Has an architect ever been paid more than 10%?

[JESII]

of a project's full costs to get up and running?

[Tom_Doak]

Full costs?  Including clubhouse and entrance drive and maintenance building and everything?  Not likely.


Also, it depends on what you mean by "architect".  Some who design/build would take the lion's share of the total costs, but then they would have to employ a bunch of people, and I doubt they personally keep more than 10%.  So it depends on whether you are counting MY PERSONAL share of the pie, or my company's.


As far as I can recall, we've made more than 10% of the total budget in fees on a handful of projects where we were building the second course for a facility ... but I don't know that I personally ever made more than 10% of the total.

[JESII]

I was thinking about everything I would pay your firm as a percentage of everything I have to lay out, from land acquisition through full development.


The 10% was pretty arbitrary other than to give context to a position you and I have discussed here before, briefly. It's in contrast to Ted's "tinkering" thread.


If I lay out $10m to acquire a parcel of land and develop it with the assistance of an architect of my choosing who is paid $1m of that, why do I not have the right to tinker with it later?


Between natural changes every course experiences and evolving maintenance practices, there are very good reasons for a course to look and feel different 20 or 30 years downstream. Someone has to try to guide the ship.


I asked several years ago if you would be interested in a 50% increase in pay but payable over 10 years (or something to that effect) and you were reluctant. Did you not think I'd be good for it?


This also plays against your "Changing Tastes" thread pretty well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - good thread, good posts, fundamental issues.

For me: the recent award-winning restorations are all about returning a course to its original essence/slendour/greatness.

For you: do such qualities exist? Can an architect nail it the first time around?

If the answers are yes, why would I:
a) bring back and keep paying the same dork who didn't nail it the first time, or
b) care even a whit about changing tastes?
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

If I lay out $10m to acquire a parcel of land and develop it with the assistance of an architect of my choosing who is paid $1m of that, why do I not have the right to tinker with it later?

Between natural changes every course experiences and evolving maintenance practices, there are very good reasons for a course to look and feel different 20 or 30 years downstream. Someone has to try to guide the ship.

I asked several years ago if you would be interested in a 50% increase in pay but payable over 10 years (or something to that effect) and you were reluctant. Did you not think I'd be good for it?

Well, that question hinges on who's "guiding the ship".  If  the final decision were mine about whether to make changes or not, that's one thing; but if you had control and I had to keep agreeing with your proposed changes in order to get paid my fee, I'd be a lot less interested in that.


The most valuable thing I do on a project is hand the client a routing.  If they have a good piece of land, and it's a good routing, I believe that's worth 50% of the total fee, but I've yet to find anyone willing to pay that much that soon.  But I'm not interested in stretching out that payment over ten years and giving them chances to stop payment.


I've yet to sign a contract that gave me long term control over changes to the course, because I understand the Golden Rule.  My influence is entirely dependent on my relationship with the client.  But if you're asking me if that's really the best way to take care of my best work, I'd say it depends ... on whether the client is a better designer than I am.

[JESII]

For me: the recent award-winning restorations are all about returning a course to its original essence/slendour/greatness.

For you: do such qualities exist? Can an architect nail it the first time around?

They do and yes, the architect can nail it.


But trees grow and grass gets shorter so what they built is virtually guaranteed to be substantially different in 10, 20 or 30 years...let alone 100.


Did those courses from the "changing Tastes" thread that have been revived all suffer from the certain mistakes of tinkering? Or were some of them more the victim of neglect and complacency?






I see Tom's post now and will address it next.

[JESII]

Let's assume I'm honest and the money is in escrow. Half payable upon delivery of the routing and 5% paid each year for you to lend your expertise for a few days. I obviously make the final call, but picked you (or any of our other great architects) because I believe you're best suited to this job. Your opinion will obviously carry tremendous influence or else I'd have gone the Zac Blair route.


Is this course not on an exponentially better trajectory than the one whose goal is to open day 1 as a finished product that sets sail without a qualified steward?

[JMEvensky]

Did those courses from the "changing Tastes" thread that have been revived all suffer from the certain mistakes of tinkering? Or were some of them more the victim of neglect and complacency?

I would bet overwhelmingly the latter--neglect and complacency. The percentage of members for whom a golf course's original intent is important is small,IMO. Most members neither know nor care enough to get interested in the changes which come with neglect and complacency. They play the golf course as it's presented and assume that's the way it's supposed to be.

