Is the Death of the Regional Architect next?

[Ian Andrew]

The end of 2008 was a game changer for architecture. It was the end of almost all new domestic golf courses and architects were faced with either trying to find enough domestic work or travel abroad and find new course work in places like China. There was a obviously a washing out of the numbers and some estimates place the loss at around 25% of all architects are no longer in golf design.

Since then the competition of domestic work has gone up exponentially. The interviews used to involve three or four architects before 2008 and now the process may bring a dozen architects to the club for the same project. It’s a far tougher business than it used to be and one of the greatest factors is some of the busiest and best who avoided the (for lack of a better term) second tier clubs are now in the mix on these lesser profile courses.

The first reason for the high profile architects looking at these projects has to do with less opportunity. But the secondary reason of late is many are tired of travelling overseas and are now looking to take on some of these projects if they can get them for the right price and ease their foreign travel.

These two changes have had a massive impact on what I’ll call the Regional Architect.

My definition of this type of architect is someone who does some pretty good work, lacks a national profile (that would draw attention on Golf Club Atlas or with larger publications), but tends to get a large amount of work in their particular area where they are known.
 
I’m going to go a little sideways to make an interesting point. I’ve always been amused and perplexed by the lack of work Gil Hanse has around Philadelphia compared to the amount of work he has around New York and Boston. Regionals tend to begin their careers with smaller clubs and work their way to the larger clubs in the region, but often the biggest don’t like to be associated with the “lesser clubs” and shut the emerging architect out locally. That is how you get the unusual circumstance in Philly with Gil.

In recent times I have found myself working further from home. I’m very lucky that I still get great opportunities presented to me each year, but I’m no longer getting much work at home which got me thinking about what could be the reason. I started looking at the work I did not get closer to home and one fascinating trend emerged. Not one project or commission went a Canadian Architect.

It works both ways.

I recently interviewed and was awarded a pretty nice commission near New York City this spring. The final two came down to me and a wonderful local architect. He was a logical choice, but I received the work. So it works in your favour too sometimes too. I feel for him in this instance because this is exactly what I’m going through, but the difference is he is not finding the work outside his region like I have making it a tough go.

I’m not sure if this is a trend or not because my sample size is far too small.

Are others seeing the same thing? I’ve survived (succeeded?, your call...) by working hard to build a business not based locally and a majority of my work now involves a flight. Part of that is there are too many architects in Toronto and part of that is more interesting historical work was elsewhere. I always though multiple regions meant varied economies and a better chance of steady work. Do you think this is the only way to survive?

Is the Regional Architect the next casualty of the changes since 2008?

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

How many regional architects are left?  I thought many of them had already retired.

In my opinion, that's not a new trend, it's been manifesting for as long as I've been in the business.  I was determined not to become labeled as a "Michigan architect" after I'd done two courses here, but it wasn't difficult.  Once courses started to be marketed by the architect's name, new developers in regions like northern Michigan insisted on hiring someone new to the region, instead of going with somebody local.  So, I'd go to the airport in Traverse City to leave for a job in Oregon or Scotland, and wave at Steve Smyers who was arriving to work on a project three miles from my house ... confident that one day I would be working in his back yard of Lakeland, FL. 

From a sustainability perspective, it sure doesn't make much sense.  But marketing and sustainability are not closely allied.

I'm thinking the business model for the future is Dr. MacKenzie's ... the few international architects will rely more and more on collaborating with regional architects, as MacKenzie did with Alex Russell and Perry Maxwell and Robert Hunter [and, with less success, with the construction company that built Bayside, and with Luther Koontz in South America].  That's why most of my interns right now are from faraway places, and why I keep tabs on who's doing the best work in different parts of the world.

[Peter Pallotta]

A very interesting topic, Ian. Excuse me for going a bit far afield here:

Your experience and Tom's analysis are obviously relevant and likely indicative of the trend. There are many reasons for this (as there are for the fact that drives across Canada or the US have started looking more and more alike: the same chains of hotels and fast food places and building architecture are found 'everywhere').  But I think that it just might go in another direction in years to come: towards a hyper-locality, a focus on an individual/unique small-scale approach and understanding, e.g. the small famer's market, the mom and pop business, the civic intiative, the home-grown golf course, all serving the needs not of the many but of the few.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

That could well be.  At some point, people will realize that the "international architect" might be the least important link in the chain ... and then I'll be back to building one course at a time, too.

But, it could be a while yet.  To combine the wisdom of Dr. MacKeznie and H. L. Mencken, no one has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the committees who run golf courses.

