Has an architect ever had free reign?

[Don Mahaffey]

Every project has constraints or conflicts. Budget, maintenance concerns, client input...

But I've come to believe that to achieve the best possible outcome when developing a golf course, architects should be given as close to 100% free reign as possible.

I believe that the design team has the best overall "feel" for what is best for a project. But I constantly see other consultants, superintendents, members, clients, city staff...etc... influencing design decisions. And while I do believe that this input is driven by the desire to create the best possible golf course, I don't think it is always based on helping to create the best possible golf course DESIGN.

I've read posts here that say the opposite of my theory, that the best outcome happens when everyone is involved in the decision making.  My real world experience does not support that last idea. I think designs get watered down, but I also understand the idea that if everyone involved has a say, there may be a better chance for the design to stand the test of time as all have a piece of ownership.

Curious what others think.

[Keith OHalloran]

Don,
How would a project like Pine Valley fit in your scenario? Did Crump have free reign and choose to take any opinion he wanted into account and use only the best ideas? Or were there a lot of people involved to get to the best possible design?

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

You are talking about two different things at the same time.

I have no doubt that my best work has come on projects where I had the final say in the design process, and the client [and the associates and shapers and engineers and superintendent] never weighed in too forcefully on a particular hole or feature.  Of course, my viewpoint is biased and my associates might not agree 100%, but I think the track record is pretty solid.

That said, I find it sad when young architects or guys going out on their own try to "do it all" to prove they can.  The best way to get a great product is to find a bunch of talented help, AND LET THEM CONTRIBUTE.  It works great, as long as they understand that their contributions are all "on spec" and they are only going to stay if you really like them.  [That's how George Crump worked.]

The right degree of involvement from the client is also critical.  You DO want them involved in the process, because ultimately it's their call whether your work stays or changes.  The better they understand why you built things the way you did, the more likely they are to defend your choices instead of listening to the inevitable complaints from golfers who didn't shoot their best score.  But they need to understand that it's a creative endeavor, and if they are adding ideas at the wrong time, or changing their minds about what they are looking for, it gets difficult to maintain the positive momentum of the project.  I thought Dick Youngscap understood this better than any developer I've known, because he is an architect himself by trade, and he's been on the wrong side of it many times.  He surely WANTED to have more input into the design of Sand Hills, but he held himself back and let Bill and Ben do their thing, because that's what he'd hired them to do.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, did you ever have a client who didn't play golf and therefore gave you this absolute free reign?"

[Jason Way]

After reading the history of NGLA in George Bahto's book, it seems that CB Mac had damn near free reign to be what he wanted.  However, there were things that he was not capable of doing alone, which is why he was fortunate to have Seth Raynor and others as expert collaborators.

As someone who manages creative projects in business, I think I understand what you're driving at.  Design by committee almost always turns out mediocre.  That is the "consensus" style of decision making, and that is rarely the best way to go.

However, at the other end of the spectrum, the "command" approach rarely achieves the best outcomes either.  If I in my business, or an architect leading the building of a golf course, is not wise enough to seek input from the talented people around him/her, then opportunities for inspiration are missed.  Also not an optimal outcome.

What Tom is talking about is the consultative approach, and I agree with him.  The architect is where the buck should stop.  But the successful architect is smart enough to seek input from the right parties at the right times in the process.  The high value of managing projects with the consultative decision-making approach applies across all disciplines.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - it's obviously best (and most worthwhile) if folks like you and Tom and Mike etc discuss this amongst yourselves. But I will say this (only because it is my experience with creative work and because no one else may take this angle): I think a lot of architects will talk about freedom as something that is granted them (or not) from the outside, i.e. from other people (clients, golfers, supers, associates). For me, that kind of freedom is secondary. The only freedom that an architect can truly be responsible for is his internal freedom, i.e. the openness and willingness to allow fresh new ideas to emerge and old constraints to fall off and persistent demands (e.g. the demands of 'good business') not to dampen genuine creative enthusiasms. As I say, I think that kind of internal freedom comes first, and is of primary importance  -- and I have a feeling that if there is not this internal freedom first, an architect will never find the external freedoms being granted him.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, did you ever have a client who didn't play golf and therefore gave you this absolute free reign?"

The two closest were Ballyneal and Barnbougle Dunes, both of which turned out pretty well 

Rupert O'Neal was not a golfer when we started Ballyneal so his only goal was for it to be fun for people.  Richard Sattler was not a golfer when we started Barnbougle and Mike Keiser told him he could trust me.

By the same token, I've had some clients who were very involved, but gave their input in just the right way ... setting out goals at the beginning, and afterward asking questions during the process, rather than making demands.  It's when the client tells you that you can't do something [or a consultant changes the ground rules on you] that it's hard to stay in the flow.

