The acceptance of a site by an architect?

[TEPaul]

On the recent thread titled "contouring" there's some interesting discussion on the reliance today of detailed grading plans or not.

As far as I can tell a popular modern team like Coore and Crenshaw apparently like to work in the field with what they create as much as possible.

As Coore himself has said if the need for detailed plans and permitting gets to be too much for them they just might walk away from the project although a couple of their projects might seem to indicate otherwise.

So the question is what's an architect's responisbility to himself or to a client in the opinion of those on here with a site? Should he say it's no good and walk or recommend another site or should he just do his level best despite the problems, restrictions, whatever?

Personally, I just can't imagine why anyone would blame an architect for sticking to his guns about what he believes to be in the best interest of creating good architecture. Certainly in the old days there was a lot more available land but some of those old fellows had some pretty free reign about picking sites.

At least one good architect I know probably wished he hadn't taken on one site and another I know doesn't seem to mind passing if they don't think something is doable to their standards.

Others like Fazio seem to relish the challenge of creating a silk purse out of a sow's ear and God knows he does have the imagination, facility  and capability to do that---if given enough money of course!

If an architect wants to preserve the high quality of his career's inventory he might limit himself business-wise by doing that but that's his choice and how could anyone blame him?

[Steve Lang]

 

Certainly the gca's responsibility is like any designer/builder's, and as the cliche tumbles, you can ony realistically do it two of three ways: good, quick or cheap..  

Plans are essential to meet schedule and budget, especially when you're using other people's money.  So doesn't acceptance of a site first come hand in hand with gca challenge and usually second with the go/no go type cash constraints?

[ian]

Tom,

You can only walk away if you can afford to. Not all of us can. That is also a luxury that can disappear as fast as it comes.

Detailed plans have nothing to do with keeping or not keeping natural landforms. It does have a lot to do with accurate bidding. Design builders need the minimum, whereas Consultants need full documentation.

The architect's responsibilities are to safety, preeservation of the enviornment, and to themselves. The first two can not be comprimised, or your a fool (or an ass). The last is a personal decision that architects have to make for themselves. Before condemming the architect who comprimises, remember they are running a business and likely support a family.

Our company has walked away from jobs due to questionable projects that we want no part of, and I have told renovation clients that I will no longer work for them over principles. Each time you do that it costs you revenue, and for the majority of architects, you need that revenue to keep everyone working.

I had a full nine hole course on a good site that deteriorated into 5 par 3's and 4 par 4's (an executive). The holes are still very good, its just too short to be more than an executive course. Sometimes you just make the best of what you got, because somebody will benefit from you pouring your sole into what you have to work with.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

Obviously, there are different types of clients too. I think Coore & Crenshaw have benefited from their clients as well. Guys like Dick Youngscap, Ken Baskt, and now Mike Keiser, who seem to understand Bill's process and allow him to work the way he likes to work.

This is very key.

Using Rod Whitman as an example, the Blackhawk project worked well without a load of technical drawings, etc. both because the local authorities didn't demand much, and the owner, Al Prokop, understood Whitman's process and allowed him to work the way he wanted to work.

Not to say Al didn't have a few headaches. He did. But now, with the course finished, I think he truly understands he made the right choice.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom P, You touched on the interesting notion that a successful archie can spread himself too thin. In the cases of the golden oldies, I wonder how much easier life was, without all this immediacy, we have now?

What kind of contracts are standard? Or is that naive and all deals are different?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

Would you exempt Donald Ross from your reference to golden oldie architects ?

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, Donald Ross did too many courses with his name on them--he spread himself too thin to even remotely give some the personal attention one would generlaly want to see although he obviously had a very fine organization back in that day and age. Around four hundred courses is too much for any career, in my opinion, even a long one like Ross's.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- Yes, I guess I would. Since I was thinking of Ross and how many courses bare his name. I just wonder if on a percentage basis, how good was his batting average? Who knows? Anybody?

Pat- Do you know any architects who may have spread themselves too thin?

[TEPaul]

Ian:

Thoughtful and honest post there. True, perhaps no architect should be condemned or even criticized for running a business and supporting a family but the fact is certainly on a website like this, some might be criticized in certain circumstances. They're not likely to be criticized for running a business or supporting a family merely criticized for their architecture if they tend to go with any client, any site or any job that's offered them if it doesn't turn out to some expectation.

