The Morals of a GCA

[Tom_Doak]

Usually, schedule is paramount, because a week delay waiting for the architect (under any scenario) can cause a month delay in construction (it always rains the day we miss.....) and a month can cost the Owner a year of revenues, not accounted for in their pro forma (again, always pays to avoid underfunded clients)

Jeff:


Well, nobody ever has to wait for me, since I've got a guy on site every day who can make the call to proceed without me if necessary ... but that's pretty rare because it's his job to try to make sure he never has to make that call.


I was speaking more of calling an audible and completing a different hole first, to give myself more time to think about one that I'm not happy with.  Contractors act like that is the end of the world, but usually it's no problem at all.  And as long as we get four or five holes completed for them to work on every time I'm there, we are never going to hold them up.


As to insurance ... yes, I suspect it's much more expensive the way I do things.  I guess that's just the cost of building cool stuff.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have never understood the "don't want to drive the dozers 1000 feet to work elsewhere" mentality either.  While I understand it conceptually, in reality, they probably do it on their own often enough, including some guys driving across the site for lunch rather than walking it in.  But, when the architect requests it......


Of course, the whole "how much responsibility does the field guy really have" question comes up with nearly all architects.  I can't think of one who hasn't over ruled his field guy from time to time (myself included).  In general, if it happens a few times, no big deal, its expected.  If it happens repeatedly, I hear owners and contractors complain. 


In reality, the Owner wants both the timely construction schedule and the sense that the head of the firm is really designing it.  I would venture that for some gca, its all part of "the show" to come in later and make massive field changes the owner can gripe about at his next cocktail party......but with a sense of pride that he got the better product.

[Tom_Doak]

I would venture that for some gca, its all part of "the show" to come in later and make massive field changes the owner can gripe about at his next cocktail party......but with a sense of pride that he got the better product.

The difference is, when we're doing the shaping, it's not a "show" at all ... when I change around a green on my visits [and I change most of them], the client isn't paying anything more for our time as we have already charged a set fee for the shaping ... he's just paying for a bit more dozer fuel.  And generally there is no contractor around to mock complain about the wasted effort of making the hole better.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't know how much the GCA construction culture differs from the housing project kind.

But years ago when earning money for college I worked about two years in construction as a laborer and there seemed to be an inordinate amount of salty/intemperate/impatient whiner boys in that biz.  And just the smallest little deviation or change to plans would set them off on a rage fest of swearing and chucking tools and the like.

P.S.  The most interesting thing I heard was from a plumber who always bitched about the framing and said "If the framers would just think like a plumber when they're building this stuff...." which same could probably be said about any of the trades....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,

Methinks its about the same.  You can walk around nearly any construction team and hear griping, usually along the lines of "I saved this job from all those other incompetents."

It does help if a gca has at least a little golf construction experience.  I had it, and made all my guys do some of it just so they saw it from that perspective, hopefully to make any plans better.  No doubt contractors question everyone (including the head guy) in effort to make the designer look bad and themselves look good.  It can be a problem if they frame it so the owner eventually trusts them more than the architect instead of making it a true three way team. 

And, if I was there when a plan mistake was discovered in the field, would have the contractor call the office, ask for the guy whose initials were on the plan (besides mine as plan checker and designer) and ask the question of what to do. 

One instance (with Jeff Blume, who sometimes comes on here) I recall was a drainage plan where the pipe grade was higher than the last catch basin when it should have been running downhill and been lower.  He figured it out quickly and was non plussed, but then he was always that way.  He was in charge of a little 2 hole reno and the bids came in while I was in Singapore.  When I called in, he related that the bids were high, but he asked a contractor and we had some variance from normal concrete spec that scared them.  They negotiated right on the spot, got the price down, city accepted the bid.  And this was all about 4 months into his career, so I figured I had a keeper.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Most outside contractors have a built in factor for reasonable changes, expecting to rough something in and then change it to some degree when the architect (head guy or associate) shows up.  They can get their dander up if every green needs changing or a few greens need repeated changes that don't progress forward towards completion.  Or, if the change requires new drainage or comes after once approved and irrigation is installed.  I will make changes on the first visit that are pretty major, smaller on the second and really minor tweaks on the third viewing of a green.  I call it the "yards, feet, inches" syndrome and do try to get most right before hand, even if it means roughing in a sketch after I see the clearing or first shaping so they at least get it close the second time.

I was thinking most of the Fazio stories I have heard, where they raise or lower a fairway a couple of inches for artistic reasons.  Unless that is the critical elevation for vision, drainage or flood protection, I can't recall having changed a fairway like that later.  I do keep in mind that if I am the only one who would really know the difference, i.e., doesn't substantially improve playability, maintenance or aesthetics, and it slows the schedule, I let it go.

Somehow, those late changes cost the Owner something, and one of us architects will eventually be taken to court for the lost revenue from opening a year late (along with the contractor, engineer, etc.)

I have always been of the mind that they really, really, really better be worth it.  There is probably a discussion to be had on just how to measure improvements made later in the design process.  They are necessary, and I doubt there is a course I have designed where I wouldn't make changes years after the fact.   So I do try to get it right through numerous field visits (me, not associates) at the right times.  Like you, my fee is fixed so all that cost my owner is a few more air fares than normal.

