My understanding was that the budgets for the second nines were considerably less than the first nines.

I never felt the last six holes were cramped at HideOut, but it was an awkward piece to work with.  On my first site visit, the engineer, a great engineer named Emilio Robau, from RWA, in Naples, took me out to the wetlands  that you cross going from #17 to #18 and encouraged me to travel through there because of the magnificent cypress trees there.  Once I knew we could rout circulation through the wetland it made the routing work better on that side.

The key to the routing at HideOut was not returning to the clubhouse after nine holes.  Returning nines typically compromise the routing, the land, and therefore the overall experience.

[Tom Doak]

I think it depends on how you work, and the quality of guys who you work with.

We did three golf courses in 1998 -- Riverfront, Lost Dunes, and Apache Stronghold -- and I was tickled with all three.  We did one in 2000, and you all know about it.  Did Pacific Dunes turn out better because we spent more time on it?  Assuredly so.  But where do you want to draw the line on diminishing returns?  Career-wise, I'm much more happy that we were able to do three excellent golf courses in the prior year.

The other point is -- from a business perspective but also a practical one -- when you try to do two courses a year you often wind up doing just one, or none, because some of them never happen, and most of the others don't happen as fast as the client said they would.  Then what -- trust him the next year?  I've spent a couple of years that could have been productive sitting on my hands waiting for projects that never happened.

I'm gearing up to do three or four.  If we do have a year where they all happen at once, then I'll be spread thinner, and my associates will have more chance to shine.  [Which they deserve.]  It won't happen two years in a row, because I'll be so busy the first year that I won't be lining up four more jobs for the next.  I'll still be doing the routings and tinkering with the greens and the bunkers, and that's what I'm good at.

Bill and Ben can take their time -- more power to them.  But that's not the ONLY way to do good work.  Dr. MacKenzie was in Melbourne a grand total of six weeks, and Paul Daley's book shows you what came of that.

[Tony Ristola]

Tom: I think it depends on how many project the architect takes on (how far apart they are too) as well as "the quality of the guys who you work with."  

Historically the level of diminishing returns has been proven to be a couple or few if you're talking quality.  

Melbourne is an example of Mackenzie having good fortune with the constructors...Ohio State is an example of his being less lucky.  If Perry Maxwell had control of the process it would be safe to assume the course would have turned out differently.  Perhaps Art Hills would never have had the opportunity to soften the greens.  As we discussed before...the more you risk, the more risk there is.

Also, what architect today spends 6 weeks near any project educating the workers?  What's the industry norm...6 site visits perhaps?  Use "proven" builders and let them interpret the plans with little input from the architect.

Isn't it possible when gearing up for 3-4 courses per year you'll get fewer through permitting one year and 5-6 the next?  I've found the bureaucrats to be pretty unpredictable...I wish they were predictable, it would make life easier but they're like the weather in the Pacific Northwest.  Forecast "X" and you get "Y" or "Z"

You have a capable staff...architects in their own right?  Are most staffs this capable?  I'd say your office, C&C and a few others have guys which could go solo, plus you can now attract very good help, but most offices?  Hence time on-site is critical to transfer the vision to the operators for most architects...continuous on-site training...interpretation...opportunity seeking.

As for C&C, I've got a 1983 interview from an obscure and defunct magazine called Inside Sports...back then Ben stated "Too many architects have too many jobs.  They can't devote enough time to each project."  I admire a guy who sticks to his guns 20 years later...he obviously believed what he stated back then...especially when he could whore his name for serious cash.  Hats off to Ben.  It may not be the only way to do good work, but it is the only way to do consistently exceptional work.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()