Remote Working from M&E

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D,


As the story of the misplaced green was told to me, the architect officed nearby and visited during construction often.  He missed for a week or two, maybe travelling to another project, and when he returned the rough shaping of the green complex was mostly finished as were the tees for the next hole.  Whether it was an unintentional error on the part of the contractor or at the direction of the client, it was not known (or virtually certain).  But had the technology been available to monitor the work remotely, perhaps the architect could have interceded before work got too far on this low budget project. 

My understanding was that every golf course construction contract allows the architect to direct the contractor to tear up and redo something if necessary - and especially if the contractor put it in the wrong place according to the plans, there should be zero argument, "low budget project" or not.  So in your story, the architect was just scared to put his foot down, for whatever reason.

[Tom_Doak]

I don’t think the worlds 200 golf course architects legitimately contribute to the worlds carbon footprint. Air travel is a significant factor in golf’s economy. Golf will be in a way different place if nobody wants to take trips going forward.

"Restrictions are for the little people" ?  C'mon, man, that's how golf has gotten a bad name.


And until someone has an effective vaccine for the coronavirus . . . which is not necessarily possible . . . you can bet that people are not going to get on airplanes nearly as much as before.  I've not been on an airplane since March 1st, not because of its carbon footprint, but because if I did pick up the virus and didn't show symptoms, I might spread it to multiple continents before I knew.  Of course, if you've been reading the news, you'll have noticed that other countries are wise to our disregard for the consequences, and are starting to restrict American travelers from entering their countries.




The solution for golf architecture is not drones, but staffing projects with capable people who will stay until the course is finished (instead of jumping around to other projects) -- and then being willing to rely on their talents.  Or, for clients to just hire such people as the designer in the first place!


The myth that the designer must see every piece of the course at every stage of construction is disproved conclusively by places like Augusta, Royal Melbourne, and Crystal Downs.  Of course it helped a great deal that those courses were routed perfectly to make the most of the land and minimize the artificial construction that needed to be done, and that I cheated by not counting Alex Russell or Perry Maxwell as being their "designer".  But that's the model we should aspire to now.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben:


Honestly, you should be careful what you wish for.  These tools are not used to make things better.  They are used to monopolize an industry in the hands of a few big players. 


Today's young architects are lucky that Bill Coore wanted to be like Mr Dye and not Mr Jones, or most of you would not be able to aspire to anything higher than being his CAD monkey.


Also, keep in mind that when on screen technology really does get good enough to substitute for being there, many of the golfers will just play all the best courses virtually, and there will be no more demand for new physical courses.

Tom,


Some points I agree and others I disagree.


I agree on some points that on-screen technology does not substitute to being on site. However like Robin mentioned increasing number of site visits is costing the company more depending on the contract agreed. There is a balance of getting the design right by being on site and being profitable in business.




I disagree re your comment that 'These tools are not used to make things better. They are used to monopolize an industry in the hands of a few big players'.


From experience in the Architectural Construction Sector as a small practice (let alone a larger practice) these tools actually makes things easier and more cost effective under Building Information Model (BIM) which shares information between Architect, Structural Engineer and Mechanical/Electrical Engineer plus Quantity Surveyor to ensure that potential on site construction issues/additional costs not taken into account are eliminated at Design Stage.


I am working on a bespoke design flood prevention house for a London Architect Practice and we have used BIM in the process due to a complicated 8-9m long cantilever which needs a bespoke design structural steel frame with 3 no. Vierendaal truss. The BIM process has really helped eliminated a large number of potential issues prior to erecting it on site so that the frame does not affect the main building shell.


In the UK large public construction projects the use of BIM is mandatory.


If BIM transpired to golf course design ie - drainage - pipes (depth/diameter/fall/length/points to reservoirs), buggy paths, bridges, how much material (gravel/sand/stone/soil) needs to be imported can be calculated by BIM and also the levels of everything can be set to quite high level of accuracy. This will help to reduce wastage during the construction process.


Also it can help to tweak the design as many times to make it look right or happy with prior to commencing works on site rather than waste time continually changing it on site. The advancement in CAD/BIM and render software is improving very rapidly as well as construction being done by robots.




