Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?

[Ally Mcintosh]

As we learned at a questionable course in a well known location, routing is only a part of the process.

And this is the reason it is a marketing ploy; to pretend it's blind.

Other than that, it's a perfectly fair and reasonable approach. I can't understand Peter (and others) outrage.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like the Olympic course process, which wasn't blind, this might bode well for the underdogs.  Too hard to tell, and I have no doubt all are motivated, but sometimes architecture is just like sports and the guy who is most motivated wins.

[Don Mahaffey]

Don,
I get the fact that  the article is written as a marketing ploy. What I don't get is what Peter thinks Keiser's marketing goal is. It seems like Most people are directly referencing Doak having to audition for the job. Doak is also the most famous of the remaining architects. Why is this process a better means to a marketing end than just hiring Doak and having a press Blitz?

I'm not referencing Doak or anyone else. I've been pretty consistent on the topic of Sand Valley's marketing and that is I think it is being over done, over hyped. But maybe it is just not possible to do that and everyone is more than happy to read the same breaking news over and over.

I am excited to see the course(s) when they are done.

Re the "contest" I don't believe for a second that the key principles are going to be seeing the routings for the first time or that they will not know who did what. I think this group is just too hands on (a good thing) to let that happen. Which is why I think it is a bit of a marketing ploy; the blind taste test and all.

The interview itself which includes demonstrating the route one would take to build the golf course seems a reasonable process, but the idea that the key decision makers are going to go out there completely blind and say...ok, course 1 starts here and is the blue stakes, course 2 starts here and is the red...

If that truly is the case I hope Coore is one of MK's advisers.

[Keith OHalloran]

Don,
I agree with everything you say. I have never been part of a bid process, and just assumed that some form of competition was always part of it.

[Terry Lavin]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the winning architect winds up adopting concepts raised by the unsuccessful "bidders".  This process is no sham; its Keiser's way of getting a lot of input from very talented people.

[Jim Nugent]

  Tom Coughlin has won a few super bowls, but his Giants are currently in sad shape. Does he get his pick of the next coaching opening? Not if it's the most important and successful owner in the game.

Ron, do you really think Doak's courses are in 'sad shape?'  Seems to me he keeps designing US or world top-100 courses. 

[Ronald Montesano]

  Tom Coughlin has won a few super bowls, but his Giants are currently in sad shape. Does he get his pick of the next coaching opening? Not if it's the most important and successful owner in the game.

Ron, do you really think Doak's courses are in 'sad shape?'  Seems to me he keeps designing US or world top-100 courses. 

Jim,

I'll allow you the latitude to make that inference, but it was not my intent to suggest that RGD has had any clunkers. My intent was to suggest that laurels are to be worn on the head, not sat upon. Neither RGD nor any other design firm is owed an automatic contract, based upon prior successes.

[Jim Nugent]

  Tom Coughlin has won a few super bowls, but his Giants are currently in sad shape. Does he get his pick of the next coaching opening? Not if it's the most important and successful owner in the game.

Ron, do you really think Doak's courses are in 'sad shape?'  Seems to me he keeps designing US or world top-100 courses. 

Jim,

I'll allow you the latitude to make that inference, but it was not my intent to suggest that RGD has had any clunkers. My intent was to suggest that laurels are to be worn on the head, not sat upon. Neither RGD nor any other design firm is owed an automatic contract, based upon prior successes.

Ron, your analogy to Coughlin made precisely the suggestion that Tom has had a bunch of recent clunkers. 

Prior success is almost all Keiser or just about anyone can really go on.  As Don Mahaffey points out, without maybe Bill Coore advising him, he's not really capable of choosing based on the plans' merits. 

[Jim Nugent]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the winning architect winds up adopting concepts raised by the unsuccessful "bidders".  This process is no sham; its Keiser's way of getting a lot of input from very talented people.

Did Keiser pay these very talented people for their input, that he will put into the ground?  If not, that's pretty close to sham territory IMO. 

[Bryan Icenhower]

If your familiar with one's work, which Keiser would be for at least 2 out of 3 of these, how easy would it be to tell who submitted based on their style? I can tell immediately whose fingerprints are over the work - whether it be design work, writing style etc.  Do archies have a specific style for their routings that are easily identified?

[RJ_Daley]

Prior success is almost all Keiser or just about anyone can really go on.  As Don Mahaffey points out, without maybe Bill Coore advising him, he's not really capable of choosing based on the plans' merits.