I look at that as two-sided. One, they obviously are making compromises in quality with certain clients and with certain sites and projects. How could it be otherwise? The other side is even detailed analysts such as those on here never seem to be either aware of that or willing to admit that and the reasons for it. It just seems if there's blame to be found the architect takes it in the context of lack of talent, certainly lack of product quality or whatever. I wish it weren't so but how can anyone deny it is?

It'd be interesting for any of us to know which architects actually did turn down clients or sites and for what reasons. It'd also be interesting to know which architects never did turn down a site or a client. Did Ross ever turn down a site? I think he probably did but perhaps not a client. How about Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Colt, Alison, Thompson, RTJ, Wilson, Dye, Fazio, Rees Jones or any of the other more well known names?

Even doing research on William Flynn, it's very hard to tell at this point, if he turned down a client, or even a site. We do know, however, he did make certain demands on clients if he thought the quality of the architecture, the course and the project might suffer and it appears he probably did walk away from some projects if the resources weren't there to accomplish what he recommnended.

Perhaps, a high production architect like Ross simply expanded the size of his organization at any time to accomodate any and all business and demand for him. Perhaps most others did too--that sort of thing is very hard to tell anyway, even with architects today.

But we do know that some such as Coore & Crenshaw, Hanse now and some others only want to stay small apparently so they can really devote additional time to their max 2-3 projects per year.

But as to who and what they fit into that limited schedule  may change and Gil very well may wish there were certain things he didn't do and Coore & Crenshaw are certainly known to have taken a client, site or project that they knew full well was somewhat of a compromise. Easthampton may have been one of those, or at least in their minds. But it is know that  a gap unexpectedly appeared in their schedule and that project popped up because of that! (It's no secret C&C turned down the second course at Philly Cricket club!).

I think the reaction to that or the lack of awareness of that is interesting. Once on this site Pat Mucci asked why some of Coore and Crenshaw's courses weren't more highly ranked--particularly Notre Dame or perhaps even Easthampton. On the other side of the coin, I once said to Coore something like I thought Easthampton was a great course and he said; "Hmmm, we only did the best we could there with a problematic site and project and we're very proud of what we managed to do there because of that.".

I'm not trying to criticize any architect with this thread only make it clearer the things they have to go through and why that should be considered in anything they do---eg their courses, their architecture and how ulitimately they're percieved.

Of course it's also pretty hard to deny, although some professinal architects seem to want to skirt past it, the reasons for the results of some of the one time or extremely low quantity architects most of who were amateurs. Certainly this group didn't start until they had sites they thought potential and it's no secret these men literally spent years on those projects.

And look at where those courses have stood and where they still do today. Look at Pinehurst #2 and the time Ross spent on that one.

Again, it's not so much what the architects do or don't do in this regard--it's just understanding better what that was and why, in my opinion.

[paul cowley]

...tom

along a similar vein ,as a golf designer and planner ,i have on numerous occasions not only advised a client against a site [turned down ],but also disqualified the project as a whole ,all in their best interests.....this has occured at times even if it is great golf terrain.

  sometimes the best advice one can give is save your money...

it would not surprise me if certain golden agers offered similar advice .

cheers man gulp gulp  

[TEPaul]

For those would might not know, Paul Cowley, in my opinion, is one valuable guy to know on this subject and even other subjects such as building architecture, general land planning, building etc. He's from St Simon's Island, Georgia and works with Love Golf Design.

Certainly not someone who blows his own horn and because of that it was fascinating to get to know him and then all he can do a couple weeks ago and talk with him about concpetual things to do with golf architecture. My sense is he has a real inclination to think outside the box in architecture but with real taste (which I just love) but is so grounded in the details of what planning and construction is all about he inherently shows balance and common-sense about it all.

I was telling him that a lot of us on here who aren't in the business have all kinds of ideas conceptually but since most of us don't know the other side of the business we can get unrealistic sometimes.

