Part 2, specifically addressing some of Mike's points.....
And since leaving have not been afforded the opportunity due to lack of demand.
Many of the lower paid associates have taken up contract drafting, along with the occasion job on their own, and make a living. It helps most of us who stayed in the biz to move back home, and only pay for drafting when we needed it, rather than $1000 or whatever per week, every stinking week, every stinking year, whether we needed the help or not. That, zoom and drop box have made offices totally unnecessary.
For the average architect during that period he needed to also be doing some type of design/build if he was trying to operate a profitable business
I know many where that is not true. And, I know more than a few who either broke even or went BK doing it. For the breakeven, the architects supplied shapers, etc. hourly (the worst way to make money) to support their design dreams. For the BK, it was just a matter of entering a business they weren't qualified for and knew nothing about.
for those of us that had been doing it thru the 80's and 90's we had to figure how to survive if we wanted to continue to design when there was work. Or either we had to spend what we made during the better times. For myself I decided to try to operate courses for banks that had repossessed them and then decided to buy one and become a vertical, holistic golf operation that could design/build/operate. I'm convinced that most of the revered ODG guys had other sources of income and rarely depended on golf design as their main income.
Mostly true, and you were very smart. Many of us took on side businesses, probably the most well known being Jerry Lemons of Better Billy Bunker. I did not, preferring the cost cutting mode above, and fortunately able to live on a reduced income from my highs. (In my best year, my income was top 2% in the country.....which is still a very far cry from top 1%, LOL, but not bad and my lowest year still put me in the top 50%)
-The barrier to entry for golf design will still be a business card and purchase of Anatomy of a Golf Course ( you can learn from this book) and a few others to learn the catch phrases. However, the day of just being able to draw a design will not cut it when you have guys who have spent years working and actually placing the product in the field with a passion. Those on here that think they have a passion based on reading a few books often don't comprehend the passion it takes to live that golf course being put in the ground and actually opening. The efficiency and economy of scale that a talented young design builder brings will rule the future.Which brings me to this realization.
I'll disagree here. Agree on it being an easy biz to enter, perhaps too easy. But then, I don't begrudge them, as I was that eager youth once. And I know what the elder practitioners were saying about me! (and you!) That said, with increasing environmental regulations and cost consciousness there are many projects that require detailed plans, and that should increase with the Dems in power (not political, but it always does) And, it often helps to have a golf course architect who really understands comp storage, regulations, etc., without having to rely on an engineering firm to really do the work at their full fee. As it happens, I have just signed a project where I will be doing the grading for both golf and development, which really makes sense, since they work together so closely. It really came in handy when I was working in China, and for two projects, the engineers had come up with a billion Cubic Meters of earthmoving to make it work, and my plans cut that in half (great, since by Chinese law in some areas, earthmoving is limited to 600,000 CM) In my experience, designers don't get paid for the fru fru ideas, they get paid for making it possible to construct. It formerly took a rare client and site to afford the Pete Dye method. At this moment, your vision has put on a great marketing push to make is seem as if this is the only thing or method that makes sense, but its not always true, and I still think the pendulum will swing back somewhat. lastly, IMHO, if design build becomes the future mode, I think it will be led by contractors. If construction is the main thing, it should be led by those who understand big picture construction, not designers. All forms of design will survive, IMHO.
Lastly, as to your idea that most are just playing architect. That is an interesting concept. Given the move to smaller projects and spread out work, maybe your definition of what is a gca ought to change the other direction. Does someone who only does a few renovation projects, and maybe bunker only projects at that, but does them with passion, not qualify as a gca in this era? The days of needing 5 new courses to get into ASGCA is long gone, and we have always welcomed low volume members who practice with passion, and will continue to do so. I offer that only as perspective, and not to stir up the ASGCA/anti ASGCA arguments you and I often get into. Just really food for thought.
Cheers, and back to work for me!
PS - Sorry for the formatting, not enough time to exorcise the demons in this site, LOL>