[Jason Topp]

In what ways have you improved over the course of your career? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know I have.  Catching a flight, but its a question worth some examination and a deeper answer.

[Lester George]

I have improved in many ways I think.  Most notably in my mind are:

my understanding of club politics and how to quickly identify the hot-buttons of the memberships and the dynamics between groups

the ability work through complex problems with regulatory agencies

to create solutions that not only make for better golf holes but work in harmony with the environment

identify the resources (historical) available to unlock the truth about certain sites

to surround myself with great people who I can rely on and trust

Just off the top of my head.................

Lester

[Melvyn Morrow]

Architects-have you improved - you may well have but the problem is still is the land fit for purpose?

More importantly have your clients improved?

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

What's wrong, Jason asked a good question, I to questioned if the land choice had improved, not to mention has the quality of what modern clients seek also improved. But no response from designers/architects.

I though the original question was worthy of a response as was my additions question, but clearly not.

So tell me what is the point of being a Member of this site if you will not join in the discussion? These are simple yet honest questions

Melvyn

PS Gentlemen without your input this site is greatly compromised.

 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Melvyn your question is not relevant to the thread. Location fit for purpose is more important than Land fit for purpose but you are never ever going to understand that so no one is going to take your troll.

To the question. Yes I think I have improved but surely everybody does. I think I have learned a lot from this site.

[Lou_Duran]

In what ways have you improved over the course of your career? 

I like Lester's responses which deal primarily with interpersonal matters.

I'd like to hear about technical and engineering improvements.  Certainly in dealing with environmental and water (scarcity, drainage) issues, there must have been considerable advancements.

But Jason, while we're at it, "in what ways have you improved over the course of your career"?  And your profession? 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adrian

You talk with clearly contempt in your words which I find surprising, but then should I? Perhaps you and many of your fellow architects have been too close to the problem. The old idiom ‘you can’t see the wood for the trees’ seems highly appropriate in many cases.

I do not have all the answers, but I know when things are not right and pondering around the wrong. I understand design and the necessity of linking it to lateral thinking. Never forgetting the need to always keep looking at the intent balanced with the capability of the clients or products resources.

As for location vs. land, that’s one Red Herrin and I am concerned about any architect who would really promote location
over the actual land to be used. This thinking has generally been a modern development to excuse clients for selecting poor land to utilise for the purpose of a golf course. We have no limits of examples of these sites which from the start compromise the very fundamentals of good design, let alone the full design process. Courses built within unfriendly environments require constant watering and expensive on-going maintenance to survive from year to year. Then the course located on or around housing developments forcing the requirement for long distances between Greens & Tees, the list just goes on.

Ultimately if the land cannot sustain the course then the land is not fit for purpose. Nevertheless the modern idea and one which you seem to adhere to is that we have the technology so we can build anywhere, but in these modern times it just requires the pot full of gold found at the bottom of the Rainbow.

Sorry Adrian, I honestly believe its Land fit for purpose while the location must be dictated by the environment, sustainability for the appropriate grass and finally built on reasonable budgets. That is if we want to give clubs/councils and private individuals a chance to make a success of their venture into the golf course market.

You are splitting hairs, but then we need to if we are talking design and explaining to our clients the reason for our suggestion and concerns. Architects should never believe that silence is golden when addressing their clients bidding.

I trust that I have not conveyed the same tone as your reply #5.  

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

Melvyn - You need to balance modern economics and what happens in the real world of what actually happens, I will try and make some clearer points to you. I did not write #5 with contempt, but its hard to persuade you.

Land by the sea (linksland) is likely to be protected now and a new links course will be very rare.
Great golf land inland that perhaps contains heather is likely to be protected now.
If my phone rings and a man wants to build a golf course it is very likely (99%) he already has a parcel of land either in his ownership or in his mind to buy. It is the architects responsibilty to design the best course that can be built within his budget, it is not the responsibility to question his land although some architects would point out the negative commercial or problems that the lands location, shape, size, top might show.
There might be some great land on the coast of Greenland but we dont have people there. There is no point in great land and a great course if there are an inadequate number of golfers and there are guidelines of how this is calculated. Most new golf courses will be privately funded so a detailed study of the logical bits needs to be done, those that ignore this are either very foolish or very rich.
We have had this same conversation several times, if the architects of old chose only linksland, heathland or hilltops some major cities would have no golf courses within an hour.

