If I were to do one thing for the good of the game, it would be to round up most of the talented young design/build guys and get them to form one big, elastic company [a bit like Colt, MacKenzie and Alison], so they could take all the work and divide it amongst themselves, instead of bidding their prices down to nothing to get the work away from the other guy.
If architecture fees are determined by supply and demand, there is so much supply and so little demand these days that they're headed toward minimum wage pretty soon.
Again, demonstrating what the guys after two decades of depression and war must have been thinking....if there is some way to take care of our own.......they also thought it good for the game and profession. Its easy to question their motives when they are in the grave and can't defend themselves. As Mike notes, it is free enterprise (sometimes literally as too many gca's work too much for free!)
Jeff:
Yes, that's part of the reason I posted. But, what I proposed was to try and monopolize a lot of talent into one company and win on reputation ... not to form a professional organization and declare others unqualified. I'll side with Mike on that one.
By the way, you keep using the term "design/build," but that's not what Bill Coore or I do, and I'm not sure it's what any of these young guys are doing, either. What I've been teaching them is "design / shape" ... the same as Mr. Dye.
I'm neither greedy enough nor crazy enough for a real design/build scenario, as there are both too many things that can lead to bankruptcy, and too many potential conflicts of interest. But providing shaping with the design allows you to build a course with a project manager / superintendent and an irrigation contractor [or both at once, like Don M.], instead of a full-on golf course contractor, and there are huge savings in that. And any designer who would cut corners on shaping in order to make a little more money off the construction, would not be in the design business for too long.
Tom,
I think I covered some of the related methods in one post, and I understand how you and Pete (and the Jones) work. The reason I focused on DB is that the project that prompted this thread was advertised by the City of Winter Park as DB.
And, while not disparaging that method, but just to educate, it can have the same problems as others. Namely, unless the top/lead architect is the shaper on site, I have heard complaints from Owner's reps that an intern shapes a feature, then the regional architect shapes it, then everyone waits for the head of firm to come tell them its okay, not much different than a plans based field guy not really having the final authority.
I have also seen some cases where the architect writes that kind of contract, to put his shapers on the contractors construction crew, so the gca avoids risk. Contractors don't like it, because those clauses come with different conditions, like more salary, more time off, etc. But mostly, those separate but required shapers get paid whether the project finishes on time or not, while the contractor gets stuck with the risk, so there is friction.
Like I said, a wealthy owner seeking the best possible golf course can put up with this. In most cases, the type of contract matters, and it works best legally if the designer designs, the builder builds and the Owner owns (i.e. approves the general directions of things and pays the bills) While you hate to think this kind of thing would happen, i.e. lawsuits, they inevitably do, and then its easier to sort out.
I mean, it is a multi million dollar construction contract/agreement so its a pretty big deal in most cases to figure out the p and q of the whole thing.
Of course, I have had complaints about coming out too infrequently to the job site and them having to wait, or me overturning some underlings decision, and I was on the other end of that at Killian and Nugent back in the day. (Partnerships are the worst in some cases.....I recall a project rep asking me what Ken and Dick would say about how some feature was built.....and my answer was "Ken would like it, Dick wouldn't)
In the end, I believe it costs what it costs for every particular project no matter what the architects method. The key is to have a good/great top designer visit the site as often as required to keep the troop moving by making timely design decisions. If the lead designer is the lead shaper, then great, it might be the best option of all. If not, it doesn't really matter.