[Anthony Butler]

Ian:

How many regional architects are left?  I thought many of them had already retired.

In my opinion, that's not a new trend, it's been manifesting for as long as I've been in the business.  I was determined not to become labeled as a "Michigan architect" after I'd done two courses here, but it wasn't difficult.  Once courses started to be marketed by the architect's name, new developers in regions like northern Michigan insisted on hiring someone new to the region, instead of going with somebody local.  So, I'd go to the airport in Traverse City to leave for a job in Oregon or Scotland, and wave at Steve Smyers who was arriving to work on a project three miles from my house ... confident that one day I would be working in his back yard of Lakeland, FL.  

From a sustainability perspective, it sure doesn't make much sense.  But marketing and sustainability are not closely allied.

Tom-That's an interesting comparison... I would consider Greg Norman to be an international architect, yet he continues to the get the remodeling work at New South Wales... Because he's a local member? So maybe your prospects for local work maybe enhanced by your Worldwide reputation at this point.

I would argue however, that most clubs would be better of hiring someone who has done recent design or remodeling work in the neighborhood. To your point about meeting at the airport, I'm not sure Geoff Ogilvy and Mike Clayton ever run into the Shark, as they likely fly out of different terminals.  

As for sustainability, I would agree with you that no-one thinks about it in the totality of a project. My company has people in Chicago who can probably do what I do quite successfully, but somehow I find myself at Midway Airport about 3 times a month. Meanwhile one of my colleagues, who lives in Florida is working out of our Cambridge< MA office for the next month.

But not today..

[Jeff_Brauer]

Some subjects are just too painful to contemplate deeply.....

I do agree with TD.  When I worked with Killian and Nugent in the late 70's to early 80's, we saw a change in the Chicago clubs from using local architects to bringing in the Hills, Jones, etc. 

I see it here somewhat in DFW when the bigger name clubs typically brought in out of towners, one telling me we didn't have a chance because we were local.  Of course, in part, its to get a different look from everyone else.

But, no doubt architecture firms are going to be fewer and bigger, and hiring names will be ever more in vogue.  TD may also be right - those big firms will associate with perhaps local or working out of their house archies to actually provide the service under the flagship banner.  Even now, when you hire a contractor to build it, there are so many guys you know that they have just picked up to put them back in the industry.  Same may be happening in architecture.

[RJ_Daley]

Ian, Tom, other archies:  What part of this question do you attribute to being in the proper buzz circles, like participating in GCA.com?

Gill, it seems to me, in part received entre to individuals as a matter of networking on the edges of GCA.com.   His association with Geoff Shackelford at Rustic Canyon, also leading to Prairie Club, also leading to Mark Parsinan, etc.  I'm not saying it is a direct line association or network.  But, you guys all have been long time participants in the most active discussions on architecture available, which I feel certainly includes the many discussions and buzz that goes on here.  Ian, perhaps your participation here has helped you as well.  Likewise Jeff Brauer, Mike De Vries, Mike Young, others....

Again, I'm not saying the line from GCA.com to work projects and decisions to hire are a direct line.  Yet, I'd be very interested to go back and survey the decision makers who hire you gents, to see if any information or impressions gleaned from exposure to GCA.com discussion or passing along of the impressions and reputations that these architect participants have made on the golf design afficianados, has made any difference in the ultimate decision to hire that particular archie.  

GCA.com is unquestionably a global village.

[Mike_Young]

RJ,
I don't think I have ever had a client that even knew what GCA.com was.

I see it a little different than Ian sees it.  I think the regional architect will be just fine.  BUT I don't think he will be out telling everyone he has work or where he has work.  The work involving the few name courses will always be the work that grabs the attention of the magazines.  But it works just like the "Johnny Cochran" or F Lee Bailey law firms.  The unknowing feel these guys must be the best lawyers and the same goes with local committees hiring golf designers and especially with the pro golfer names; it may be they rely totally on the builder to tell them right from wrong.  I'm not going to get in the battle. 
My theory is that much more than 25% will be out of the business.  I say 65%.   And when I say out of the business I mean they cannot make a decent living w/o their wife working or family money or other investments.  And it may have always been that way.  There are two distinct business out there.  One is working for committees and municipalities and the other is working for individual owners and developers.  I choose the individual owners and developers because my personality fits them better than having to grin at some committee that really has zero clue about what they want or spending $15,000 on a presentation for a city against 50 other guys.  The other thing I think is evolving is the design/build.  If you can build it and shape it you will always find something.
But at the end of the day it boils down to how much money needs to live the lifestyle they desire.  Notmany will be digging a living out of 100% golf design no matter how they do it.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, that makes a lot of sense. 