The thread was never about this though.

[Tim Nugent]

Improved, I sure hope so, but that isn't for me to answer. But I have defiinately EVOLVED.  I have constantly taken on new challenges to get to the point where I can do every aspect involved in developing and constructing a course except one, Financing it.  This includes not only all the elements of design form features to irrigation to drainage.  I have learned to use every piece of heavy and light equipment (dozers, excavators, trators, skid loaders, end loaders) to the point where, if left alone I could build a course from scratch without any other help, well maybe a laborer or two.
What I have found is, that as one learns to perform more and more tasks, the experience rubs off on the design aspect.  Early on, it was easy(and a cop out) to rely on the fact that an experienced construction company could "fill in the blanks" and regardless of any shortcomings, a good end product would be produced.  But, this is also a double-edged sword as it opens the finl product up to interpertation.  You lose control.  If just making money is your goal, you can probably llive with this.  If you are a perfectionist, you find you can't.
Another aspect I have discovered is that many acrhitects ended up beoming business managers and salesmen in order to feed the beast.  Luckily I saw this happen first hand and was able to determine that, for me, this was not what I wanted to end up like.  When people ask why I ended up as a golf course architet, my 1st response is "not for the money".

[Peter Pallotta]

Jason - Tim's fine post above strikes me as as good an answer as you can get.  But to me there is another element, neither improving nor evolving but somehow getting deeper.  That's not a good word for it. Here's a poor analogy/example:

Between 1590 and 1595, Shakespeare wrote plays like The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Romeo and Julie,  Love's Labours Lost, The Taming of the Shrew, Richard The Third, The Merchant of Venice, and A Midsummers Nights Dream.   Then, between about 1600 and 1605, he wrote Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, and Othello (while still writing comedies and lighter pieces).

Did he get better? Did he improve his craft over time? Did he understand more? Well, I think King Lear is his greatest work, but that's just one man's opinion -- and others could argue that Richard the Third or Romeo and Juliet were as well written as anything later on.

But he seemed to me, though, to get deeper and perhaps more personal with age.  And I think that is an 'improvement'.

Peter  

PS - I wish I knew more about Shakespeare and how he worked, because I think there is an interesting parallel to gca. Some experts have suggested that, since he was a life long member of an acting company, he 'wrote with what he had' -- i.e. when the actors were younger and happier, he wrote and they did comedies; while as they got older and had more 'gravitas' he could write parts for them like King Lear.  In other words, he too worked with the land that was given him. 

[JMEvensky]

 

PS - I wish I knew more about Shakespeare and how he worked, because I think there is an interesting parallel to gca. Some experts have suggested that, since he was a life long member of an acting company, he 'wrote with what he had' -- i.e. when the actors were younger and happier, he wrote and they did comedies; while as they got older and had more 'gravitas' he could write parts for them like King Lear.  In other words, he too worked with the land that was given him. 

Like you,I also wish I knew enough to make the parallel--but maybe a different one.I wonder if the parallel can be drawn over attribution (not the stupid DeVere argument).How much of any later play is attributable to the input of the acting troupe's experience?Maybe some of the great scenes/soliloquies were a case of veteran actors "shaping" on their own,but inside the parameters of WS' style.

I also think a parallel exists in a gca being limited in his creativity by the owner/developer.WS certainly was writing with/for the approval of the monarch.

BTW--I'm also a big fan of Lear.

[Melvyn Morrow]

The thread was about “Architects-have you improved”, that I presume means have they been able to learn and absorb knowledge related to design. One of the many items one needs to understand is that most basic of all, will the paint stick to the canvas, will the building stay intact, and will the land accommodate the manmade structures demanded of it. In other words is the land fit for purpose?

So with all due respect it has everything to do with this thread.

