[Ben Hollerbach]

Hypothetically:


I'm the greens-chairman at a classic aged course that is nearing its centennial. We have a good Superintendent that keeps the course in great playing shape, but over the last 100 years of random influence the course is looking tired and stale. There is a growing interest among the members to bring in an architect to perform a full fledged restoration in preparation of our centennial celebration. In doing some preliminary research, a full set of original architects sketches as well as aerial photography from the 1940's were found. Comparing the sketches, photographs, and current course it appears that the sketches match what was build, no land was lost over the last 100 years, and the course is still being played down the original corridors.


Rather than hiring an architect and construction firm to restore the course, it appears to me that the club has enough information to do the work with little outside help.


Is this true? What other information would you need to know to better say yes/no? For architects that have been hired to consult on restoration projects where resources like original drawings and photographs were available, do you find these to be fairly easy jobs and what hurdles are still the hardest to clear?

[Brett Hochstein]

It depends on what type of architect you would potentially hire, as I could see some cases where it wouldn't make sense or add that much.  This becomes even more true if you have a very architectural/historic-minded superintendent and committee leading the way. 


Some guys (or gals) can certainly help though, especially those who either do shaping themselves or spend a lot of time in the field working with appointed talent.  There is a high level of interpretation to the aerials and sketches that needs to take place through the shaping process, and there will almost certainly be additional opportunities for making subtle improvements to the design, which also requires important restraint and judgment.  All of this needs to happen in the 3-dimensional space of the golf hole.


If your architect is just going to simply draft plans based on the photos and hand them over to a separate builder though, it probably isn't adding that much value (but it may add cost). 

[Mike Sweeney]

[/size][size=78%]We have a good Superintendent that keeps the course in great playing shape, [/size]

Before you talk architect, why do you only have a "good Super".


I personally would rather have a great Super at a classic course.


Then the question is, "why is he not great"? Is he not great because he is not great or has the membership has not allowed him to be great?


I can see using all sorts of different Architects depending on the answers as to the Membership/Clientele and/or The Super.

[Ben Hollerbach]

[size=78%]We have a good Superintendent that keeps the course in great playing shape, [/size]

Before you talk architect, why do you only have a "good Super".


I personally would rather have a great Super at a classic course.


Then the question is, "why is he not great"? Is he not great because he is not great or has the membership has not allowed him to be great?


I can see using all sorts of different Architects depending on the answers as to the Membership/Clientele and/or The Super.

Lets just say he's a fairly young guy who came to our course a few years ago after being the super as a top level club. Since his arrival he has helped stabilize the grass mixture on our seemingly unchanged push up greens and installed a french drain in one of our lowest fairways that has improved drainage after heavy rainfalls. The budget at my hypothetical course is not ample, so the Super seems to be doing the best he can. The membership is happy with the condition and improvements he's been able to impart in a few years, so they see this as a great time to take it all the way. One of my concerns is the cost of a full restoration. Is it fair to skip out on an architects fee for a chance to save some money?

[Mike Nuzzo]

A great designer can always add worthy ideas.
And they may not cost a ton, you've heard Ian and Tom talk about grassing line improvements for days.

One of their worthy ideas may be that they aren't needed at all or maybe just to convince a stubborn member.
Another idea may be something no one will think of and could make a substantial improvement.
And they don't have to be good on a bulldozer to help, they can bring in someone additional like Brett to add even more talent.
I would use a great designer every time.
But this is hypothetical, which I assume means every member is in agreement.
cheers

[Joe Hancock]

Utilizing a good designer/ architect also buffers your super, and other facility VIP's from those who aren't totally on board with the project.

[Tom_Doak]

The simple answer is probably that you need an architect about the time you wonder if you need one. 


Mostly, as Joe just said, you need an architect to take the heat for things that particular members don't like.  Putting that all on your golf course superintendent, endangers the job which makes him the most valuable to you.


Also, your question about skipping out on an architect's fee to save money is a pretty bad one.  A good and honest architect can save you money by telling you what stuff you don't need to do, and how to do the other stuff cost-effectively.  [Of course, not everyone is both good and honest about that, because they have rationalized that they need to feed their families ... but there are others who are not so short-sighted.]


I do think "budgets" should more often be part of the interview process for architects.  "What could we do for $X ?" is a very good question, especially if costs are going to be crucial to membership support. 