On a separate note - NASA and architects are already working on 3D printing prototypes for constructing buildings on the Moon utilising the materials already existing on the Moon. Could this be possible for a completely 3D printed golf course in future on both Earth and the Moon. Here is one example - https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/lunar-habitation/


In the future could we see a recreated Old Course on a large floating pontoon moored of what remains of St Andrews if sea levels rise in future? Or ... as Virtual reality is not great walking exercise IMO unless there is a platform that allows for movement or someone invents something similar to the 'Holodeck' as seen on Star Trek the Next Generation this will make a lot of iconic courses on whatever date accessible to play.


Technology is moving at a fast pace we need to catch up otherwise we will be left behind the times. 

[Niall C]

Ben

Do you think there is a danger of getting too technical and that in the end qualifications and knowledge of technical equipment could get in the way of someone who is talented getting into the business ? I was going to say "profession" but in a way I think that also acts as a barrier, or at least can do.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ben

Do you think there is a danger of getting too technical and that in the end qualifications and knowledge of technical equipment could get in the way of someone who is talented getting into the business ? I was going to say "profession" but in a way I think that also acts as a barrier, or at least can do.

Niall

Yes.


There are generally two ways in to a golf design firm:


1. The work in the dirt Doak method.
2. The design office lackey.


Tom - in his interns - looks for the enthusiasm and eye first. Expertise on the machines comes after for many because he sees that the latter is no use without the former.


The trouble with the second office example is as technology, presentation and computer skills have become more prevalent, so the ones that find themselves getting hired are the ones who are gifted in this area more so than those who show flair or an eye with design.


Some of that is lack of work and insecurity on the side of the owner / lead architect. Why hire someone to do the fun bits when you want to do them yourself and you just need someone to make you look better to those who don’t really understand the detail?


Back on point, Robin states why full drawing & spec packages can be important. But he too is stating that there is no substitute for time on site. I fully agree. Drone technology is very useful (and the sustainable angle isn’t a bad one) but it will lead to inferior courses unless used in addition to all the days spent on site, not as a substitute.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben

Do you think there is a danger of getting too technical and that in the end qualifications and knowledge of technical equipment could get in the way of someone who is talented getting into the business ? I was going to say "profession" but in a way I think that also acts as a barrier, or at least can do.

Niall

Niall,




In response to your question - not really - the majority of current architecture students are using computers more than I did 20 years ago based on the degree show online presentations this month in which the quality is of much higher standard presentation wise. The same probably goes for current landscape students.

However being a designer is a defined skill set to have the ability to produce new designs/ideas/problem solving and understanding the brief and requirements without the use of the computer. The main threat to this is Artificial Intelligence in future.

Knowledge/experience is power and multiple skill sets such as imagination/design skills, ability to draw freehand/draft CAD or BIM drawings, technical drawings and on site construction experience and ability to use excavators is advantageous as a golf course designer as well as an architect.

There are now more options than ever to offer to clients - the same in the building industry. I save time and money by using CAD/BIM as if you drew it by hand and made several errors then the whole drawing will need to be redone from the start whereas CAD/BIM sorts the problem but just hitting one button. BIM is a game changer in the construction industry and is more risk averse than 2D CAD or hand drawings.

I think it is more down to the client choice of architect whether to be risk averse to reduce the costs and errors/changes on site by using a designer with CAD/BIM facilities so they can see the final scheme design before it is built and efficient construction techniques unless they prefer not to be risk averse by going with someone with well known reputation, not knowing what the final design will be like and a contract agreement between the two allow for changes on site as part of the fee.

It is the choice of the individual whether they would learn that particular skill set or not. Some might prefer to do research and historical background of golf course design and others focuses more on the technology side.

Regarding it is hard for individual talented people to get in business due to the established designers/golf course design practices such as M+E who are cornering the UK market - fair dinkum to them that they are having to revert to drone technology because due to no. of projects they are not physically able to be on site and adapting to COVID 19 issues. If you work for these established business this helps you to get inside knowledge and networking for in preparation to go on their own after a few years. If you are not within that circle it can be harder to get future work.

Its all about who you know.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben

Do you think there is a danger of getting too technical and that in the end qualifications and knowledge of technical equipment could get in the way of someone who is talented getting into the business ? I was going to say "profession" but in a way I think that also acts as a barrier, or at least can do.

Niall

Yes.


