[Mike_Young]

Adam Lawrence posted today the renovation of City of Winter Park golf course by Keith Rhebb and Riley Johns along with help from Don Mahaffey.  This is exactly where golf design needs to be heading...is it possible that we have gone thru the period that began in 1947 of considering golf course design a profession and are now realizing it has been a craft best done on site and in the dirt.  Congrats to these guys. 

One of Adam's quotes was:
Rhebb said that the city had realised the course could not survive for long in its present state. But a traditional architect-and-contractor style renovation was also likely to be challenging, because of the cost involved. “We are bringing the cost of this kind of work right down, because we are both architects and shapers,” he said. “Riley and I will share the design work, but equally on any given day we might be out there shaping a fairway, laying sods or excavating a drainage ditch.” Texas-based irrigation and construction expert Don Mahaffey and Canadian shaper Trevor Dormer will also be part of the project, which has a budget of US$1.2 million.

Many in the business would try and convince a city that this method would be extremely dangerous and could not work....I say BS...it was once this way took a about a 65 year hiatus but hopefully it's back.

[Steve Lang]

an Arts and Crafts movement?  hmmmmm... where have i read about that???

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike:

Those guys walk the talk -- rare, I think, in any profession!  They should feel proud. We talk about bifurcation in terms of equipment, but perhaps the real and important one is actually in gca. As in Hollywood, where there will always be the $100+ million production and the stars who get $30 million a picture, perhaps also in gca there will always be "the signatures" -- and in some cases the signatures can deliver the goods. But more and more perhaps, it will be the small "independent", making up with ingenuity and hard work and wonderful ideas and daring and depth and originality, what they lack in cash. And again, as in the movie business, the independents won't *necessarily* be/do any better than their big-budgeted brothers, but at least they have a chance to be brilliant game changers in a way the big boys never can/will be.     

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

Those guys walk the talk -- rare, I think, in any profession!  They should feel proud. We talk about bifurcation in terms of equipment, but perhaps the real and important one is actually in gca. As in Hollywood, where there will always be the $100+ million production and the stars who get $30 million a picture, perhaps also in gca there will always be "the signatures" -- and in some cases the signatures can deliver the goods. But more and more perhaps, it will be the small "independent", making up with ingenuity and hard work and wonderful ideas and daring and depth and originality, what they lack in cash. And again, as in the movie business, the independents won't *necessarily* be/do any better than their big-budgeted brothers, but at least they have a chance to be brilliant game changers in a way the big boys never can/will be.     

Agree....but I'm still not sure how the signature thing will play out.   Using your film analogies:  Often am lured into a bad movie because of the list of stars in the film...

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - if I let my most cynical view take over: signatures don't make $100 million movies primarily for the *audience*, they make them for *themselves* -- since they and a whole lot of their friends can eat really well for a long long time off $100 million. The movie needs to be barely good enough (and satisfy the audience just enough) to allow the signatures to, well, make *another* $100 million movie.  Their genius is that, over the years, they've kept audience expectations so low -- "that was alright" is enough of a reaction, if the movie has enough explosions and gadgets -- that audience keep coming out year after year, and so the signatures keep making their $100 million movies.  In their minds, this is an ideal situation, since *everyone* wins (but by everyone they mean themselves and their agents and the producers and the stars etc). 

[Don Mahaffey]

Mike,
I don't know if the "industry" has finally realized anything. I think some of the folks who pay the "industry's" invoices may be wising up.
The thing is there will always be "luxury" courses and clubs where spending more than the one down the street brings some sort of satisfaction. And you and I both know the best way to over spend is to hire too many specialists. Golf course development is  where the specialists make their money, and it's too bad sometimes because I'm convinced some of the best designers out there are pretty well versed in the specialties. For instance, you'll never get Tom Doak to talk about agronomy, but I'm convinced he has as good a handle on that specialty, at least in terms of designing a golf course that can be maintainable over the long haul for a reasonable amount of resources, as any agronomic specialist.
But owners like lots of consultants and most consultants feel their job is to make sure everything meets the ideal spec and pretty soon you've got a huge budget for a project when we all know that someone with a broad base of knowledge could put together a program for a lot less.   