Peter's post just above this one is dead on, too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

A very real infringement on free reign these days is from the outside environmental consultants, or public hearings, and I don't think that is ever going to reduce......but in most cases, I am in the "necessity is the mother of invention" camp, and the restraints often lead to ideas you might never consider otherwise.  I sometimes believe that if given a total free reign, I might fall back into old designs and stock solutions by habit, sort of like the habits of brushing your teeth first, then showering, or whatever.  Certainly, the individual project challenges can be a great source to spark creative thinking.

And, in general, I recall those college discussions in the LA department about "pure design" unencumbered by real world realities as being somehow "ideal."  But the best design professionals are the ones who accept what they cannot change and find creative ways to work within whatever constraints arise.  A good designer just keeps on plugging along.  Peter stated that very well, also.  Or, put another way, if you think you can't design well except under ideal conditions, its almost a guarantee you won't!

I kind of liked what Jason Garret told his players after the Dez Bryant non-catch - it is always sad to see older folks looking back and musing that their whole life would have been different except for one moment.  Similarly, I don't like to hear a lot from designers about how an old project would have been so much better except for "X."

You just are going to get that ideal situation only once or twice in a career.  Most projects have some compromises you need to build into your mindset. But, maybe that's the old grump in me.  But, I still think I am idealistic in a realistic way.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, did you ever have a client who didn't play golf and therefore gave you this absolute free reign?"

The two closest were Ballyneal and Barnbougle Dunes, both of which turned out pretty well 

Rupert O'Neal was not a golfer when we started Ballyneal so his only goal was for it to be fun for people.  Richard Sattler was not a golfer when we started Barnbougle and Mike Keiser told him he could trust me.

By the same token, I've had some clients who were very involved, but gave their input in just the right way ... setting out goals at the beginning, and afterward asking questions during the process, rather than making demands.  It's when the client tells you that you can't do something [or a consultant changes the ground rules on you] that it's hard to stay in the flow.

Peter's post just above this one is dead on, too.

Did Rupert's brother Jim, one of my favorite club pros, not have any input?   He spends a lot of time around a pretty good Mackenzie course!

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom Doak,
I thought there was basically free reign at Sebonack?  The historical society and environmental restrictions were almost non existent there right? 

[Tom_Doak]

Did Rupert's brother Jim, one of my favorite club pros, not have any input?   He spends a lot of time around a pretty good Mackenzie course!

Very little, actually.  I had assumed that Jim would be much more involved, but his wife is from California so that's where they were staying.

The one caveat to my earlier reply is that while neither the O'Neals nor Mr. Sattler had much to say about the golf, they didn't have any spare cash to throw around, either.  It was understood from the beginning that we needed to build those courses as cost-effectively as possible.  I don't remember any decisions at Ballyneal being compromised over that.  However, Barnbougle is a bit narrower than it might have been, because we didn't have the $ for a bigger irrigation system.

[Carl Rogers]

Part of this underlying problem is the notion that some/many in our society think/believe that anybody can design anything.

[Don Mahaffey]

Don,

A very real infringement on free reign these days is from the outside environmental consultants, or public hearings, and I don't think that is ever going to reduce......but in most cases, I am in the "necessity is the mother of invention" camp, and the restraints often lead to ideas you might never consider otherwise.  I sometimes believe that if given a total free reign, I might fall back into old designs and stock solutions by habit, sort of like the habits of brushing your teeth first, then showering, or whatever.  Certainly, the individual project challenges can be a great source to spark creative thinking.

And, in general, I recall those college discussions in the LA department about "pure design" unencumbered by real world realities as being somehow "ideal."  But the best design professionals are the ones who accept what they cannot change and find creative ways to work within whatever constraints arise.  A good designer just keeps on plugging along.  Peter stated that very well, also.  Or, put another way, if you think you can't design well except under ideal conditions, its almost a guarantee you won't!

I kind of liked what Jason Garret told his players after the Dez Bryant non-catch - it is always sad to see older folks looking back and musing that their whole life would have been different except for one moment.  Similarly, I don't like to hear a lot from designers about how an old project would have been so much better except for "X."

You just are going to get that ideal situation only once or twice in a career.  Most projects have some compromises you need to build into your mindset. But, maybe that's the old grump in me.  But, I still think I am idealistic in a realistic way.

You are an old grump

My question was not rhetorical. I was curious and I do understand that solving compromises or constraints in a creative manner is what golf design is often about.

But since you want to take my little "fantasy world" question and drag it into the real world:

What about a Supt who makes you tone something down? Build bigger greens or mellow out the bunkers? What if he asks you to tone something down that you've seen successfully maintained without undue expense somewhere else? In most cases don't you already know the resources available to the supt for maintenance and don't you already know what can be practically maintainable and what is not?

Another real world question.  Every architect I've ever been around, and most who post here or write about "affordable" or "practical" golf construction bemoan the ever increasing cost of golf irrigation systems. At what point does the architect take his words and put them into action? When does the architect tell the irrigation consultant/Superintendent, enough already?

Same with USGA greens, or bunker liner and sands that start eating up 20% of the budget. Many architects would much rather have that money to do something else, or maybe not spend it at all.