There are generally two ways in to a golf design firm:


1. The work in the dirt Doak method.
2. The design office lackey.


Tom - in his interns - looks for the enthusiasm and eye first. Expertise on the machines comes after for many because he sees that the latter is no use without the former.


The trouble with the second office example is as technology, presentation and computer skills have become more prevalent, so the ones that find themselves getting hired are the ones who are gifted in this area more so than those who show flair or an eye with design.


Some of that is lack of work and insecurity on the side of the owner / lead architect. Why hire someone to do the fun bits when you want to do them yourself and you just need someone to make you look better to those who don’t really understand the detail?


Back on point, Robin states why full drawing & spec packages can be important. But he too is stating that there is no substitute for time on site. I fully agree. Drone technology is very useful (and the sustainable angle isn’t a bad one) but it will lead to inferior courses unless used in addition to all the days spent on site, not as a substitute.

Ally,


If you can see 3D models of the proposed course on screen or Virtual Reality then signed off prior to construction surely in some ways the design quality would be better if all the levels, outline details were built accurately as per the 3D model.


What happens if you construct the green on site by the eye that had a 9-10% slope in multiple areas which makes it unplayable that you  had to reconstruct it again and the computers work out to ensure that they are 8% or below prior to construction which eliminates that particular problem.   


Cheers
Ben

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ben

Do you think there is a danger of getting too technical and that in the end qualifications and knowledge of technical equipment could get in the way of someone who is talented getting into the business ? I was going to say "profession" but in a way I think that also acts as a barrier, or at least can do.

Niall

Yes.


There are generally two ways in to a golf design firm:


1. The work in the dirt Doak method.
2. The design office lackey.


Tom - in his interns - looks for the enthusiasm and eye first. Expertise on the machines comes after for many because he sees that the latter is no use without the former.


The trouble with the second office example is as technology, presentation and computer skills have become more prevalent, so the ones that find themselves getting hired are the ones who are gifted in this area more so than those who show flair or an eye with design.


Some of that is lack of work and insecurity on the side of the owner / lead architect. Why hire someone to do the fun bits when you want to do them yourself and you just need someone to make you look better to those who don’t really understand the detail?


Back on point, Robin states why full drawing & spec packages can be important. But he too is stating that there is no substitute for time on site. I fully agree. Drone technology is very useful (and the sustainable angle isn’t a bad one) but it will lead to inferior courses unless used in addition to all the days spent on site, not as a substitute.

Ally,


If you can see 3D models of the proposed course on screen or Virtual Reality then signed off prior to construction surely in some ways the design quality would be better if all the levels, outline details were built accurately as per the 3D model.


What happens if you construct the green on site by the eye that had a 9-10% slope in multiple areas which makes it unplayable that you  had to reconstruct it again and the computers work out to ensure that they are 8% or below prior to construction which eliminates that particular problem.   


Cheers
Ben

Oh I don’t disagree with this, Ben: 3D modelling / BIM technology can be an useful addition prior to construction start.


Although here it is possible to get lazy, too. One of our pro golfer designers in Ireland used to just sit with a 3D modeller and adjust mound sizes by eye on screen.

[Niall C]

Back on point, Robin states why full drawing & spec packages can be important. But he too is stating that there is no substitute for time on site. I fully agree. Drone technology is very useful (and the sustainable angle isn’t a bad one) but it will lead to inferior courses unless used in addition to all the days spent on site, not as a substitute.

Ally

I basically made the same suggestion, that this technology is an add on and not necessarily instead of. As to the rest of your post, I don't basically disagree and when I think about my dalliance with getting into the business, I remember not seeing a clear route in. Also frankly I didn't have a civil engineering or landscaping background which put me off trying my luck as a one man band doing small scale.

That's not to say I wasn't confident in my ability to route a course, however misplaced that confidence might be, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of construction I had nothing to offer. It's how you marry the artistic with the technical and how do you get enough experience in both. I do think there is a danger in making things over-technical almost as over compensation of the artistic if I can call it that.

Niall

[Ben Stephens]

Ben

Do you think there is a danger of getting too technical and that in the end qualifications and knowledge of technical equipment could get in the way of someone who is talented getting into the business ? I was going to say "profession" but in a way I think that also acts as a barrier, or at least can do.

Niall

Yes.


