News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:$200,000 worth of drawings
« Reply #50 on: January 01, 2004, 11:31:32 AM »
Forrest- With a statement like this: (your version of what I wrote)

"I bash architecture that me and a few others feel is unworthy based on our collective agreement that it is not what we feel is best for this particular place and time in the genesis of golf, a game which has outlived everyone we've ever known, everyone we will ever know, and — in reality — is an ocean compared to the small bubble we occupy as we glide along either singing the praises or complaining bitterly."

I really wonder if you are just too close to your craft as an association member? It's admirable that you stick-up for your fellow members, living and dead, but your personal attacks on me over the past, leads me to think I touched a nerve. Especially since I am not really a basher, per se, yet you've categorized me that way. And even had me believing it. But I defy you to go thru the ranks and find me bashing on a consistent basis.

If you honestly think that I have conversations with other contributors here, and there has been a pre-conceived agenda, you are either pissed, or dillusional. I guess both are possible?

I had hoped my distance from anything industry related would've been a valuable perspective to someone, other than the corporate yes men syndrome, that pervades the B.S. that is political,  committee or corporate life.

My opinions are just that, and have all been based on my experiences golfing. The fact that I decided to delve deeper into the differences I have seen in gca, and can appreciate the internal stirrings of certain courses, that just happen to
follow certain pricnicples over others, is how I formulated my opinions. If they jibe with others who have found the truth in books or from other sources, should be validation to both.

Please stop the personal attacks, they are not very professional and are telling. As for the paranoia that there's a collective conspiracy to bash, you are the one in left field.

Adam,

To speak for Forrest without asking him, I think you take him way too seriously.  You made quite a serious statement with your 'this is why ..... ' statement.

It is pretty harsh.  Don't want to start an arguement here but have you ever hired an architect yourself through a club or on a project? If so were you satisfied with him or her?

If not then I wonder how you can say such a thing about the industry.  Yes, there are always bad apples but I like to think that the ones in the ASGCA, EIGCA the SAGCA are a very good bunch of human beings (you may not like the design work but they are nice people).  

We may not like all the architecture that is performed by messrs Fazio, Jones etc. but their clients seem to be very happy because they keep getting work.

I think many of us forget the most important thing about our business.  The client is always (nearly always) right and we design to what they want.

I compare Fazio to Capability Brown...who was 'capable' of improving the landscape on every project he did.  Fazio makes every golfcourse he designs beautiful in nearly 90% of all golfers eyes in the world.  Ask my wife...she can't stand the look of Coore and Crenshaw's courses.  i put them in what is called the 'picturesque' category.  This was the period of landscape architecture were whatever was done to the landscape it should look rugged and natural...

The other thing many forget on this site is that most projects are not owned by one person and are owned by a number of people.  These people usually want to put the construction out to tender so that they get good prices..

Coore and Crenshaw or Doak don't do that as far as I know because they do most of the work themselves. I don't know if they price the work as a lump sum or on hourly rates..

I am not sure what Jeff Mingay is implying.  For me the price the architect is asking is high but it might be worth it.  I would much rather design an 18 hole brand new course than take the job he was describing.  It is a much more difficult job.
How can any of us even judge the price without knowing what it entails...

Brian

Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

A_Clay_Man

Re:$200,000 worth of drawings
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2004, 11:53:40 AM »
Brian-Since you kind of asked, I too believe about 98% of people (in any industry,almost) are decent good and above board. But, my statement was from what I have observed and heard. Mostly, I get a good gauge on someone, when they Bash the archie, especially when they are either the head-pro, the super or a manager. My thoughts are on your guyses side. But, if the argument is credible, that also is telling about the insight of the critic. Mostly they are not credible and way too subjective. Off the cuff comments about how this guy doesn't know sh&#, don't come from my mouth, they come from theirs.

If anything, my respect for Architects has grown significantly the more I learn. But, how does one explain the lack of respect so many have shown toward the architect in the past? Whether through altering well thought out design/nature golf holes/courses, or the many many really bad architecture that does get fixed. The fact that a G.C has a pedigree of architects as long as my arm, that have tinkered, altered and even destroyed. What else is someone to conclude other than as a collective the GC archie gets little respect?

I am don't feel I am being argumentative or slanted, I state these things without fear of reprisal and honestly want to know what others think. Not to be dismissed with personal attacks that must've offended someone's sensibilities.

Not to beat the point to death, but some archies on this thread agreed there wasn't enough info or the circumstances sounded fishy, surrounding the orig post. I asked for more insight into the real dealings of architects and Jeff was very helpful in sumarizing the nuts and bolts of fees.

I was always well aware of the perception of the rest of the world on commodity traders, I find it unreal, that archies aren't aware of their percieved "bad apples".
« Last Edit: January 01, 2004, 11:58:30 AM by A_Clay_Man »

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:$200,000 worth of drawings
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2004, 12:25:17 PM »
Adam,

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by 'bad apple', do you mean corrupted, liar or just lousy designer?

