Can architects and supts coexist in restoration and construction

[Mike_Young]

Haven't posted in quite a while....Some may think this an attack on superintendents.  It is not.  My father-in-law was superintendent at Indian Creek in Miami, Gulfstream in Del Ray and Everglades Club in Palm Beach over his lifetime.  I have a great deal of respect for supts…..BUT….I am not sure many supts. Give architects the same respect.
Today…a young supt at a course I am doing explains to an owner how he is concerned that a greens mower can't cut a slope in a green complex we are designing……I assure you there is a mower and a supt that can cut the slope.  And we can go on from there….green mix..irrigation…. the old guys just seemed to get it done.....now we have too much overkill that is being taught...I say maintenance is there for golf not golf there for maintenance.
For instance at my home course the supt has been there for 35 years…he does a good job…therefore members of the green comm. Do as he says whether right or wrong…..therefore our trees are an abortion…our cartpaths create water pockets in fairways and every suggestion is taken as a slap at Donald Ross…….as they say with most clubs and committees"in the land of the blind…the one-eyed man is king"   We were even told how pride is taken in never closing the course for repairs….DR would never wish a dozer on this place…..No one can dispute his advice....no oe to listen.
Human nature tells us that a person or committee or owner will lean toward whomever they see the most…in most cases this is the supt or golf pro…the arch is only around once or twice a month…..and sometimes you walk into it….Think about it…do you ever notice this??  Can supt and architect co-exist in most renovations or is this why you see so many new supt after a renovation or during a renovation.
Supts you are the key to golf ..don't take this wrong.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

When you used the word "respect", you summed up the key ingredient to any human relationship. As soon as a part of a relationship losses respect for the other, or thinks so much of themselves that they don't respect anyone...well, trouble will follow.

It's not an issue between archies and supers...it's between people.

Joe

[TEPaul]

Whoa, Mike, good to see you on here again, but as Cuba Gooding's character said to Jerry MacGuire; "I feel your pain".

The symbiosis of architect, super and club and committee is a most interesting one--certainly one fraught with disappointment for any and all.

Don't worry too much about it--although the fact that you seem to be is impressive to me! You seem to really care, my man, and if you don't mind me saying that's a great place to start.

I'm going through some of the same sentiments you are Mike--get in touch by email, or this site's message or give me a call by phone.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I've been involved as a Supt in a couple of smaller renovations and a grow-in and opening. I guess what I would say is maybe some supts feel like they have to live with whatever is done long after the archie is gone. Not saying that's a good reason for not making a strong effort to work together, but I've heard plenty of gripping from fellow supts about what they were left with following a renovation. I'm really not sure why I hear so many supts complain about archies, and visa versa. But, I'll say this, and I've said it before, there are many professional, qualified supts out there. But, for some reason, clubs and course decision makers aren't very good, some of the time, at picking them out. I believe being a good architect requires experience, education, AND talent. Being a good superintendent requires the same.

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I agree with you summary but would take it a step further.  example:  a person has a new roof put on his house.  He hires the best roofer he can find.  Is the roofer necessarily the best person to place the foundation on a house.  No....yet  in the case of golf many supts. will comment on elements that they cannot envision without considering the ramifications or the effect it can have on their relationship with the architect.  I am not speaking of a situation where the arch leaves the supt with a problem.  I am talking about where the supt leaves the club with a problem because he would not do as the plans suggested but wished for his local yocal bulldozer buddy to chop something up .  Probably need to stop.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm a little surprised that the relationships can be so strained. It seems that while both are in the industry, they have spent all their time learning different things. This divergence, one would think, would have each individual seeking out the other for a more comprehensive education. I mean, where else does a super have the opportunity to learn about gca and vice versa? Save for this forum   or when they are working together.

The reality is that there is no mold and each individual should be accountable for their ego's and attitudes on each individual subject at hand.

I've heard of more than one story where both the super and the archie lacked the foresight to know that a problem that arose would re-occur unless something different was done.

[Willie_Dow]

Isn't this where evolution takes place?  Time will tell who was right.  The contour of the green will either accept the mower or it will not.  Don't look for an immediate answer!

[Jim Janosik]

Mike, at 46 I am certianly not a youing Supt. The youngin;s are impaired from comprehending that stuff DOES NOT have to be technicaly perfect to work. "just get it done" I agree.

JJ

[Mike_Young]

Jim,
I sometimes say I would rather spend my money on the best supt instead of the best greens construction.  I bet the results are cheaper and greens are better...as well as the entire course.....a budget with a very good supt will in many cases be less than a budget with a weaker supt....you see it over and over...
Mike

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Mike,

  I'll try not to take it wrong. And the short answer to your question is yes.
  What strikes me most about your original post is some of the contradictory statements you make.  One one hand a "new guy" can't get a job done and his abilities are called into question because he dares question a proposed contour of a green.  But at your home course your 35 year veteran " old guy" who can get the job done but is too entrenched and has to much control of the golf course.  
   Maybe both of these superintendents are doing their jobs and you happen do disagree with their opinion.  It's OK to disagree isn't it?  I can respect someone and disagree with them without trashing their motives or questioning their knowledge.
  If you really do feel that superintendents are "the key to golf".  What exactly do you think our role should be in these matters?