There are generally two ways in to a golf design firm:


1. The work in the dirt Doak method.
2. The design office lackey.


Tom - in his interns - looks for the enthusiasm and eye first. Expertise on the machines comes after for many because he sees that the latter is no use without the former.


The trouble with the second office example is as technology, presentation and computer skills have become more prevalent, so the ones that find themselves getting hired are the ones who are gifted in this area more so than those who show flair or an eye with design.


Some of that is lack of work and insecurity on the side of the owner / lead architect. Why hire someone to do the fun bits when you want to do them yourself and you just need someone to make you look better to those who don’t really understand the detail?


Back on point, Robin states why full drawing & spec packages can be important. But he too is stating that there is no substitute for time on site. I fully agree. Drone technology is very useful (and the sustainable angle isn’t a bad one) but it will lead to inferior courses unless used in addition to all the days spent on site, not as a substitute.

Ally,


If you can see 3D models of the proposed course on screen or Virtual Reality then signed off prior to construction surely in some ways the design quality would be better if all the levels, outline details were built accurately as per the 3D model.


What happens if you construct the green on site by the eye that had a 9-10% slope in multiple areas which makes it unplayable that you  had to reconstruct it again and the computers work out to ensure that they are 8% or below prior to construction which eliminates that particular problem.   


Cheers
Ben

Oh I don’t disagree with this, Ben: 3D modelling / BIM technology can be an useful addition prior to construction start.


Although here it is possible to get lazy, too. One of our pro golfer designers in Ireland used to just sit with a 3D modeller and adjust mound sizes by eye on screen.

I agree with you and there are pros/cons with this approach it can be easy to be lazy - my previous golf club had nine holes originally drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet!!. If I live near the golf course I probably be there every day and it gets less the further away the site is. If it was the Middle East probably have to rely more on 3D modelling / BIM technology.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


What is the best example of a golf course built with all of this technology you're so excited about?


Until there are some great examples of its impact, I will continue to treat it as marketing b.s.


Your example to Ally about a green being built with 9% slopes is utterly useless -- anyone who would do that has no business in this business, and technology should not be employed to save them.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben:


What is the best example of a golf course built with all of this technology you're so excited about?


Until there are some great examples of its impact, I will continue to treat it as marketing b.s.


Your example to Ally about a green being built with 9% slopes is utterly useless -- anyone who would do that has no business in this business, and technology should not be employed to save them.

There are number of examples in the construction industry that have used various new technologies sadly golf courses are miles behind IMO sometimes you have to be ahead of the game to have a more sustainable future.


What about Mackenzie's Sitwell Park green was that more than 9% slopes I have heard from a 3 time Masters champion in a recent webinar that some of Augusta green slopes were 9% which makes them very borderline unplayable and not for the faint hearted.

[Tom_Doak]

There are number of examples in the construction industry that have used various new technologies sadly golf courses are miles behind IMO sometimes you have to be ahead of the game to have a more sustainable future.

What about Mackenzie's Sitwell Park green was that more than 9% slopes I have heard from a 3 time Masters champion in a recent webinar that some of Augusta green slopes were 9% which makes them very borderline unplayable and not for the faint hearted.

You want your computer to fix Augusta National?

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are generally two ways in to a golf design firm:1. The work in the dirt Doak method.2. The design office lackey.

While true, I bet most hire landscape architects with whatever CAD skills they need.  Years ago, it was hire an LA, and then hire some (excuse the stereotype) some Indian guy to figure out the CAD.  Now most young LA's come out with enough skill to use the technology to complete their design process.  Becoming a lead designer still means (in any method) getting a golf course from a blank piece of paper to all grassed on the ground.

I don't think the argument between methods is as broad a chasm as some make it out to be.  There is nothing wrong with thinking through the design and putting it on paper (especially in winter months) as a starting point.  And, just because a plan is drawn, doesn't mean adjustments cannot be made in the field, or that a plan architect never makes field visits, because they do.

Like I have always said, there are some things that are better worked out on scale plan (i.e., property lines to start!) drainage, grading quantities, and get them close, but the artistic eye can start on plan, but usually needs to finish the touches in the field, nearly always.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are number of examples in the construction industry that have used various new technologies sadly golf courses are miles behind IMO sometimes you have to be ahead of the game to have a more sustainable future.