Brian
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:$200,000 worth of drawings
« Reply #53 on: January 01, 2004, 12:29:20 PM »
Adam,
I do think there has always been  a lack of respect for golf architects.  And I think that it comes from people looking at it as a game and not a business.  People that would never make like decisions in their area of expertise do so with a golf course because they have been playing or viewing a course for years.   The golf business sets itself up for this type of situation.  The "hidden" in golf architecture is just not seen by most committees and GOLF PROS.  Do you see Agassi building tennis courts...Spurrier ...football stadiums???  NO...
As a matter of fact click on any college football chatroom and listen to the bashing fans will give these players and coaches...and they all have the answers because they watch the games ......WHAT WOULD THEY GIVE TO HAVE A COACH CLICK IN TO CHAT FOR AWHILE.....truth...coaches don't give them the time of day....and care less.....
Golf architecture is a cut throat business just like most others and so the "bad apple" phrase will always be around.
Don't take this site so seriously...and I don't intend disrespect to Ran or anyone....remember " advise is worth what you pay for it"  
I can tell you that myself and several other architects that comment are of the opinion that the site as a whole has preconceived opinions about the work of others vs. site favorites and therefore do not subject themselves to the site.
I would expect some to come back at me as " being egotistical or smart ass or whatever" but I know no other forum or chatroom in any sport where the people actually doing the work(architects, coaches, players, musicians) will actually risk commenting .
Just the other day someone came on this site and accused me of having guys dismissed from a rating panel.  Do I need that??? No....Would it be fair to say that the person that accused me has a preconceived notion of my work due to rumor.....Probably.....if he were on a committee would I have a chance? ......probably not......So ask yourself...why would an architect comment on this site????
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:$200,000 worth of drawings
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2004, 01:11:25 PM »
Sorry for my absence fellas. I just had my computer rebuilt and a new internet provider installed. I wasn't hiding, just waiting to be able to get back on-line. (Sorry quassi!)

I didn't expected such a heated reaction to this thread.

I'll admit, $200,000 worth of drawings to 'restore' a classic golf course design where the original routing and all 18 greens are intact seems outrageous to me. Based on my experiences working with guys like Rod Whitman and Mike DeVries, who both do few drawings -- in fact none when they're not required -- that number blew my mind.

Funny, I've worked on a total of 3-4 golf course construction projects over the past few years and haven't referenced a single drawing besides a rudimentary routing plan at Blackhawk for example, and a more 'decorative' one by Mike for Marquette G&CC's new Greywalls course.

And some of the best contemporary golf architecture I've seen in recent years has been carried out with very little reference to technical drawings: a la Marquette and Kingsley, Blackhawk and Wolf Creek. And how about Friar's Head!

I realize different golf architects employ different methodologies, and different requirements are required for different projects. And I'm not saying one or the other are necessarily better in every situation.

Unfortunately, I don't know what the exact requirements are for the project I'm citing here. (I'm in the process of trying to get that information.) But I do know that other than the reconsutrction of some 55-60 bunkers and some tees (total budget estimated at about $820,000), there's very little earthwork and reshaping that's absolutely necessary. Which leads me to think, what are $200,000 worth of drawings for?

My reason for this thread was to attempt to determine why such drawings may be required. And I thank all for the detailed posts here.

I'll try my best to answer any other questions to further the discussion (now that I have a new, fancy computer and high-speed internet service up and running!)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2004, 01:13:44 PM by Jeff_Mingay »
jeffmingay.com

moth

Re:$200,000 worth of drawings
« Reply #55 on: January 01, 2004, 08:18:28 PM »
What is the world coming too! I have also heard that all writers do not get paid by the word, (something that makes a lot of sense to me) – and that some writers who have better reputations and/or whose writing is seen to sell books or articles actually get paid more than other writers!  Even when the other writer is just as good if not better than the one getting all the $$!!! Can you believe it!

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:$200,000 worth of drawings
« Reply #56 on: January 01, 2004, 09:01:04 PM »
Adam,

Did not mean to offend you...or come across as unprofessional. I also was not defending anyone, nor do I know who the players are. In the context of a discussion group, I beleive this remains fair and interesting.

My position stands on both primary issues brought up here:

1. Whenever the cost of design and design supervision is at topic, it usually means there is a lack of appreciation and understanding of the value of design. Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Funny thought came to me: Here we are complaining about creating plans when we would die for such a legacy of many great courses which stand today...sans any documentation. Ironic.

2. Your "bad architecture" definition is missing in action. I was merely pointing out — perhaps with an ill-bent license in writing — that this definition is YOURS. "Bad" has no limits in this case, and is therefore an opinion.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2004, 09:02:16 PM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:$200,000 worth of drawings
« Reply #57 on: January 01, 2004, 09:27:01 PM »
Jeff,

"...some of the best contemporary golf architecture I've seen in recent years has been carried out with very little reference to technical drawings..."

Depends on the site and the nature of the project. There have been far more errors made in building/creating exciting and sound golf courses due to a lack of planning and plans than the other way around. I know this because I testify occasionally on issues relative to safety and have consulted with owners on projects where arm-waving madmen have left their mark.

To move forward without much in the way of plans is perfectly acceptable when the conditions are right for such an approach. We are working with a dunes site now that allows such an approach, but even so we have very complete routing plans and detail sketches for greens. These may change in the field, but without a basis we know — and the client knows — zilch about material, quantities, turf coverage, irrigation allowances, etc.

It's best when balanced. Not too much drawing, but enough.

— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com