Since the end of WW2 why have we not seen the building of as many great courses as we had previously? Could it be that architects have been willing to move away from the pre-war templates and in their quest to build great courses. Have they in fact produce for the most part lacklustre mediocre courses aided and abetted by financial hungry investors who unlike the pre-war years only sought to make money? Land was no longer the main priority but the overall financial package was more important that producing a quality course for the local golfers.

Today it is more difficult to purchase quality sites but this was not the case for the first couple of decades after the WW2, so why have we not seen quality course spring up during this period. Priorities changed money first, golfers somewhere further down the pecking order.
   
So Architects-have you improved and is the land today fit for purpose?

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

I was very lucky to build my first course on a site well suited to the game. 

Unfortunately, it's grown over now, because it was a bit too far out of town.  [It didn't help that it was managed incompetently, in a tough economy, with too many other courses in the same local area].

My career has certainly reaped great benefits from being associated with "land fit for purpose" when so many other architects don't care.  But, your prescription for the game is also a prescription for only 1/4 as many new golf courses as might otherwise be built, a view you shouldn't expect to be too popular here.

I would guess that you would find 25 of the 30 courses I've built to pass your own strict definition of what golf should be.  But, those other five projects include Stone Eagle and The Rawls Course and Apache Stronghold -- and my career is much richer for having worked on those, too.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks, I think you're probably absolutely right re: the actors contributing.  One day if we can hook up for golf and drinks I'll share a few stories (second hand) of folks who have really made their mark in film/theatre -- and to a person the success was always based on more collaboration with actors than someone like me (who thinks if I can't do it 'right' all by myself there must be something wrong/lacking) would've imagined.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Improved, I sure hope so, but that isn't for me to answer. But I have defiinately EVOLVED.  I have constantly taken on new challenges to get to the point where I can do every aspect involved in developing and constructing a course except one, Financing it.  This includes not only all the elements of design form features to irrigation to drainage.  I have learned to use every piece of heavy and light equipment (dozers, excavators, trators, skid loaders, end loaders) to the point where, if left alone I could build a course from scratch without any other help, well maybe a laborer or two.
What I have found is, that as one learns to perform more and more tasks, the experience rubs off on the design aspect.  Early on, it was easy(and a cop out) to rely on the fact that an experienced construction company could "fill in the blanks" and regardless of any shortcomings, a good end product would be produced.  But, this is also a double-edged sword as it opens the finl product up to interpertation.  You lose control.  If just making money is your goal, you can probably llive with this.  If you are a perfectionist, you find you can't.
Another aspect I have discovered is that many acrhitects ended up beoming business managers and salesmen in order to feed the beast.  Luckily I saw this happen first hand and was able to determine that, for me, this was not what I wanted to end up like.  When people ask why I ended up as a golf course architet, my 1st response is "not for the money".

Tim's post above sort of sums up what I've learned also.  This will sound sort of like a jerk but as one goes thru the process Tim describes in his second paragraph you exponentially gain on the guy sitting in someone's office for years drawing plans and rarely getting out on a site.  It also makes one realize how much more involved you are in each project than someone that relies on the contractor.  I know there are plenty that follow this process with good results but once you have been on the machines you just want to be there. 
The second thing I have learned is how to pose for shots with plans in your arms.  Initially I used to roll a set under my arm and point with the index finger of my left hand.  Then I saw guys actually rolling the plans out ( some upside down) and I did that for a while.  And now i like to sit on the side of a dozer with the entire group while eating a whopper and reading a Donald Ross book. 
Seriously though not many young people will have this opportunity for the coming years.  Do people realize what that will mean to the learning curve of golf design. 

[Jason Topp]

Thanks everyone for the replies. After I started this thread I started to think about my own caareer as a lawyer and, while I have gained more skill at specific tasks, my biggest areas of improvement are in customer service and confidence. I see myself as solving problems rather than focusing so much on the proceeding.  I also can much more clearly anticipate what will happen next.

Ass to architects I initially was thinking many did their best work early but I doubt that thought survives scrutiny.