One of the biggest problems in renovation / restoration work is "mission creep."  For example, the "architectural" changes I want to make at Bel Air are probably only a $2 million job [well, maybe $3m due to its location], but it has morphed into several times that, because if they are going to close the course for a few months to rebuild several greens, they might as well rebuild them all ... and re-grass the fairways ... and replace all the huge drainage lines underneath the fairways that were installed 50 years ago ... and add on to the clubhouse! 


At least they can't say I didn't warn them it would happen.  And they can't even say they can't afford it!

[Peter Galea]

.


Putting that all on your golf course superintendent, endangers the job which makes him the most valuable to you.

+1

[Mike Policano]

Ben,


Hypothetically, absolutely hire a qualified professional architect. The Green Chair doesn't know what he/she doesn't know. Just the process of interviewing architects will convince the Green Chair that an architect is required.


The Green Chair will find a qualified architect that can work within the hypothetical budget by using in house help. Just having an architect oversee the work will ultimately save money by reducing the work that will have to be redone, by using cost saving techniques learned over time and by not doing work that shouldn't be done. Not to mention that the work will be much better. If the super was a very good architect, the super would be an architect.


A hypothetical club near me used their very talented super to do major work to their course.  They did not use an architect in any capacity. The work is overdone, inconsistent and made everything harder not necessarily better.


Cheers, Mike

[MClutterbuck]

Precisely because you DO HAVE all the information, hire an architect that can correctly sort through that stuff. You don't need a brand architect, a good down to earth guy will be the best money spent to ensure that the changes that need to be made are made well, and that unnecesary changes are not made.


All of us that serve on Green Committees or Captains should refrain from promoting significant changes without professional opinion.

[Mike_Young]

Ben,


Hypothetically, absolutely hire a qualified professional architect. The Green Chair doesn't know what he/she doesn't know. Just the process of interviewing architects will convince the Green Chair that an architect is required.


The Green Chair will find a qualified architect that can work within the hypothetical budget by using in house help. Just having an architect oversee the work will ultimately save money by reducing the work that will have to be redone, by using cost saving techniques learned over time and by not doing work that shouldn't be done. Not to mention that the work will be much better. If the super was a very good architect, the super would be an architect.


A hypothetical club near me used their very talented super to do major work to their course.  They did not use an architect in any capacity. The work is overdone, inconsistent and made everything harder not necessarily better.


Cheers, Mike

Mike,
You touch on a very delicate point for regional archies where the club is not required to contact them for changes etc.  Understandably many supts see such a time as their "one chance" to play in the dirt and will try and do it all themselves.  It gets press and all types of hype in their magazines and they can talk about how the archie didn't do things right the first time etc while having a free hand.  What happens many times is it cost much more takes much longer.  People on this site don't like to acknowledge it but there is often a conflict of the supt not wanting the archie to tell him what to do.  Unless , of course, it is a name.   
In this business how many times have you seen a signature course come in and do a redo after 4-5 years...maybe greens,bunkers or whatever and then the same thing happens on a regional guy and he is fired and another dude is doing it....funny business...

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,


When working on a project like Holston Hills, where the course was not overly molested and a good amount of original resources were at your disposal, what then becomes the biggest challenges? One could be lead to believe that with a good collection of source material a full restoration would be a relatively easy job, but I'd presume that's not quite the case. Is it harder to convince a club to perform a few smaller changes on a well preserved property vs. a full spectrum restoration on a course that has lost it's way?




Mike,


Great to hear from you. Is it possible sometimes that the Super can be "too deep into the weeds" to create a uniform look when doing work like this? They're focusing on certain factors they feel are critical but not working on an ultimate big picture of the course. I could see that having an outside architect's council could be hugely beneficial to help direct improvements designed to produce a harmonious field of play. This could really apply to a course in any state, not just one looking to complete a larger scale restoration/renovation/redesign.

[Mike Hendren]

Perhaps only an architect knows what not to do?

Mike

[PCCraig]

I had started a thread about 3 or 4 years ago asking essentially the same question, Ben.


I belong to a private club that has a golf course that is well over 100 years old, and has been meddled with by numerous well intentioned but uneducated Green Chairmen over the years. Generally speaking, I don't think most classic courses need an architect to tell them to remove trees, restore putting surfaces, and change the mowing patterns of a fairway.


However, my mind was changed significantly about two years ago when our club started working formally with Jeff Mingay toward a Master Plan.