I have really enjoyed my time with Keith and Riley. For young guys they have a lot of time in the dirt and they are going to make it happen if by their own sweat.

For me, I get to draw up an irrigation system and help put it in the ground, and help get the soil and grass ready to support some good golf.

There will not be a huge crew on this project but it will be a smiling one that I can guarantee.

[RJ_Daley]

The Bunker Hill boys were doing this approach in the mid 90s.  Low budget, big golf ideas, in small town America, giving the regular guy a chance to afford good golf.  Gothenburg, Ogallala, Delaware Springs.... no glamour or glitz, just small community affordable golf course development.   

But, they haven't exactly lit up the world of golf design and spawned a pubic golf development boom, despite the excellent value they created on this low budget design-build model. 

Not only the crashed economy, but the public policy embrace of golf as legitimate community development worthy of modest expenditure to provide good clean recreation for its citizens is a primary catalyst.  Without that recognition and willingness of communities as public policy, how can the 'craft' survive on any widespread scale.  Only the rare situation of a community with someone leading the interest and effort can foster such craft.  And that seems only to happen a few times in a decade.  That doesn't exactly put food on the table for these 'craftsman' capable of creating such good works.

Yet the gaudy and financially overextended project keep coming along for the big house archies and firms....  It seems a vicious cycle of prohibitive costs, lavish trappings, small exclusive clientele/members, and formula for failure and wasted assets.  Somebody makes cash during the overblown process, but are they 'craftsmen' or 'assembly line production meisters'? 

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I think we see it the same except for our definition of "signature".  You mention TD.  With respect I don't call him a signature.  Actually he might be the only recognized modern name who did not tie in with a professional golfer or famous father to gain national recognition.  And as much as some may not believe, there are guys in clubs who still don't know who TD is.    Eddie Bauer Broncos were a signature to Ford.  That is no disrespect to Eddie Bauer but more of a lack of respect for the intelligence of the consumer.  If Eddie Bauer actually could have done the work then I would not consider him a signature.  And that's the way I see a guy like TD. He can actually do the work or implement the project.  A few of the signatures actually have/had guys who are extremely capable of doing the same and some are now doing it.

RJ,
While the "bunker hill boys" may be the ones you know, there are groups all over the county that fit that bill.  Some of us have been doing it longer than the mid-90's.  But  naturally such work will only remain regional or in a few instances cultish for a few.  Give me a few hours this morning to get a few things done and I will stir some Sh** on the subject...

The good thing is that the project mentioned and a few others have it starting to turn the corner. 

[Niall C]

You can call it craft, you can even call it art but at the end of the day people make a living out of it. I'm also not sure that what's being done here is necessarily them going back to what was done before. 

Niall

[Paul Gray]

Mike - if I let my most cynical view take over: signatures don't make $100 million movies primarily for the *audience*, they make them for *themselves* -- since they and a whole lot of their friends can eat really well for a long long time off $100 million. The movie needs to be barely good enough (and satisfy the audience just enough) to allow the signatures to, well, make *another* $100 million movie.  Their genius is that, over the years, they've kept audience expectations so low -- "that was alright" is enough of a reaction, if the movie has enough explosions and gadgets -- that audience keep coming out year after year, and so the signatures keep making their $100 million movies.  In their minds, this is an ideal situation, since *everyone* wins (but by everyone they mean themselves and their agents and the producers and the stars etc).

Regulars here will know I've posed this question a few times.

It seems to me that trying to appeal to 'golfers' is like trying to appeal to 'diners.' There is not, and probably never has been one market. Much to the annoyance of some from the 80's school of architecture, my analogies on the subject focus on food. It always strikes me though that McDonalds and Michelin star establishments make a good reference point for the sake of comparison, not to mention the inexpensive but delightful bistros and local restaurants which cover France, much in the same way that their golfing equivalents cover Britain.

What however can be influenced, what can essentially shift, is a general appreciation of a more subtle, more creative culinary style. We here in Britain have experienced something of a mini food revolution in the last 30 or so years after an all time post war low. Golf is no different, at least in terms of potential.