Perhaps regional architects can still rely on local area networking and personal relationships and reputation.  And, committee presentations before municipal councils or corporate boards may be another thing requiring more elaborate 'big firm' resources to develop a grand presentation. 

But, what about these niche developers that seem to be the impetus behind the darling projects we seem to focus on here at GCA.com?  Guys like Kaiser, Parsinian- others, who select one of our GCA.com participants or one of those that GCA.com obsess upon in discussions and critiques?  Don't you think that 'the buzz' that goes on here, doesn't reach those sort of developer/decison makers to some greater extent, than the regional archie toiling away outside this community? 

As much as we seem to deride or criticize Trump here... do you think he reads this forum and considers what is said here? 

[Mike Nuzzo]

But, no doubt architecture firms are going to be fewer and bigger, and hiring names will be ever more in vogue. 

Jeff
Please name the largest firms in the US.
How many employees do they have now as compared to 5 years ago?
(Schmidt/Curley is not a US firm)

Ian
I'll guess that they aren't so much tired with travel, but the non-us market is shrinking or being oversupplied.

The renovation market is a very difficult market to break into - it takes a long investment.
I see the regional architect that has been working for 20-25 years focusing on their market is doing reasonably well or as well as the region (some better than others).
Those with higher aspirations like yourself or Jeff Brauer have seen some good projects out of their market and thus have been losing share to the regional guy.
Mike Young is a bit of both he has focused on a second regional market - I wouldn't want to compete with him in either.

RJ
The business segment to which Ian speaks has no awareness of GCA.com and little knowledge of architecture as an artform.

[Mike_Young]

RJ,
I don't think there are anymore "big firms".  I will bid a municipal project if I know I have it before I do the work but that is rare and most are the same way.

But, what about these niche developers that seem to be the impetus behind the darling projects we seem to focus on here at GCA.com?  Guys like Kaiser, Parsinian- others, who select one of our GCA.com participants or one of those that GCA.com obsess upon in discussions and critiques?  Don't you think that 'the buzz' that goes on here, doesn't reach those sort of developer/decison makers to some greater extent, than the regional archie toiling away outside this community?  
I think it is the opposite.  I think they are GCA darlings because they are working for these projects moreso than they are working for the projects because they are GCA darlings. 
I think there is no where near as much glamour in the business whether it be regional or "signature" as this site would like to believe.  Each has to do their own thing.  IMHO there are some "big firm signature" types that are freaking out much more than us regional guys when it comes to how to stay in this business.  It's all about the bottom line.

[Ben Sims]

Ian,

I wouldn't argue this idea as dangerous, but I think one has to be careful in gentrifying the idea of a regional architect.  They come in so many different flavors.  I'll agree that the smallness of the world now really constricts the traditional stomping grounds of the lesser known, local architects.  That said, it's a small career field.  Names get around quickly.  Reputations even faster.  I'm not in this business and I can name a lot of architects and a snipit or two about their work.  I can't begin to imagine how many you, the Mike's or Tom could name off the top of your head.

What better illustrates the thoughts above is the old pond analogy.  Better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond.  Except there is no big pond in golf architecture.  It's a small pond.  And there's big and small fish.  And right now, there's little food for any of them save a few.

[RJ_Daley]

I knew two regional architects in the past generation.  They worked from 1950s-90s mainly.  One was Homer Fieldhouse, the other was Art Johnson.  Johnson was the far more active and successful of those two by shear volume.  He was also IMO a better architect on all levels of design ideas and knowhow in contstruction techniques.  IN accordance with both Mike's observations, Art was in a state of disdain for the arena of what we might call institutional or commercial architecture and their methods and organization.  He relied on his footwork to get out and network locally-regionally with decision makers and small idea developers, it seems to me.  I pointed out GCA.com to Art before some years before he died.  I think he may have looked at it (late 90s-early 2000s) but wasn't in the least interested...  

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - another take, just for the heck of it.