SBR

[Mike_Young]

SBR,
Again don't take me wrongly.  Yes, I agree that people should be able to agree to disagree.  You mention that maybe these supts are just doing their job.  I think thast is where the problem lies.  Scope of work or job.....Why would a supt wish to accept responsiblity for improvements to his course when he can easily have a contractor and an architect to blame for all of the problems.  If I respect a supt ablities to grow the grass and maintain a project I would hope he respects me enought to realize that I know what slopes are acceptable.  Fact is most supts don't know nearly as much regarding construction as magazines, organizations and meetings have led them to beleive.  And the same goes for architects and contractors regarding grass and maintenace.  As with anything if they don't do it everyday they can't know as much as someone that does.  
  I have always thought the most sucessful and fast moving supts were the ones that sat on the edge.  You don't get that edge pushing for EX:flatter more modern contoured greens vs. older style sloped and contoured greens.  You just figure how to do it.
But in the end you are right all is opinion and I think it is much easier to respect one's opinion when it can be backed up or argued.  If one can't back up their opinion then they should listen to the opinion of the one who can.  And that goes for both supt and arch.

[RJ_Daley]

How many courses have we seen that have severe slopes on greens and surrounds that are maintained well?  How many times do we see these type of features in a state of scalped and irregularly maintained conditions to the detriment of the design intent?  Is there a correlation between the super who get these challenging jobs done well and the budget and support the super is given to do so?  Perhaps the archie doing the renovation must keenly understand the limits the club ownership will have, or lack of limits, in terms of the budget available to design certain features.  It does the archie no good for his reputation if he designs something he knows the owner and super will not be able to maintain either through lack of realistic resource production of the golf operation, or lack of initiative and know-how to do it by management and super.  An archie should try very hard upfront to determine what the owner and super can and can't do, and they should then agree on the intentions and expectations based on the real world they operate in.  With enough money, the expectations can rise.  

Your milage may vary...

[Donnie Beck]

Mike,

To answer your question I truly believe both can exist and learn from each other. I know from my experience that I always look forward to the few weeks a year that our architect is at the course. I love to walk the course and pick his brain about this or that. It is during this time together that we discuss ideas about work that can be done in the off season. As with many things in life communication is the key. I don’t think any superintendent wants a project to fail, but sometimes you have to put yourself out there and give the architect a chance. Go for broke once in a while. If a mower scalps a contour, so be it. Go back in there the following fall pull up some sod re-grade and try again. It is only grass. How will the course ever improve if you are not willing to even try? I think a superintendent’s job would be pretty boring with out architecture. If it were just about mowing grass for a living I would have gone into lawn care. The hours are far better and there is a lot less stress. So I guess my question to you is how can they not coexist?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here's a news flash - architects and superintendents are real people, too!  As such, they come in all temperaments....

In 45 new course designs, and about twice that many renovations/consultations, etc.  my overwhelming experience has been a good to great relationship with the superintendent.  

I have run into only a few cases over the years where the super wasn't on board with trying to build the best renovation possible.  

Back in my Chicago days, I remember one who was dead set against Bent fairways.  The bent we forced on him (More or less) was dead in a month, almost "proof" in his mind that it was the wrong choice.  It was, but not of grass, of superintendents.  Just as there may be better choices among architects for the courses at Bandon, or for sympathetic renovations etc. than others, clubs and course can make wrong choices for superintendents.  

Usually, its going for a young, less expensive one on a tough job.  Or one with a "muni" mentality for a high dollar course.  Or, the reverse!  In a few cases, superintendents don't have a "customer first" mentality, which is always necessary, but have a "technical" mentality.

I agree with Mike and Jim that young superintendents are more prone to look at the job from a technical side than an older guy who has maintained courses without the newer, fancier mowers and irrigation systems.  All in all, most supers get "super" results with a tremendous lack of resources.  A few get subpar results despite having virtually all the tools necessary.  

Of course, you could say the same about architects, and often do!

Regarding that green slope, I have proposed similar slopes (like a Biaritz green) and had some supers just shoot it down as "not possible to mow, not possible to irrigate" and others who send out a guy last thing every afternoon to hand water the "offending slope" without a second thought, despite its inconveniece.  In general, though, I think we architects need to realize that if it isn't reasonable to maintain, it will get changed some day, when the economy is not good, and the super will be asked for the fifth time in five years to make another budget cut.

Hell, that my be later this year, the way things are going with the economy!

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
You have done a better job of putting into words than me. Thanks,
Mike

[TEPaul]

At GMGC during our restoration we had a wonderful working relationship between Gil Hanse and our long time super Mike Smith. Right out of the box Gil seemed to make it quite clear that he would stick pretty much to the architecture and not venture into the maintenance areas as in his opinon that was the purview of the club and the super.

With my idea on the "maintenance meld" that's an area I'd really like to see bridged well and intelligently though, so I was hoping for some serious interplay in that area between all the parties--architect, super and committee and club. It seems to be working out pretty well but I think there's a lot of detail that at least should be formally put into the "goal" category--if you know what I mean.

I must say one of the key ingredients of all this during the restoration was the contractor--Pennick Arimour of Ambler Pa. They worked out beautifully with all involved. Gil has worked a ton with them on some other projects and they had a couple of really good on-site guys.

We had Rodney Hine from Hanse & Co on site almost every day and Gil did a good deal of the shaping.

I'm sure there's always going to be areas of proprietariness but it all worked real well--very professionally.

And the good news is the membership seems to be very happy with the results.