[Tim Nugent]

PP, many thanks. Your actior parallel reminds me of of something I just learned about Re one of my favorite golf movies- Caddyshack.  Evidently, Chevy Chase and Bill Murray didn't like each other very much. So, the writers never put them in the same scene.  However, Director Harlod Ramus (sp?) decided that there had to be a scence with the two of them. So, at the end of filmong he had them do the infamous scene in Carl's digs in the  maintenance building.  To your point, since the writers never figured them to be in a scene together, no dialog was ever written.  EVERYTHING in that scene was On The Spot, Improvazation.  So, yes,I think the actors do have some bearing on what comes out as the end product.
ANd perhaps the same can be said for the writing.  If you know what the actors can or can't pull off, it affects the writing.  Same with design.  A design where an owner gives the arhitect the freedom to pik the contractors and negociate the contract and work with them to value engineer the project, the design will be more in tune with what the contractor can pull off.  Conversely, if it is a public, low bid job, the design will probably be dumbed down a bit due to the fact that "who knows?" who will be doing the work.
This is probably why some of GCA's favorite sons tun out fairly consistant work. They enjoy the ability to control the construction, even to the point of having their own people do it.

Jason,"I see myself as solving problems rather than focusing so much on the proceeding.  I also can much more clearly anticipate what will happen next."  pretty much nails it.
Having the ability to anticipate gives you the confidence to predict the outcomes to various avenues you could potentially embark upon.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I have much respect for you and your work, as I have for many a Designer on this site.

I was taught that one’s biggest critic should always be first and foremost oneself. Our own standards should exceed those of our clients, but we need a solid foundation to achieve most things in life. We have seen in Turkey the follies of 
building without care and attention to local needs/environment in not just the destruction of the property but to that most precious of things to us, the lives of our families and fellow humans.

As I say Designers have a duty to themselves and their clients, they should have the strength to stand up to a poor client or better still walk away keeping ones hard earned reputation intact. It will have taken you years to build up your reputation which thanks to potentially one client can see that washed away. So if Designers have not learnt the basics and then put them into practice I fear the fall is overdue.

There are good designers out there who have produced good course since WW2. Nevertheless it is in the hands or should I say eye of the designer to prove he has ‘improved’ or at least embraced the basics of his profession to allow him/her to go forward.

I feel that many more designers need to understand and promote the concept of ‘Land Fit For Purpose’, after all it will assist in the design process hopefully enabling courses to be more sustainable with much lower start up budgets. That way we may see more courses being built and more importantly being kept in business by golfer’s regular use. Have designers not learnt this simple point from our golfing history, the game blossomed when courses were relative inexpensive and incorporated many of Natures natural hazards aided and abetted by the designers eye for detail, that is on the course, ground level and not the madness of seemingly doing nothing with today’s aerial game. 

A few thoughts to see if you have developed and improved over the years;

What is your opinion of centre fairway bunkers (deepish not shallow trampoline types)
What’s your feeling regards not protecting the rear of the Greens letting the wild ball roll on rather than being assisted by a close rear Green Bunker
What thoughts have you of on true blind Holes, that is in the tradition of the 19th Century game
What’s your opinion re narrow fairways for the good golfer vs wide for the average player – Remembering that a quality player will know his abilities so wide may not come into play unless by the cunning of the Designer.
Are you designing for specific types of golfer these day or still for the mass market, if so why this need for narrow fairways and very deep roughs, why not utilise options by promoting wide fairways or is it your belief that the aerial game is the ‘Dogs Bollocks’ (that means blood good).
What is your thoughts on Double Greens for the 21st Century.

The wearing of blinkers may concentrate and focus the mind, but it’s only for a single task. Designers and golfers alike should be more like the car Kit in ‘Knight Rider’ and scan the way forward from left to right and not just straight forward. We will always learn more from the wider perspective and if that can be interpreted correctly by the Designer it opens up the golf course to a real game irrespective of the weather conditions.

Melvyn 

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

I'll be glad to answer those questions somewhere, but don't want to get this thread off track.

Interestingly, my opinion of some of the features you mention HAS changed significantly over time, though I don't know if you would consider those changes an improvement, or not.