I don't think I can agree with the above.  I hardly think a fellow as successful and educated as Mr. Keiser is not capable of choosing based on solid understanding of any plans as proposed by any competent architect submitting said comprehensive plans.  MK has been through this process extensively for like two decades.  The passion and long time involvement probably makes him as qualified as most any construction superintendent of any of the big construction companies, with the sensibilities of learned input by the great architects he has had over the years as to what works in what land situation, and what doesn't.  And, he undoubtedly has learned about what doesn't work in certain land use and design upon certain ground circumstances by seeing a few holes or construction/design efforts not turn out as conceived.  Everything is a learning process, and this fellow has been through it many times now.

But, i do agree with what Don and a few are suggesting that the practice of this 'blind walk-about" of the three archies routings is a bit if PT Barnum and could turn into a bit of free riding off the other architects submitting ideas by the winning architect.  

November 15 is a week before the deer gun season.  But it is Adams County and I would probably still be wearing orange and a strobe light along that particular walk.  They got outlaws in them thar woods.  

[BHoover]

As an earlier post said, laurels should be worn on the head, not sat upon. What is wrong with a little competition? Is that not the core of free market capitalism? When did competition become a bad thing?

[Jim Nugent]

As an earlier post said, laurels should be worn on the head, not sat upon. What is wrong with a little competition? Is that not the core of free market capitalism? When did competition become a bad thing?

When the person running the competition steals the work/ideas of the competitors, without paying for them. 

I don't know that's the case here.  But several people here, including some industry professionals, expect to see some of the losers' work show up in the final product.

So again, my question is if MK is paying them for their ideas? 

[BHoover]

As an earlier post said, laurels should be worn on the head, not sat upon. What is wrong with a little competition? Is that not the core of free market capitalism? When did competition become a bad thing?

When the person running the competition steals the work/ideas of the competitors, without paying for them.  

I don't know that's the case here.  But several people here, including some industry professionals, expect to see some of the losers' work show up in the final product.

So again, my question is if MK is paying them for their ideas?  

Hopefully these architects have language in their contracts that entitles them to some sort of royalty. If not, then that's unfortunate. I suggest you contact Keiser and voice your concern.

Actually, an interesting concept is what part of a golf course design is entitled to copyright protection? Certainly, a particular architect's overall design is protected by copyright. But an individual design feature may not necessarily be subject to copyright. I remember my copyright class from law school and I don't think an idea is necessarily entitled to protection; it's only when that idea is expressed in some form of media that it is subject to protection (in other words, the architect's particular manner of expressing that idea/feature in his/her own design plan is copyrighted, but not the feature itself). It's a very amorphous concept. Perhaps we have an IP attorney here who could do a better job of articulating copyright law.

[Keith OHalloran]

This is interesting, seems with one simple request MK, has gone from a visionary who created great public golf courses and started with an unknown architect, to a PT Barnum like intellectual property thief. I guess you really do have to be careful out there.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't want to continue with too much negativity, but since a couple of posters asked me to clarify my thinking:

Here on this website and in those golfing magazines/blogs interested in such things, the news of a second course and of the architect of choice would've been all the publicity that Sand Valley could ever use or need.

If you're Mr K and you start discussing architectural competitions and bake offs and blind taste tests you're hardly adding one iota of publicity to the project. Not one extra golfer is ever going to come to play the course because the design is the result of a 3-person competition.

So Mr K is not marketing the project. What he is doing instead is building/marketing himself, the Keiser brand -- "Look at what that man is doing now. He's a genius with the Midas touch, I tell you -- a genius who is saving golf!!".

Fine, build your personal brand. (Meh). But the cost of that seems to be expressing a level of disrespect and ingratitude to the very people most responsible for your success. Each of those architects is a proven veteran -- and even if you could pick what will turn out to be 'the best' course simply from the routing, asking them to come 'audition' strikes me as simply a matter of ego and self-importance.

An analogy: name me the last time you think Robert DeNiro or Denzel Washington or Meryl Streep has had to audition for a part. If Spielberg was directing and producing a new $200 million picture, do you think he'd turn to Denzel and say -- I know you've done great work in the past, but this role is, well, unique, and I'm not sure whether you or Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise would be best. So -- can you all come in an audition and show me what you've got!".

Anyway, enough of this.

Peter

[Ronald Montesano]

paranoia and pessimism are a-muck in this thread.

I doubt any of us believes that Mr. Keiser could go wrong with any of ten different firms. What he seeks, in my estimation, is what isn't apparent and what isn't there yet.

The honor of being among the final three should equal a tryout for courses 3 and 4.