[Mike_Young]

You can call it craft, you can even call it art but at the end of the day people make a living out of it. I'm also not sure that what's being done here is necessarily them going back to what was done before. 

Niall

You are seeing more and more guys "design/building" golf courses because clients have seen that money can be saved and the product is good.  I don't mean to say they have gone back to the methods of the old; they can use all modern methods.  But actual production of the product is much more hands on.  There has been a dedicated effort for the last 60 years to restrict trade of these types of things.  It's nice to see a municipality by-pass such.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, perhaps you are speaking of red tape, permitting road blocks placed on projects by various governmental bodies, and their ability to 'waive' certain money and time consuming process, if they have a community based plan of development that they are committed to for various community development and recreation reasons.  I'm only guessing what you might mean.

But, it seems perfectly plausible and understandable to me that 'powers that be' in a region or community with permitting, zoning, and enviro oversight can be arbitrary.  And, being restrictive and overly demanding of superficial planning documentations and such favors the big design houses, name GCA firms, and their big construction collaborators.  The more oversight and documentation placed on permitting the project, obviously the more cost, and the larger the scale and scope.  So, the mega millions GC development plans (which there are entirely too many of IMHO) build the big budgets, go after the big names in GCA and the whole over blown cycle is repeated. 

Yes, I am aware of a few of the great efforts like Dan Hixon, yourself, Mike DeVries, and the sublist of fitters of design/ construction who float between various golf course designer entities.  It is sad that there isn't more work given to these design/build entities by community and 'powers that be' decision makers in the development process.  We would all as golfers benefit greatly.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:


No, the industry has certainly NOT realized GCA is a craft ... As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is hard to get a man to understand something if his living depends on him not understanding it."


It's amazing that a city project will be done in this way.  As you know, the ASGCA provides free documents to governmental authorities to put projects out to bid, and one of the clauses they include is that all bidders should be members to the ASGCA.  Of course the city is free to edit that out, but many don't, and thereby disqualify a lot of guys who might be able to do the work for less [including not just Keith and Riley, but you and me].  As Jeff Brauer will inevitably point out, it does also disqualify some shady characters, but we all know that's not the real motivation behind the bid documents.


Right now what I see is a bit chaotic.  There are dozens of talented guys bouncing back and forth all over the country [and outside of it; Riley and Trevor are both from Canada] snapping up little jobs wherever they can, fighting against each other for work at relatively low prices, and spreading themselves a bit thin in the process.  They'd do better if more of them banded together and divvied up the work amongst themselves.


Personally, I'm starting to think about doing things more regionally when possible, and sourcing our supporting cast from as close to the project as we can, because it saves the client money to go that way.  We did a little of that at Tara Iti, if only because of New Zealand's immigration rules ... the guys with connections to the Commonwealth were easier to bring on board than a bunch of Americans.  As you are fond of pointing out, the golf business used to be much more regional in nature; I think it will start going back that way now that there are good guys in so many places. 


But all of these guys want to be the next famous designer, instead of the king of their neighborhood; and the names that get press attention [just like R.J.'s short list] are just a random sampling.  If clubs and developers around the country really had a handle on the amount of talent that's out there right now, the business would look vastly different than it does today ... perhaps this news item is a canary in the coal mine of what's to come.

[RJ_Daley]

TD and MY, other GCAs that would comment.... what do you think are similar impediments to the 'resto/reno' side of the business?  Do you see the remodel or restore side of the 'craft' as being subject to the same institutional and process red tape inhibitors to quality and economical design/construction as the new course development.

Off hand, I'd have to guess that design and construction work on existing courses would naturally have a lower bar to initiate and manage as a lead architect, with greater opportunities to source regional construction personnel. 

Example being my own home course, a county owned facility of some decent bones and Ed Lawrence Packard design, finally succumbed to the long needed reno of the green complexes.  They announced a construction entity, with no actual archie involved, to peel off the greens pad and surrounds, and do a new drainage and rootzone field of a more or less pushed up semi California method.  I was skeptical due to never having heard of that Janesville WI construction entity and their lack of significant demonstrated resume f previous comparable work up to the standards a course of our quality would require.  The budget published (county facility subject to open records) was astoundingly low.  Yet, with a great well credentialed super and turf manager, who worked on a previous extensive grow-in, the job turned out excellent.  Of course since it was the county and the super is also the top guy as Department Head, and top decision maker, any red tape could be 'expedited'. 