[Tim Nugent]

 
A few thoughts to see if you have developed and improved over the years;

What is your opinion of centre fairway bunkers (deepish not shallow trampoline types)

I like them but they scare the hell out my clients.  Actually I prefer to bunker the Line of Charm rather than just the center.  Also, Ilike angled crossing bunkers but again, these scare the crap out of many

What’s your feeling regards not protecting the rear of the Greens letting the wild ball roll on rather than being assisted by a close rear Green Bunker

This negatively affects the poorer golfer than it does the good player

What thoughts have you of on true blind Holes, that is in the tradition of the 19th Century game

I don't feel it was a Tradition rather, a problem they couldn't solve.  I'm not a big fan of 'hit and hope'.

What’s your opinion re narrow fairways for the good golfer vs wide for the average player – Remembering that a quality player will know his abilities so wide may not come into play unless by the cunning of the Designer.

Variety is the spice of life.  Some holes should have narrow landing areas while other more generous. I believe different aspects of ones game should be tested at different timesthoughout the round. Making a demanding drive on every hole or every drive akin to a driving range does not accomplish this.  Even if I make a generous fairway, there will be a desired spot from which to get the best shot into the green.  Often, on holes like that, the shot into the green will be the demanding shot.  Length of the hole, terrain, vegitation, wind all must be taken into account.  Carte Blanche edicts (one size fits all) don't work for me

Are you designing for specific types of golfer these day or still for the mass market, if so why this need for narrow fairways and very deep roughs, why not utilise options by promoting wide fairways or is it your belief that the aerial game is the ‘Dogs Bollocks’ (that means blood good).

see above

What is your thoughts on Double Greens for the 21st Century.


Hard to pull off and not appear gimicky (like courses that make their staff wear kilts)  Also, from a safety standpoint they would have to be very large as to not get someone killed.  Sure, this works at St. A but look at the size of those monsters.  In a day and age when everybody is striving to keep costs down, proposing one double green that uses as much surface as 1/3 of a regular course's greens usually doesn't get much traction

The wearing of blinkers may concentrate and focus the mind, but it’s only for a single task. Designers and golfers alike should be more like the car Kit in ‘Knight Rider’ and scan the way forward from left to right and not just straight forward. We will always learn more from the wider perspective and if that can be interpreted correctly by the Designer it opens up the golf course to a real game irrespective of the weather conditions.

Melvin, I usually stay away from you or posts because but answered here because you ask for opinion and hence there is no right or wrong answer.  Oftern times I feel you are like the Generals who conceive battle plans from deep in a concrete bunker and then wonder why us grunts on the battlefield can't carryout your plan. Your latest soundbite "land fit for the purpose'is so Ivory Tower it makes me chuckle.  It seems that you have a pre-determined ideal and anything that strays from it is wrong. I have seen many very good ourses built on land that others would have walked away from.  Also, do you criticize the architect who builds a restraunt a chef wants it, even if he feels a) there are all ready too many restraunts nearby, or b) there isn't right demographics or population to support it?
Melvyn 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tim

I know of an Architect who designed a well know Hotel many years ago in London. It had it all, Bars Restaurants, Rooms, Function Rooms, etc even offices for all the departments and managers. The plans were approved and everyone including the Client where more than well pleased.  However he forgot one major item, it’s actually the beating heart of any Hotel, its kitchen and all the freezer and store rooms associated with commercial kitchens.

This was a major highly international architect, yet even they miss the obvious from time to time.  I am actively involved in design; I enjoy the challenge no matter how big or small. I try to look at the problem from as many sides as possible; I would never ask nor have asked anyone to do what I cannot do myself.

So land fit for purpose is a very serious subject and my friend there are still many sites in GB that can and will one day make a golf course. The problem today being that because we have the technology we think we can and should do what we like, instead of looking and trying to see how to work with what we have. It’s like the idea in golf why walk when we can ride, simple its answers nothing just rides over the underlying problems. We have built and are building courses but they are artificial fake, with no heart or real spirit of taking on the challenge that the land originally presented in the first place. The designers have bypassed the issue and hence the fundamental part of the game of golf which is walking and thinking your game through the design placed before you mainly by Nature with a little help by Man. Would Mountain climbers climb a manmade mountain and get the same exhilaration as if climbing Everest, I don't know but at a guess no because they will try and iron out the dangers and challenges, all of which made it attractive in the first place.