What about Mackenzie's Sitwell Park green was that more than 9% slopes I have heard from a 3 time Masters champion in a recent webinar that some of Augusta green slopes were 9% which makes them very borderline unplayable and not for the faint hearted.

You want your computer to fix Augusta National?

It probably has!  How many restorations use detailed CAD or drone topo maps to start the restoration?

[Kalen Braley]

I think the dilemma relates to what I was trying to allude to in my prior post.

Is GCA more STEM or Artistic in nature?  There are certainly components of both, but to get a great product in the ground, what is/are the over-riding attributes?  I would guess its not what some guy sitting behind a keyboard can figure out...

[Lou_Duran]

There are generally two ways in to a golf design firm:

1. The work in the dirt Doak method.
2. The design office lackey.

Those are the only two?  Wouldn't know by your descriptions in which camp you fall.


I would bet the farm that Martin Ebert sees technology as a tool facilitating the design, construction and due diligence processes, and certainly not in lieu of work in the field.  As it pertains to staffing, a firm will likely hire based on needs.  If resources are lacking in one area, I suspect that it would direct its attention there.


As to using technology for marketing purposes, why would this be inappropriate?  If an architect has established a reputation of being eccentric and non-conforming while building highly successful courses, should he not be "marketing" on these strengths?  Should Stranz have hidden his artistic hand-drawing abilities?  It seems that differentiation is part and parcel of seeking work in a competitive environment.  Do we have so little faith in clients being able to choose who is best for them?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Design encompasses function and aesthetics
Golfers notice aesthetics first, but they are often among the last things architects consider. Steve Jobs said, “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” Architect Louis Sullivan coined the phrase, “Form follows function,” but later added, “But the building’s identity resides in the ornament.”


Design is a collaborative effort between owner, users, and architect Frank Lloyd Wright said, “I never design a building before I’ve seen the site and met the people who will be using it.

Design balances between budget/business/practicality/logic/art/concept/engineering and detail. The best solution is one that solves most problems, without unduly sacrificing lesser concerns. Sometimes in politics and design, everyone being somewhat unhappy is a sign of a well-balanced solution!

l The architect has many masters - Architects have multiple constituents/obligations beyond the committee, to con- sider; including legally to regulatory bodies, morally to golfers, financially to banks, practically to superintendents, ethically to the community and the environment, and even golf course critics.



I have posted these before, but short version, anyone who thinks golf course design is pure art is cuckoo for coco puffs......

[Joe Zucker]

I think the dilemma relates to what I was trying to allude to in my prior post.

Is GCA more STEM or Artistic in nature?  There are certainly components of both, but to get a great product in the ground, what is/are the over-riding attributes?  I would guess its not what some guy sitting behind a keyboard can figure out...

I think it is artistic by a huge margin, something like 80-20.  This idea might be for another thread, but I was recently wondering what architects are better at today than those from 100+ years ago.  Most of the best courses in the world (especially for this crowd) are a century old or more.  There is no STEM field where our knowledge and practice today is not light years ahead of where we were decades ago.  Since this is not the case, it seems very obvious to me that GCA is mostly art.


I'm obviously not an architect, but perhaps our knowledge of soil and drainage is better today?  We seem to be much better at growing grass, which is partly related to design.  But what other pieces of a golf course are architects better at today than the golden age?  Since the answer is not obvious, at least to me, it seems like GCA has to be essentially taste.  I'm operating under the assumption that you can't get "better" at art in the same way science progresses.   I'd be curious to hear what what is better today that I'm not considering.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe Z:


Tom Fazio will tell you straight to your face that the golf courses being built today are WAY BETTER than those old courses people gush over.


The truth is that design is a matter of opinion, but as Jeff says, only once you get the basics right.  If a course doesn't drain well, golfers are not going to enjoy it that much no matter how good a photo it takes.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the dilemma relates to what I was trying to allude to in my prior post.

Is GCA more STEM or Artistic in nature?  There are certainly components of both, but to get a great product in the ground, what is/are the over-riding attributes?  I would guess its not what some guy sitting behind a keyboard can figure out...

Kalen:


It depends on the designer.  Mike Strantz was an artist -- just look at his drawings.  Meanwhile, I did a year at M.I.T. before deciding to pursue golf architecture; my only "artistic" quality is temperament.      But I do have a good eye for composition.