That said, there are definitely excessive field changes no matter how you look at it.  And, about a thousand stories about nearly every signature architect of how unnecessary those changes were.  Another signature designer had it in his contract he could send in the shapers after grassing for some final tweaks.  The shaper spent two weeks shaping little mounds around tee complexes to spruce them up.  In no way did those improve anyone's golf experience, but the architect had the power to do them, and so he did them. 

[Tom_Doak]

That said, there are definitely excessive field changes no matter how you look at it.  And, about a thousand stories about nearly every signature architect of how unnecessary those changes were.  Another signature designer had it in his contract he could send in the shapers after grassing for some final tweaks.  The shaper spent two weeks shaping little mounds around tee complexes to spruce them up.  In no way did those improve anyone's golf experience, but the architect had the power to do them, and so he did them.

Jeff:


Tell you what ... since these stories exist in large numbers for every architect, see if you can find any about me and my crew.  You can start with several of my former associates and interns, who post here.  Or ask Bill Kubly ... we built one job with him [Lost Dunes], and the project manager told me later it was the highest % of profit on any job they built that year, even after we did hold them off once or twice.


I've only changed one green in 25 years after the irrigation was installed ... the 17th at Tara Iti, where the grass was just starting to come up when the client told me he had hoped it was going to be tougher than that.  Luckily, it wasn't a USGA green, so we could just do the work in the sand and re-seed it.  I'd guess it cost a few hundred bucks to change it [and a bit of sweat from our superintendent], but it's a great story for the owner now, as you say.


I don't know the architect you're talking about in that last example, but there are sometimes little things like that which I think are important to making the course look more natural ... we will probably do a bit of that kind of work at Forest Dunes this spring, though it will be out at the edges of the fairways and native areas, instead of around the tees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

If those little tee mounds had made the course look more natural, I probably wouldn't have mentioned them.  And as I think I alluded, if the Owner is okay with it, its certainly not mine or even the Contractor's place to challenge it.

I have heard a few about you, but who doesn't have at least one example?  I have heard at least 10X about Faz, and others in the go-go 90's.  At Dallas National, Faz waxed poetic in the Dallas Morning News about changing a par 3 at the cost of $1Mil before the Owner was happy.......and those are the stories and kind of stories I was referring to.

[Mike_Young]

I love all these hearsay stories.

Jeff, I think it was you told me some guy told you he felt I had charged too much for a course we built.  Now that's funny.  Think he might have been trying to get the project.

My biggest contractor issues are when the on site supt is there so much that he has the ear of the owner/muni etc and keeps telling them how he usually works for JN or AP and here is how they would do it.  Got some real slapdick stories for that kind of stuff.

All these other issues seem to go away when the guys on the site have golf clubs on their dozers instead of deer rifles...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Agree it can be a problem when the construction super gets the ear of the owner.....It doesn't happen often, but I have had guys call me up because a drain pipe was in the "wrong location" when it turned out the topo (or their surveying) was off by 10 feet and all they had to do was move the pipe to the low spot.  And, the whole time the owner is in an uproar over our crappy plans.  They were just trying to show us up a bit to make their position with the owner stronger.

And, truth be told, architects vary over how much real construction knowledge they have, and many have gotten into the habit of letting the contractor figure it out.  Most times, there are a lot of little decisions that must be made and the contractor tries to get a feel of what I want, and run with it.  That is why guys like JN preferred not only companies but foreman and at least one shaper who has worked with them before....we all do.  For so many day to day things, it pays to have someone thinking like you do, and as you and tom point out, if that's your guy, its likely he is on your same page!

I don't specifically recall any discussions about someone saying you charged too much, but you and I go way back, so not saying it didn't happen.  But, I am with you, if the owner agreed to it, you charged just the right amount, or maybe too little!

[Jonathan Mallard]

And, if I was there when a plan mistake was discovered in the field, would have the contractor call the office, ask for the guy whose initials were on the plan (besides mine as plan checker and designer) and ask the question of what to do. 

Maybe this is the difference between engineers and architects, but if a someone who was responsible for checking the plans, or anything else, before they went out the door told me this, I'd fire them on the spot.


The whole point of checking something in the design process is to make a concerted effort to be sure that the finished product is the best possible effort of the firm.


If someone who's job duties supposedly include quality control / quality assurance blows off any questions to the person who produced them originally, that shows me they have a lack of overall knowledge to be in a responsible position, or they simply aren't doing their job.


Again, this may be different for architects than it is for engineers.

[Mike_Young]

Jonothan,
In golf architecture there can be no exact plans because there are no exact topo maps...you have to have common sense guys and one nerd can screw up an entire project....the only time we fire someone is if they don't want to get dirty.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jonathan,

Yes, the standards of care are much less for golf course designs, and it is recognized the designer requires more freedom.  That said, I was a bit embarrassed to see a catch basin downhill from the previous one at a higher flow line elevation.  That doesn't happen a lot in my office, but those were the days of staff of 8 or so, and sometimes things got out of the office.

In fact, in bringing up a lot of this, I am sure not trying to tweak Tom or Mike for their work methods.  Just trying to demonstrate to the am architects on this site some of the business side considerations that might go into how you work.