[Tom_Doak]

Let's assume I'm honest and the money is in escrow. Half payable upon delivery of the routing and 5% paid each year for you to lend your expertise for a few days. I obviously make the final call, but picked you (or any of our other great architects) because I believe you're best suited to this job. Your opinion will obviously carry tremendous influence or else I'd have gone the Zac Blair route.


Is this course not on an exponentially better trajectory than the one whose goal is to open day 1 as a finished product that sets sail without a qualified steward?

Jim:


All I can see is that the course is going to cost you more money that way.


I've been the qualified steward since opening for most of the courses I've built.  Clients seldom pay me any more than my expenses after their course opens, but they do have to pay my associates for construction work we do, assuming it's a change and not fixing a construction error on our part.  If you're offering to pay me for that work, that's great. 


Example:  I took four days last week [incl. two travel days] to re-visit Rock Creek and look at the possibility of moving the 18th green, which they now have environmental approval to do.  I also consulted on the placement of additional forward tees [the key movers and shakers are getting older ] and ten years worth of tree removal.  It looks like we will go back next spring and build the new green.


Question for you:  If I spent four days going to each of my courses every year, how many courses could I build before I didn't have any time left for new work?  That is the limiting factor for this sort of thing, and for my consulting business as well.  There is a lot of hand-holding involved sometimes and I don't find that part an efficient use of my time.


I should spend most of my time on the project while the course is in the dirt, because that is the most efficient way to do things.  And if I've done the job right, my time going back should pale in comparison to the time I spent out there during construction.  My only real objection to your proposal is that I see the 5% over ten years as a delayed payment for the work I've already done.  If you're paying me appropriately for that time, and you just want to pay me a bit more to come back and do check-ups, I have no objection to that, but there are limits on how much time I have available if I want to keep building new stuff.

[Tom_Doak]

Did those courses from the "changing Tastes" thread that have been revived all suffer from the certain mistakes of tinkering? Or were some of them more the victim of neglect and complacency?

I would bet overwhelmingly the latter--neglect and complacency. The percentage of members for whom a golf course's original intent is important is small,IMO. Most members neither know nor care enough to get interested in the changes which come with neglect and complacency. They play the golf course as it's presented and assume that's the way it's supposed to be.

The most common changes to the presentation of courses are those made by the superintendent.  I'd like to believe these don't arise from neglect or complacency, but from a different eye and a different way of doing things.  If he's trying to make the course easier to maintain, I don't think that's complacency, that's part of his job ... but he may not realize that he is also changing the playability in a way that was important to the designer and the golfers.

[JESII]

Thanks Tom, always appreciate the candor.


Sounds like you have it figured out for your courses. If I were an owner, I'd be happy for you but hate to hear that you're too busy to come back 10 years from now because the new build business is so strong. I suspect I'd like to make sure you can fit me in...hopefully to do nothing...


The hand-wringing about tinkering seems a waste of energy to me...feels like wishing gravity would stop so I'd prefer to discuss ways to mitigate the impact of tinkering...or at least keep the tinkering within as consistent a framework as possible.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - I think words, as per usual, are the problem. When I read "tinkering" I think going back to re-do a green that's (supposedly) too severe, or to flatten out/re-grade a fairway that has too much cant for some of the members' tastes, or to take care of a drainage problem that should have been taken care of in the first place. When you read "tinkering" it seems that you're thinking of it as ongoing care of an (inevitably) ever-changing natural landscape. 
If we agreed on the first definition, maybe we'd agree that bringing in someone else is the way to go; if we agreed on the second definition, I'd be all for the original architects tending the course for years afterwards, in the role (in Tom's good word) of stewards.     
Peter

[JMEvensky]

The most common changes to the presentation of courses are those made by the superintendent.  I'd like to believe these don't arise from neglect or complacency, but from a different eye and a different way of doing things.  If he's trying to make the course easier to maintain, I don't think that's complacency, that's part of his job ... but he may not realize that he is also changing the playability in a way that was important to the designer and the golfers.

I do think this is neglect/complacency,but by the members and not the Superintendent.


As example--the maintenance budget has to be cut and so the Superintendent suggests narrowing fairways and/or mowing the rough less frequently. The result is a golf course less playable  for most members.


I think it's the members' responsibility,through the Green Chair/Committee,to look at alternatives to saving maintenance money. The Superintendent's suggestion might be the best alternative,but the Green Chair should at least look at other options. Decreasing playability should be a last resort,IMO.