There was a plan developed for our 6th hole, based on a few board member's desire, to remove the blind 2nd shot on the long par-4 which they thought was unfair. It was "passed" and the plan was to move forward but our Superintendent had Jeff out to review first. The board had budgeted somewhere around $70thd for the plan, but it took Jeff about a day to tell the decision makers that 1) it would cost dramatically more than $70thd, 2) no matter how much earth you move it would still be a blind shot, and 3) it wouldn't fit with the classic architecture of our golf course.


So, Jeff really helped the club dodge a bullet there.


Recently, we are in the later stages of a master plan at the golf course. I like to think I know the course well, but the different ideas he has come up with in the process is mind boggling. Not drastic changes, just tweaks really that on the whole would create a dramatically better golf course (in my opinion).

[Will MacEwen]

If your name is Zak Blair you need it when you roll out of bed in the morning.

[Andrew Carr]

I couldn't agree more with what has been written so far.  We are currently in process of a restoration of an over 100 year old design, which unfortunately did have some property lines redrawn as a result of probably the worst government autocrat in golfing history: Robert Moses.  With that bias out of the way, we have been unbelievably fortunate to have Ian Andrew helping us along our journey.  At times he's played punching bag, which as a hockey loving Canadian, was familiar to him  , but more importantly, he knows when to chime in and when to let a situation play out.  He's our Green Committee Therapist as much as our Consulting Architect.


Most guys that get to positions of power within a club aren't exactly pushovers, so while the super might be 100% correct, he might not be willing, nor should he be, to push back against what amount to be his employers.  There is also something very confidence inspiring by having an outside voice express their vision for your course.


I would strongly recommend you reach out to Ian Andrew, because he is really wonderful.  He spends a great deal of time researching and very well versed in the restoration process both from a design and political standpoint.  I'd like to stress the political benefit as most people on this site have a solid understanding of what the restoration is trying to accomplish and how, but helping convince bull-headed committee members that aren't as interested in design as we all are...that is worth every penny!


For clarity, I have no referral arrangement with Ian, but if he reads this post and wants to change that I wouldn't argue with him 

[Forrest Richardson]

Interesting post. I am sure you will hear from all the golf course architects that hiring one can always lead to more value.
 
Brett H. writes: "If your architect is just going to simply draft plans based on the photos and hand them over to a separate builder though, it probably isn't adding that much value (but it may add cost)."
     
The key to his conclusion is the phrase "isn't adding much value..."   First off, I am not sure there are many golf course architects who ever simply "draft plans based on photos...[etc.]..." Brett may be thinking of some work done many, many years ago when there were examples of designers "mailing it in" so to speak. I have not seen any of that in my 30 years, and clubs and owners are infinitely more savvy about working with golf course architects today then they were in the 1970s and 80s when I do admit you could point to such examples of "remote consulting."
 
It would be interesting if ANYONE today can cite examples of any golf course architect not spending time on site, both before "design" and also during the work. Now, we realize that not every golf architect self-performs their own shaping, so maybe this is what Brett is referring to. Not clear.

There are, of course, the larger firms where a "name" may have oversight, but delegate the work to a lead golf course architect. And also examples of a team approach where the name on the door works with a few key designers and shapers to get it all done.
 
Bottom line from someone who spent the first part of my career as a television art director, and then a writer and creative director in branding — then on to golf design ... Having someone you trust to lead the design is always worth the investment. It is also the "cheapest" of all the components to a project. Eventually you will buy all sorts of tangible things to carry out the design. But the design itself — whether on paper or presented in a PowerPoint to a Green Committee — is going to be the least costly of all your expenses on a project.
 
Tom D. has a great summary: If you are asking, it probably means you need one. Nice.
 
 
 
 
 
 

[John Kavanaugh]

For the cost of a plane ticket and the equivalent of one month of your supers salary you can get all you need.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's probably like the tag line from that old commercial: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later". Later will be a lot more expensive.

[Ian Andrew]

It isn’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you think you know and you don't.


I have an entire career based around fixing horrendous mistakes ... think about that for perspective








p.s. Andrew ... thanks for the kind words ...

[JWL]

I agree with almost all that has been said.  Probably the most important reason for an architect is to give an 'outside' opinion or voice to what could be some contentious issues within the club.   It would be unwise to put your superintendent in a position that he isn't trained, and have him be the point person for member questions/criticisms.   As has been stated, knowing what to do and what not to do, and give advice from experience on how to spend your budget dollars, will be invaluable in the process.    Then presuming the golf course has areas of improvement, a good architect will bring ideas on how to solve design issues without changing the 'character' of the course.   A good architect in the situation described should be able to easily justify their fee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()