[Josh Bills]

Seems to me those whose work Mr. Keiser was most impressed by and that he values, are getting the chance to impress him once again.  As in most professions, unless you are Kobe Bryant, you simply can't rest on what you have done in the past to earn your living.  The quality of each architects' prior work gives them an invite to the table, but their work product will determine who gets the nod.  If I were looking at this from an architect's standpoint, sure I would be hurt it was not given just to me, but then I would be pretty focused to make sure I got the job.  I think most of us have to prove our worth everyday and can't simply rest on what we have done in the past.  I don't have a problem with it at all.  In the end I think a great course(s) will be built. 

[John McCarthy]

Brian:  I am not an IP attorney but the old memory bank remember Tour 18 was sued 20 years ago.  http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/sep/11/golf-verdict-gets-tour-18-off-the-hook-lighthouse/

They could keep the holes but could not make exact copies or use trademarked logos and such. 

There is a NLE 9 hole par 3 course like this on the old Sexton Dump on Grand Ave. in Bensonville.  That course was awful. 

How does this pertain to Sand Valley?  I have no idea. 

[Kevin_D]

Peter:

Has Mike Keiser done anything so far to make you think he is interested in anything other than creating the best course(s) possible?

I am simply amazed that this man, who has done so much to elevate golf (and public golf in particular) in America doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from everyone on this board.

I wonder, if you invested millions in a golf course, would you just hire an architect without seeing what his vision is for your property first?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have been involved in these competitions.

First, some pay a nominal fee to cover expenses, while others pay nothing, figuring most architects will take the chance on a prize commission.

Second, I have seen entries stamped with all sorts of copyrights, etc., in an effort to keep the owner and/or other architects from using any ideas contained in their plan.  When I submit such an entry, I simply tell the owner that win or lose, use what you want.  Not sure if anyone ever signs a contract for competition (other than the Oly course, which had one) but I believe the good relationship and class gesture helps you somewhere down the line.  For that matter, I would bet many holes out there will be found and similar by different architects.

Lastly, while this did get some press, I have no doubt Mr. K basically is looking for some inspired vision.  This is his first non-ocean course.  He may feel he needs all the inspiration he can get, and hopes that he is spurring good architects to greater things.

[Peter Pallotta]

Last post on this for me:

Jeff - thanks. I know it's 'the way of the world'. I happen to think it sucks, for reasons I've already mentioned. But I also know that professionals just learn to deal with it.

Kevin - yes, Mr K has had a hand in creating some wonderful courses. I appreciate that. But correct me if I'm wrong: he has previously (and very succesfully) developed Pacific and Dunes and Trails and OM and the Cabot courses etc by simply choosing an architect and then having input into the process. This time (for the only time) he's using the bake off method - a competition, involving not newbies or up-and-comers but seasoned and acclaimed professionals who have already served him admirably in the past.  

See my answer to Jeff for how I feel about that. You and Ron and others are obviously free to disagree. And Ron - if you are going to use alliteration to maxium effect you should try to pick words that actually make sense - there is nothing paranoid nor pessimistic in anything I wrote; you could have used "a pesky and pernicious palavar of personal pique" instead.  

[Don Mahaffey]

Jeff,
I don't think Mk is looking for inspired vision; not for a second.

He has already built the "magic kingdom" of golf at Bandon and he is trying to build something like that in the Midwest.

Sand Valley feels planned out, like there is a perfect blueprint in place. That, to most in business probably feels right, to me, I want some improvisation.

I don't think Bandon was a perfectly planned golf resort. I think there was some "on the fly" decision making.

With Sand Valley, MK is showing us what a perfectly planned out golf resort is supposed to be.

If you are given two cups of coffee and one is Starbucks and one is McDonalds, do you think everyone given the taste test will get it right?

Sand Valley will be great, we've all already decided it will be great, and we can't be wrong.

[Jud_T]

Don,

That's a pretty jaded view even by our standards  .  Given the quality of the turf most of us play on, unless they royally cock it up it will be a big win.  Not sure what you're looking for in terms of risk-taking.  Yes, it'd be nice if guys like Nuzzo and DeVries got a crack at it, but I wouldn't rule that out for course 3, 4 or 5.  There's plenty of room in them thar hills, and he's got investors to appease.

[Mike_Young]

JUD,
When Don says :"Sand Hollow will be great, we've all already decided it will be great, and we can't be wrong. "   I don't see that as a jaded view at all.  It's just the nature of this site and the business.   I think Peter has this exercise pegged though.  I do feel for MK in that I would assume he has developed good relationships with several of the guys who have worked with him in the past and it has to be delicate.    But anyway, I like DM statement above....it sums up the way most of us and especially the less attuned golfer, developer etc have viewed the entire business when it comes to the signatures and especially someone like DR...I have seen bad DR courses...JMO