In one sense, the glory days of gca did end in 2008; but in another sense, they were only beginning. This recent phase of glory, however, has been double edged: a number of wonderful golf courses have indeed opened in North America since 2008, but they've all been emblematic a new golfing/design reality, i.e. let's call it the reality of the retail golfer. The new reality is this: if you are going to open in North America you'd better be a true -- and truly expensive -- destination experience (either public or private, it matters not.) And in that new reality, the little known/regional architect is dead -- just as dead as he/she was when the name brand-former-professionall-golfers-turned-architects were dominating the lucrative land-development/residential marketplace. So where does someone (to take a name from the past) like Rene Muyleart fit in. He was a regional architect who designed my current home course, the modest but very playable and enjoyable Victoria East Golf club in Guelph; each time I play it, I'm more and more impressed by the understated and subtly 'architectural' design, by its fine set of greens, the good drainage, the easy and flowing routing, and the variety of shots/options it allows and calls for. But alas: the new reality seems to have almost no place for modest, understated, easily walkable and inexpensively maintained courses that allow for subtle challenge and fun for all. (Those type of courses don't photograph well, and thus really louse up a 'best new' spread in a glossy magazine). And since there is little room for those kind of courses, there is little room for the regional architects who tend to design and build them. Maybe if/when golfers in North America start returning to their golfing roots and to humbler expectations we'll see a return to the fore of the regional architect.

Peter

[Ian Andrew]

RJ,

Without question GCA has opened up opportunities in places I would have had trouble making contacts.
It has assisted me in developing work in American cities, but so has my silly little blog that gets over 10,000 visits a month.

Social media has impacted golf design.
In fact I wrote about and posted a comprehensive piece about the impact of social media on golf architecture.
There is a GCA impact on architects ... both for and against.

[Chris Johnston]

Beginning in 2008, the entire golf industry (and the world) changed, probably excluding a very small percentage of clubs.

All of architects, clubs, club makers, component manufacturers, turfgrass equipment guys to name a few.

Revenue is more difficult.  Profit chasers have exited. Expectations have been reset by necessity across the board.

Not much fun and certainly not by choice. 

Maybe it's for the good - mostly the passionate people remain.  Passionate people sacrifice, adjust, and persevere.

Excellence almost always finds an audience.

[Joel_Stewart]

Chris, well said.

In this ago of jet travel I originally thought that the regional architect is threatened.   On the other side, not every club has a major renovation and most do not have large budgets.  Some are very small projects.

I know of one very famous club with a contract with a major architect as an consultant.  That club wanted to place a mound on a hole and ended up using a local architect with the approval of the major architect.  It worked out fine.

[Ronald Montesano]

This thread topic begs this question, were architects "regional" out of choice or because they weren't good/visionary enough to move beyond their limitations and borders?

It also raises another: who were these RAs? Can we compile a list? With one exception (Oneonta Country Club, I blieve) the famously-average William Harries routed his courses in western New York (Buffalo, not Rochester.) Who are the others?

[Ally Mcintosh]

This thread topic begs this question, were architects "regional" out of choice or because they weren't good/visionary enough to move beyond their limitations and borders?

It also raises another: who were these RAs? Can we compile a list? With one exception (Oneonta Country Club, I blieve) the famously-average William Harries routed his courses in western New York (Buffalo, not Rochester.) Who are the others?

Eddie Hackett.

As for the first question, some of each.

[Mike_Young]

Ian - another take, just for the heck of it.

In one sense, the glory days of gca did end in 2008; but in another sense, they were only beginning. This recent phase of glory, however, has been double edged: a number of wonderful golf courses have indeed opened in North America since 2008, but they've all been emblematic a new golfing/design reality, i.e. let's call it the reality of the retail golfer. The new reality is this: if you are going to open in North America you'd better be a true -- and truly expensive -- destination experience (either public or private, it matters not.) And in that new reality, the little known/regional architect is dead -- just as dead as he/she was when the name brand-former-professionall-golfers-turned-architects were dominating the lucrative land-development/residential marketplace.
Peter

Peter,
I see almost the opposite.  #1- if you open a new course, it better be able to profit and function on it's own without being subsidized by housing.  #2- I think I have as many if not more golf courses in the state of Ga than any signature or national name and most of those are development courses.  The national names never dominated, they just dominated the publicity.  Things will be just fine for "regional architects" just like they are for "regional lawyers" or "doctors" or "artist" or bars and restaurants".  You just won't hear of them outside of 25 miles.
___________
The other thing is :   how many architects area there in reality?  IMHO one almost has to measure this by completed projects.  A firm could have 5 "golf architects" and 50 years from now all that is remembered are the projects and the name architect. ( a good exercise is to check the ASGCA website and check how many courses members listed as their "five representative" courses were designed under a firm name other than their own.and some leave the firm never to design one of their own)   If there were 100 courses in an area and 25 closed over a fifty year period, 25 were remodeled over 50 years and 25 new ones were built to replace the 25 that were closed; people would recall the original architects of the initial courses and the new courses and they would identify those by the firm name not by the individual. 
This site just needs to erase the "glamour" syndrome from this business and look at it like one would their local lawyer, home architect or bar tender.  It's no different.   AND IN NO WAY DOES IT MEAN THEY BUILD AN INFERIOR PRODUCT...to the national names. 

