Level of involvement - "big name"player-architects/owners in new builds

[David Davis]

I understand this will be rather tough for some people to chime in on however, I'm really curious as to the actual level of involvement that some of the owners and big name architects have on average.


In this vein I'm thinking of two different categories:


The big name player turned architect: Nicklaus, Player, Palmer, Woods, Love, Woosnan, Montgomery, Norman etc. I've always had the feeling it's more of a stamp. They show up a couple times perhaps because that's in the contract and important for PR or selling the project. It seems like the players always take the credit even when they don't do hardly anything but hit the ceremonial ball and put their stamp on it.


Then the other category would be more in the owners. For example, Trump, Keiser etc.


In the latter category it seems like you rarely hear about the people that actually do a lot of the work if we are talking about Trump for example. Not that this surprises me as that's of course how he would market it. Keiser on the other hand seems totally different, the people he uses seem to get the major billings for the work. Is this also how you guys would see this?


Curious as to your thoughts and where possible actual experience though I realize this is perhaps tough to share.

[David Davis]

Please note I'm trying to intentionally leave out some of the big name architects we study and hear about a lot, like Doak, C&C, Devries etc as I strongly believe they have a high level of involvement in their own projects. So really it's more the likes of the player/architects and the take all the credit types such as I would envision Trump to be.

[Adam Lawrence]

It varies.

[David Davis]

It varies.

Please offer some examples Adam.

[Adam Lawrence]

It's difficult 

[David Davis]

It's difficult 

Focus on the positive ones that make you look good! 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I always divide the big name player/architects in to two camps:


Those that run their own full time business with a full time staff (even if they themselves partake in many other businesses and are thus not full time architects)....


.... and those that are signatures that work with other firms purely as mastheads.


Even within both of those groups, involvement varies hugely. But I think it's safe to say that a Jack Nicklaus (first group) has far more involvement on average than a Colin Montgomery (second group).

[Adam Lawrence]

It's really, really tricky to figure this out. Firstly, although I was obviously being flip, it does vary hugely. There are those who are just in it for the cheque and there are those that are keen to be involved, and there are lots of shades of grey in between.


In general, Ally's distinction is probably right, but it is only a generalisation.


And it is very, very hard for outsiders to figure out exactly how much the signature name does, because everything about the business is set up to convince people that he or she does everything.


Most (emphasise most, but not all) signature projects have a commercial underpinning, whether that is a tourist resort or a real estate development. Mostly, again, those projects are more complicated, from an engineering point of view than the kind of pure golf course development we like to focus on on here. Mr Signature is not generally sitting at a CAD screen doing grading plans, or working on stormwater management, or figuring out how to deal with environmental restrictions that prevent work being done on part of a site.


But he might be explaining to his colleagues in the project where he thinks a bunker should go, or what a green should look like. Or then again, he might not!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Not a question that can be answered in an open forum.


Adams.."it varies" sums it up 100%

[David_Tepper]

"Then the other category would be more in the owners. For example, Trump, Keiser etc."

My understanding is owner Mark Parsinen was very involved with the design & build of Castle Stuart. He lived on site for extended periods while the course was being built.

[Brad Tufts]

I'm not trying to point fingers or prove who is on the ball more or not, but my question would be routing-based.

If the signatures are not seeing land and choosing how best to route holes through that land, then to me more credit goes to whichever associate made those choices.  And yes, I understand that "Designed by XYZ Tour Legend" is way more marketable than an associate's name that only those in the business or us nerds are familiar with.  "Put bunkers here, or put a tier in the green there" plays a part, but I feel some of us armchairs could make a good guess at some of that stuff.

It's the routing and the construction and knowing what is possible logistically that seems to be where the greatest skill lies, and these are things us hobbyists have NO clue about in practical application! 

[Mike_Young]

JN is involved and has subbed services to a few of the other signatures as they get started in the "marketing/design" business.  Often they will hire a guy away from Nicklaus or continue to use his drafting services etc.  You can usually look at the plans and tell.  You have others who are just hanging around until their agent gets a project and then they may call several guys to see who wants to do the design work for them.  But basically as Adam says these projects either have hotels or significant housing and are looking for marketing.  It's a different animal. 

I do question whether or not the Palmer family is funding the second course at Castle Stuart.  With all due respect there is no Arnold Palmer Design anymore.  It makes me wonder why someone has not just taken the name of Donald Ross or one of the other ODG's started a company with their name on it.  I'm sure marketing materials can be arranged to look as though the particular architect was in the family tree....

[Mike_Young]

I'm not trying to point fingers or prove who is on the ball more or not, but my question would be routing-based.

If the signatures are not seeing land and choosing how best to route holes through that land, then to me more credit goes to whichever associate made those choices.  And yes, I understand that "Designed by XYZ Tour Legend" is way more marketable than an associate's name that only those in the business or us nerds are familiar with.  "Put bunkers here, or put a tier in the green there" plays a part, but I feel some of us armchairs could make a good guess at some of that stuff.

It's the routing and the construction and knowing what is possible logistically that seems to be where the greatest skill lies, and these are things us hobbyists have NO clue about in practical application!

Often the course routing comes to the signature from the land planner....signature golf design is not about architecture.  It is all about maintenance level, clubhouse and amenities...

[Niall C]

"Then the other category would be more in the owners. For example, Trump, Keiser etc."