Laugh at my comments, but look to the game its history and what is being built in the name of Golf, If I was a golfing designer I would be ashamed to be associated with such appalling fakes; however you may love all thing fake.

Perhaps if we saw more passion and less talk from time to time of feeding families and keeping the money coming in we may have had more quality courses not only around but still in business.

It’s a free world, chuckle as much as you wish, but can you show the equal amount or match my passion when you do so, I feel that only fair.

Melvyn

[Mike Nuzzo]

Melvyn
Have you tried looking for new courses that meet your ideals?
It would be more interesting to see examples you like.
Propel what is good, instead of slighting what is bad.
Cheers

[JWL]

I have had many opportunities to work with many varied and talented people in the golf design business.   I don't think it is possible that I haven't absorbed an awful lot of what I have been exposed to, and for that I am most thankful.   So, I have to answer that question in the affirmative, and I still hope my own personal design is in my future.   I thank all my ''mentors'', even if they didnt know they were mentoring.

[Chris Shaida]

Thanks to the architect's for responding.  There are a number of really fascinating comments here--from Mr George's 'surround myself with people I can trust', Mr Nugent's not relying on others to 'fill in the blanks' and the recognition of how much that is real and lasting that is 'on the spot' and Mr Pallota's questions about working with 'what you have' and how many sparks come from true 'collaboration' and working with a troupe.  It also brought back Mr Doak's thread from a while back connecting GCA to leading a band.  I happened on a quote from Steve Jobs this morning wondered whether it resonates with the architects here.  He was describing the difference between having a great 'idea' and then doing all of the work to actually make a real thing come out of that idea, he said:

"You know, one of the things that really hurt Apple was after I left John Sculley got a very serious disease. It's the disease of thinking that a really great idea is 90% of the work. And if you just tell all these other people "here's this great idea," then of course they can go off and make it happen [letting others 'fill in the blanks'?].

And the problem with that is that there's just a tremendous amount of craftsmanship in between a great idea and a great product. And as you evolve that great idea, it changes and grows. It never comes out like it starts because you learn a lot more as you get into the subtleties of it. And you also find there are tremendous tradeoffs that you have to make...

Designing a product is keeping five thousand things in your brain and fitting them all together in new and different ways to get what you want[leading a band?]. And every day you discover something new that is a new problem or a new opportunity to fit these things together a little differently.

And it's that process that is the magic.

And so we had a lot of great ideas when we started. But what I've always felt that a team of people doing something they really believe in[surrounding yourself with people you trust, the troupe, the band, collaboration?] is like is like when I was a young kid there was a widowed man that lived up the street. He was in his eighties. He was a little scary looking. And I got to know him a little bit. I think he may have paid me to mow his lawn or something.

And one day he said to me, "come on into my garage I want to show you something." And he pulled out this dusty old rock tumbler. It was a motor and a coffee can and a little band between them. And he said, "come on with me." We went out into the back and we got just some rocks. Some regular old ugly rocks [working with what you have]. And we put them in the can with a little bit of liquid and little bit of grit powder, and we closed the can up and he turned this motor on and he said, "come back tomorrow." And this can was making a racket as the stones went around.

And I came back the next day, and we opened the can. And we took out these amazingly beautiful polished rocks. The same common stones that had gone in, through rubbing against each other like this (clapping his hands), creating a little bit of friction, creating a little bit of noise, had come out these beautiful polished rocks.

That's always been in my mind my metaphor for a team working really hard on something they're passionate about. It's that through the team, through that group of incredibly talented people bumping up against each other, having arguments, having fights sometimes, making some noise, and working together they polish each other and they polish the ideas, and what comes out are these really beautiful stones."

and so I was wondering whether the process of actually making (not just 'designing' but causing to come into being in the real world)--something I've never done and never will do--is anything at all like that?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()