You can approach it different ways, but in the end, you have to have both aspects working together.  Ideally, you get to the point where you are doing both at the same time, instead of fighting internally between the two.

[Adam Lawrence]

I would bet the farm that Martin Ebert sees technology as a tool facilitating the design, construction and due diligence processes, and certainly not in lieu of work in the field.  As it pertains to staffing, a firm will likely hire based on needs.  If resources are lacking in one area, I suspect that it would direct its attention there.

Lou


I'm not trying to be a prick, but how well do you know Martin Ebert?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

The question I was trying to pose is.  Are there very many, (if any at all), great courses out there, World top 200 where artistic principles aren't on full display?  I know this is subjective, but hopefully we can at least detect their presence even if we can't specifically define them very well...

P.S.  Love the one Stranz course I've played and TR among others are high on my bucket list.  I really really wish he had't been taken from us so early...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the dilemma relates to what I was trying to allude to in my prior post.

Is GCA more STEM or Artistic in nature?  There are certainly components of both, but to get a great product in the ground, what is/are the over-riding attributes?  I would guess its not what some guy sitting behind a keyboard can figure out...

I think it is artistic by a huge margin, something like 80-20.  This idea might be for another thread, but I was recently wondering what architects are better at today than those from 100+ years ago.  Most of the best courses in the world (especially for this crowd) are a century old or more.  There is no STEM field where our knowledge and practice today is not light years ahead of where we were decades ago.  Since this is not the case, it seems very obvious to me that GCA is mostly art.


I'm obviously not an architect, but perhaps our knowledge of soil and drainage is better today?  We seem to be much better at growing grass, which is partly related to design.  But what other pieces of a golf course are architects better at today than the golden age?  Since the answer is not obvious, at least to me, it seems like GCA has to be essentially taste.  I'm operating under the assumption that you can't get "better" at art in the same way science progresses.   I'd be curious to hear what what is better today that I'm not considering.

Joe,


You can tell from my previous answer, but it is not 80% art.  The neat part about the job is somedays you are artist, some days you are engineer, some days you are construction.


Are we better at drainage?  Water still goes downhill at the same rate, and for whatever reason, not all gca's seem to adhere to this little fact of nature, others do.  Soils, definitely, I think.


As to whether you can learn to be more artistic than you are, I would say only to a limited degree.  As Tom says, there are some artistic principles, which all are taught in landscape architecture school.  Every kid in my long ago class (so long ago the debate was about rock and chisel vs pen and paper, not pen and paper vs. mouse LOL,) by senior year could draw a passable rendering by copying the techniques of others.  But you could always tell the hotshot designer personalities with some level of creativity all the same by looking closely.


I would say today's courses are better built overall, even as some argue they are overbuilt.  But, Ross, et al, didn't always have the means to correct flat ground, etc., and sometimes seemed content to just leave them as was and hope they drained.  I believe nearly every Golden Age course has had 90+ years of drainage, irrigation, and turf improvments.

[Lou_Duran]

I'm not trying to be a prick, but how well do you know Martin Ebert?

Not well at all on a personal basis.  But enough to know that he does not eschew field work.  We met at Portrush as he and his young associate were putting on knee high rubber boots to go look at the work on new holes 7 & 8.  With dark clouds coming in, we had a nice discussion of the work and only my tee time cut that short.  Mind you that in terms of benefiting his firm, I am a nobody.


Oh, it rained hard beginning on #2 and didn't end until #16 (18 now).  They were just leaving the course as I finished.  Does it sound like a guy who designs sitting on his ass?


Over the years we have corresponded on numerous occasions.  We even discussed doing an interview for this site, though he noted that he'd done one in the past and that the DG tended to get a bit out there (though Ran was very receptive, after careful consideration I didn't pursue it because of the site's most active and vociferous DG participants' bias against the type of work his firm undertakes; essentially, I didn't see the need to subject M & E to the treatment that Pat Ruddy got in the site for the European Club).


I will tell you that I've met a good number of M & E clients and the feedback has been extremely positive.  Not a single time have I heard that they just "mail it in".  There is nothing I've seen from Martin Ebert that would suggest that he just sits behind a computer screen or in an easy chair donning a VR headset and pats himself on the back for just completing another renovation without getting his shoes dirty.


I take your word that you are not trying to be a prick, but why would you be asking me the question?  Just curious.