My understanding is owner Mark Parsinen was very involved with the design & build of Castle Stuart. He lived on site for extended periods while the course was being built.

David


He was also around a lot for Kingsbarns, but apart from time spent on site what did he do different from Trump/Keiser and a lot of signatures ? I know the lead shaper on Kingsbarns has a high regard for him and his conceptual ideas, but I suspect that is exactly what he offered, conceptual ideas rather than the nuts and bolts engineering expertise you get with an actual architect.


Niall

[David_Tepper]

"but apart from time spent on site what did he do different from Trump/Keiser and a lot of signatures?"

Niall C. -

Next time you see Gil Hanse, you should ask him that question.

I suspect the input MP had in the design of Castle Stuart was far, far greater than the input that Keiser or Trump have had in any of their courses. I doubt there is really any comparison.

How much "nuts & bolts engineering expertise" did the ODG's provide in the building of the courses they designed?

DT

[Brad Tufts]

Good info Mike...the two "types of design" are truly even more different than I had in mind.

You are right that a lot of the "signature designs" have a housing or hotel component so the feature-minimal "land for the course" is already set aside and the features will be what the architect conjures within the restricted area. 

[MClutterbuck]

Signature Architects. I can offer 2 examples:


1. Greg Norman. Very involved in routing at office and on site. Tremendous work ethic on site well beyond what I expected, showing a lot of common sense in suggesting very significant changes that had his team incurr in a lot more work but improved the design a lot.


2. Jack Nicklaus. This is for a project that never took off, but I saw Jack Nicklaus on his knees looking at the natural seed bank of the site and talking to the agronomist about what grass could work. I was surprised.




Developers


I know one case. Very involved in conceptual ideas. Told architects day 1 he intended to speak his mind and offer ideas, but would not be at all offended if they told him he was plain wrong and overrule him. He ended up contributing 2 holes that had not been considered in initial routing. Very involved during construction big picture. I believe the course is better because of his involvement. I dont think in this situation the Developer needs to be recognized with any credit.

[Kalen Braley]

Seems to me the Mike K model would work best, where the architect and crew do the work and then he gives an approval of sorts.  I recall reading somewhere that's how most of the work happened at the Bandon courses...

[MClutterbuck]

Seems to me the Mike K model would work best, where the architect and crew do the work and then he gives an approval of sorts.  I recall reading somewhere that's how most of the work happened at the Bandon courses...

I bet Mike K does a lot more than that, particularly before work starts... just the manner in which he selects architects already influences the course.

[Niall C]

David


My point was not how much input but what type of input MP had.


Niall

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

I believe MP had a great amount of input in the design of the course and likely more input in the "nuts & bolts" than you might think. As I stated earlier, I don't think you can compare his involvement with that of Keiser & Trump, except to say MP's involvement was exponentially greater.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6oO7gzd9iM

DT 

[Niall C]

David


I think you still miss my point. Frankly I've no idea exactly what MP did during the design and construction of Kingsbarns/CS but as Adam said in an earlier post I very much doubt he produced any technical drawings or dealt in detail with what I'd call the civil engineering aspects to the construction. Perhaps he did, and I'm wrong but I don't see it.


With regards the routing it was my impression that Hanse was largely responsible for the CS routing but could be wrong. Compare that to Trump who I gather was quite definite in what he wanted in terms of tee/green locations for the Turnberry redesign even though he spent a lot less time on site than MP at CS.


All that is speculation on my part and from snippets I've heard here and there. Who knows what actually went on other than the participants.


Niall   

[MClutterbuck]

David

With regards the routing it was my impression that Hanse was largely responsible for the CS routing but could be wrong. Compare that to Trump who I gather was quite definite in what he wanted in terms of tee/green locations for the Turnberry redesign even though he spent a lot less time on site than MP at CS.

Niall

It is a lot easier for a non-architect/developer to suggest modifications in 2-3 holes of an existing routing (whether he understands what he is doing or not) than have a major role on a new routing.


Having said that, if MP was on site often and knew the land intimately as some suggest, likelihood is that during the various routing iterations (and I suspect CS had many) MP had several significant suggestions that in the aggregate are more important architecturally than what a Trump did at Turnberry. Especially on a site that was not a masterplanner giving the architects golf corridors.

[David_Tepper]

"I very much doubt he produced any technical drawings or dealt in detail with what I'd call the civil engineering aspects to the construction."

Niall -

You may very well be right about that. But then again, I wonder how much of the design (and construction) work at CS was done from "technical drawings." From viewing the video I linked (and the series of construction videos available on youtube), it certainly appears that much of the design and build work at CS was done "in the dirt" and not from technical drawings. Isn't that how many GCA's (such as Pete Dye) have primarily worked over the years?

I did have the chance to visit CS twice while it was being built and tour the property with people involved with the project. My opinions are based on what I saw on those visits and from viewing those videos.

DT



 

[Peter Pallotta]

Can the choice of buttons and stitching make an otherwise basic sports jacket stand out?
Can the siding colour and the landscaping separate one new suburban home from another?
Can re-writing one verse of a standard pop tune turn it into a hit?
If you suggest two more fairway bunkers and the flattening out of a green-side mound, are you adding value to the process? Are you turning a decent golf hole into a good one?
I imagine that some signature architects would answer "yes" to all those questions (even if not in those words), while a few would answer "no".