[Ian Andrew]

This thread topic begs this question, were architects "regional" out of choice or because they weren't good/visionary enough to move beyond their limitations and borders?

Ron,

Here's the reality of what it takes to get out of your region. I will have made five recent flights into the North-east United States to meet with clubs this season. I was not likely the first choice at any of them. I go every time because each new course could be a breakthrough for me. I found myself on their radar because of a referral in every instance. Each one of those references I have met at some point by making flights or trips to see or spend time with them. Building that network of people, who are occasionally able to "help" you get an interview, is critical (your network building begins at home and that takes time too).

Last year I spent $14,700. on flights "just" chasing new work (I do my own books). That's become normal for me since I went out on my own (2005). That's an annual expense I face each and every year trying to "increase" the places I work in. I enjoy the adventure and the challenge, but some don't. You spend an inordinate amount of time doing "sales" to break new markets.

Like everyone successful (I'm still working and Mike Young says that's the benchmark…   ), I have had a couple of people who took a great personal interest in my career and have actively promoted me to others. Anyone you discuss here in glowing terms has had someone who they can point to who has "made a difference" in their career. They key is finding them and you need that break too.

Ron, It’s far simpler to keep all the money you make, be happy with doing solid local work and put the kids to bed every night. I’m not complaining, I’m just explaining…


Oh, and William Harries was a builder and that has an impact on where you do and don't go too.



Oh, and William Harries was a builder and that has an impact on where you do and don't go too.

[Tom_Doak]

Last year I spent $14,700. on flights "just" chasing new work (I do my own books). That's become normal for me since I went out on my own (2005). That's an annual expense I face each and every year trying to "increase" the places I work in. I enjoy the adventure and the challenge, but some don't. You spend an inordinate amount of time doing "sales" to break new markets.

Exactly.  I spent an extra 23 days on the road last year looking at potential jobs in China, The Philippines, Thailand, Australia, Dallas, Miami, San Diego, and of course Rio.  I'll refrain from adding up how much all of THAT cost, especially since I don't have any new job to show for it all yet -- though I am hoping that the trip to The Philippines eventually makes it all worthwhile.

GCA.com may sometimes generate leads [although I don't think any of the potential clients above ever spent a minute here].  But leads only turn into jobs if you spend the time and money to pursue them.  

Oh, and if anyone wants to question whether Ian was accurate in saying that some architects are getting tired of traveling abroad and looking at more renovations closer to home ... he got that from me [or my associates, to be more accurate].

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jeff Blume should be mentioned as he seems to be doing a fair amount of work in light of some recent threads:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54237.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55415.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55493.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55289.0.html

[Mike Hendren]

Is the premise not typical of any mature industry?  It resonates in the banking industry where we've long been headed to bifurcation  between large national banks and smaller community banks.  Scale, efficiency and brand recognition on one end of the spectrum - nimbleness and personal relationships with decision-makers on the other.

Bogey

[Mike_Young]

I think Ian , TD and myself are a good cross sample of the business.  We all sort of do our own thing that works for us.  The people in the business rarely see it as the glamour business that so many others ( including many new interns or students) do.  As Ian says, I think all of us that keep doing it have to have a passion for it, yet we also have a lifestyle that we decide upon and have to make sure we are able to maintain that lifestyle and pursue our passion.  As soon as I spotted Ian's post  I realized that my post before this one may have sounded like a slap at restoration guys but it was not meant that way.  What I was trying to say is that national, renovation/restoration or regional really doesn't matter in 50 years as long as you have a passion for and enjoy what you are doing today because no one will ever really worry about it for more than a few minutes.
Also as an after thought- many guys in the past became national quite by accident.  Pete Dye with Landmark, Art Hills with one of the large Fl developers etc.  So many had a big sugar daddy with a large marketing budget for RE.  And that's fine.  I don't even think many realized it was happening to them.
I once told a client that if he was interviewing myself and yet considering Jack Nicklaus then he could not afford me .  And I was right.  JN can sell two lots and pay his fee while no one would buy a lot because of my design.  I was right and I have never taken it as a put down.  Thus I never spend my money pursuing projects that I know upfront are looking for such.  It's a waste of money.