I just believe that in the above situations the architects I've worked with are best suited to make most of those decisions. I believe they know the best way to spread the money around to give the client the best value, and they also know when to ask the super or the consultant questions.

These are situations we all find ourselves in. I have had to add heads that I don't want to put in. We've all had to do these things. My question remains, when have you had a job where every design decision was yours? Does an architect even want that job? When you see an outdoor wall covering being installed on a course bathroom that you know is out of place with your course theme, do you say anything, or do you just accept that you can't be in control of every detail?

What is wrong with an architect being responsible for approving every little detail, from drive in to drive out? Isn't he the most qualified to do so?  

So maybe it is not possible to find the ideal project with no constraints at all. But what about the ideal process? A process where the architect had complete control?


Is that what any architect really wants?

[JC Urbina]

Don,

I think you could consider re phrasing the question.

 How about , do you know of a golf course that ever had free reign? 

I think the singular " architect " is too confining. It supposes that the architect makes all decisions regarding the design.

[jeffwarne]

Every project has constraints or conflicts. Budget, maintenance concerns, client input...

But I've come to believe that to achieve the best possible outcome when developing a golf course, architects should be given as close to 100% free reign as possible.

That would depend greatly on the architect.
I've seen situations where that was the best possible outcome for the architect (who happened to use his own construction team to (over)build the project, not so much for the client.

[john_stiles]

Macdonald at NGLA ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

ERIC BERGSTOL at Bayonne

CBM at NGLA

[Bill_Yates]

Henry Fownes at Oakmont. It was his course, his club and his design.

[Bill_McBride]

Henry Fownes at Oakmont. It was his course, his club and his design.

And every time a young buck drove where Mr. Fownes thought he shouldn't be able to, there was a bunker there the next morning!

[Bill_Yates]

Henry Fownes at Oakmont. It was his course, his club and his design.

And every time a young buck drove where Mr. Fownes thought he shouldn't be able to, there was a bunker there the next morning!

Amen! And when Henry passed on, his son William C. Jr. continued Henry's philosophy - "To build the hardest course in the world."

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'd say there are thousands of examples from the earlier days.

But Peter and Tom hit the nail on the head for me. The best situation is a collaborative team working together but with the lead architect having final say on all creative decision making.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd say there are thousands of examples from the earlier days.

But Peter and Tom hit the nail on the head for me. The best situation is a collaborative team working together but with the lead architect having final say on all creative decision making.

Ally,

Design by consensus rarely works, and if anything, I would say it compromises creativity.

And once you say that the lead architect has final say, you immediately negate the notion of a collaborative team.

Too many cooks spoil the broth 😀

[Jason Way]

And once you say that the lead architect has final say, you immediately negate the notion of a collaborative team.

Consensus and collaboration are not the same thing Patrick.  It is possible, even preferable, for a leader of a creative project like a GCA to be collaborative and incorporate the ideas of others, without being concerned about arriving at a consensus.

[Mark_Fine]

Free reign has varied definitions but I would say yes many many times architects have had free reign!  I would also argue that while many architects won't admit it, most courses are much better than they would have been had "the architect" not gotten input from others.  Those others could include a whole host of people that bounce both good and bad ideas off "the architect". 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Okay, you got me!  That said, I just don't see a pat answer, although, I see you already received a "Pat"(M) answer.

To both of you, I would say that I have always been taught, and believe, that the "Master Builder" syndrome as championed by RTJ, FLW, etc, is largely marketing, and not usually true in the real world.  Maybe too many cooks spoil the broth, but I have always believed two heads are better than one.

More specifically, while I am a landscape architect, I focus on golf and in your example of being in charge of everything from the front gate in, I am not sure I should be in full control.  Yes, I am an LA, but there are others who have specialized in that kind of landscape design who have far more experience than I in designing the front entry sequence.  Why should I control that?  There, I would like input, but let someone more experienced than I control the final.

As to your other examples, of the gca taking the lead to parcel out the budget, rather than have the irrigation designer try to sell the most expensive system, the bunker liner guy trying to sell the most bunker liner, etc., they yes, I agree that is the architects job as the first among equals. There, I would like input from others, but feel like I should control the final.

And, it sounds like you and I approach that aspect similarly, as I suspect most do, at least in the middle rung.

As to Owner/Superintendent input, I usually work with the superintendent to get a maintenance program he can feel good about given his experience, proposed budget, etc.  In truth, I have always found that if I design a hard to maintain feature, it usually gets eliminated in a few years.  The nice ones ask me back to consult, others do it on their own.  My experience has led me to consider that as one of my design principles, and I am not sure there are too many examples of me just "having to have" some hard to maintain feature.  (The closest being choosing 'cape and bay" bunkering with wash prone slopes for aesthetics over flash bunkers.  Even then, I have modified my style to flatter bunkers that supers want, sloped just enough to be visible and have variety and aesthetics.  And that includes flatter bunkers to eliminate liners......it seems like you have to give to get)

There are many final products that can skin a cat, and getting stuck on just one with some obvious flaws still doesn't seem like good design to me.

Cheers.