Tom's firm work at Medinah, might be an instructive case study, but I surely don't know the financial-budget side of that project. 

But it seems to me that if the popular or current conventional wisdom of golf development would turn from fancy new development and all the high bars to develope to economical resto/reno projects, either privately owned courses and clubs or publicly owned facilities, that permitting and zoning ought to be a lower bar to meet, and quality independent rover craftsman would have plenty of target courses for a while that would make up a viable market and target of design.build focus. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

The GCA landscape - 1920:

[Tom_Doak]

TD and MY, other GCAs that would comment.... what do you think are similar impediments to the 'resto/reno' side of the business?

RJ, we are talking about renovation and restoration throughout this thread.  New 18-hole projects are few and far between these days, and much harder for the young guys to get when us older guys aren't too busy to take them.

[Mike_Young]

 Here is an effort at trade restriction by ASGCA any of you can find on the internet.
check out Section C6-6, Part 3, Paragraph (c) of the contract

 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oIQNdV61JyQJ:wilmington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php%3Fview_id%3D%26clip_id%3D3823%26meta_id%3D130332+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There is zero justification for such .  It also seems to be a very nice project and none of this is directed at the architect or his work.  I'm just stating facts here which are published.  Funny thing is while it is restricting the design trade it is at the same time stating they will promote affirmative action during the project.  BUT this type of deal would not have allowed for a project such as Winter Park to be done. 

[BCowan]

The sign says u gotta have a membership card to get inside.....

[BHoover]

Is this contract any different than a municipality requiring a union contractor to perform labor?

[Mike_Young]

Is this contract any different than a municipality requiring a union contractor to perform labor?

Brian,
Did you read the section I noted?  Of course it's different.  A union contractor is qualified via an objective.  This type of thing is the same as having a job interview day at a university and telling applicants they have to be a member of a certain fraternity.  It's a club not an association dude....

[Bill_McBride]

Here is an effort at trade restriction by ASGCA any of you can find on the internet.
check out Section C6-6, Part 3, Paragraph (c) of the contract

 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oIQNdV61JyQJ:wilmington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php%3Fview_id%3D%26clip_id%3D3823%26meta_id%3D130332+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There is zero justification for such .  It also seems to be a very nice project and none of this is directed at the architect or his work.  I'm just stating facts here which are published.  Funny thing is while it is restricting the design trade it is at the same time stating they will promote affirmative action during the project.  BUT this type of deal would not have allowed for a project such as Winter Park to be done.

I have learned from the construction industry that it's great to be able to incorporate specifications into an RFP that fit your product like a glove. 


The situation Mike references must certainly be a restraint of trade but I guess somebody otherwise qualified would have to file a suit.   That might step on a lot of toes.

[Mike_Young]

Bill,
It would step on a few toes but not all.    You got to look at it like a university with students who are qualified for a particular subject but then the professor says he will only take those from a particular fraternity.  Those in the fraternity who are qualified will not have their toes stepped on.  Those in the fraternity that are not will have toes stepped...does that make sense?   

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
It would step on a few toes but not all.    You got to look at it like a university with students who are qualified for a particular subject but then the professor says he will only take those from a particular fraternity.  Those in the fraternity who are qualified will not have their toes stepped on.  Those in the fraternity that are not will have toes stepped...does that make sense?   

Yes, but will my Sig Eps file a lawsuit?  😄

[Mike_Young]

If anything it would be the opposite...if I have time I will stir some stuff for you later...

[Mike_Young]

TD,
I think your post #12 is a good analysis except I'm not sure all of the guys wish to be the "next famous designer".  I would wager you did not set out with that as your main goal either.   Many of the guys I see just love being out in the dirt doing their thing. They want to build the best they can for the conditions and  If national recognition happens then great.  JMO

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()