So talking to him about conceptual architecture, maybe even outside the box conceptual architecture is a ball because he's the kind of guy who can truthfully say; "Interesting idea but can do or no can do and here's why". To me that's the best and most fun type of conversation to have about this stuff--and in the end the most productive kind of conversation to have too.

If I was ever able to get a collaborative effort going on the architecture of a golf course, I'd definitlely be calling Paul Cowley.

Paul;

I may be mistaken but I thought I heard you say you wonder what Golfclubatlas's reaction would be to those holes you designed and routed into and on top of the earthworks of that old fort you found but if I were you I'd show that on here!

[ian]

Tom,

I just find that this site is built too much upon ideals, and needs a reality check some times. It is a business too, so are painting and other arts.

In response to you comments, I do think if we build in a severely comprimised site, we must take the criticism for the work too.

On another note, we have turned down quite a bit of work over the past five years, keeping the best projects. We had a great run, and now its over. Now we are a bit short, and that is the price of being picky. The cupboard can go from full to bare in a couple of years.

[paul cowley]

aggh tom ...now i feel compelled to expound [i'm still teaching myself to type and can lose my train of thought just getting it down ...those damn cap keys really slow me up]...wish i had your capacity for well crafted flowing verbosity!!!...that shift key for the ! can piss one off as well ].

   golf and architectural design are similar in that they are both artistic endeavors grounded in function ,unlike the fine arts that rely little on their surroundings for success.
   an architect given a 100k budget to design a three bedroom house and an architect given 300k to design the same still face the same basic challenges.....failure to meet the fuctional needs [leaving out plumbing to accomodate more interior finish] obviously would not be successful.

  golf is similar in the respect that a 'good' designer has to have the ability to analyze  the site and budget constraints prior to construction to make things work.....a low budget, minimal project often provides more design challenge to be good ,as long as meets the courses fuctional needs....and are great projects to cut ones teeth on.

....but sometimes the budget or project demographics just don't make sense, even if the dirt does.

just saying no when one has to put bread on the table can hurt ...but its the right thing to do.

tom ...there was a thread by turboe on the 'patriot ' course while you were gone.

[Joel_Stewart]

Do you know any architects who may have spread themselves too thin?

Nicklaus, Fazio, RTJ Jr. to name a few.   Its simple quantity ($) over quality.  In all fairness to Fazio and Nicklaus, they have big operations to maintain and big payrolls to pay.  

C&C and maybe Tom Doak are the only architects I can think of that are picky, trying to build classical style golf courses and not just for the money.

Ian states it very well that you can only walk away if you can afford to.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Golf can be built on any site — as there are no rules for her game board. Size, length, quantity, etc. are only of concern in football fields or tennis courts.

However...much can be said for not trying to built too much on a small site; not building golf where there is no chance of attracting play; not building golf where there is no water; not building golf on uninteresting land; etc.

We have several planning projects at present which are odd in nature of their sites. Rather than shy from them, we took on the challenge to see what might be done and evaluate the possibilities with our clients/owners.

I feel that the regulars to this site who condemn sameness and standards should rise up and ask many architects why they balk at anything less than 18-holes of 7,000 yard length. This, perhaps greater than any single act in our profession, has all but rammed golf into its "only 150+ acres / only 18-hole / only 7,000 yard" abiss.

[TEPaul]

Believe me, I'm certainly not saying an architect should turn down a site or a client in his career to adhere to some kind of allegience to architectural priniciples. I just find the whole subject, yesterday and today, an interesting one.

Let me ask those architects who've responded to this thread this question. If you look back at your career's projects, if given more time and perhaps some more project dough how and how much better do you figure you could've done? I guess that's a general question but no reason not to use specific examples if you want to and if you dare to.

Ian:

I completely agree many on here do look at this subject ideally. I doubt any of us could expect it to be otherwise unless those who haven't been exposed to the business were exposed to it. But I like to think that on here it should be a good give and take between those who do know the business and those who don't. Each side should bring something different to the table here.

[T_MacWood]

Personally I wish Donald Ross built a few more courses...and Dr.MacKenzie quite a few more. I'm affraid when all is said and done we'll wish Coore and Crenshaw built a lot more too.

Ross, MacKenzie and Colt were all deligaters. They set the creative tone and entrusted tallented associates to follow through on their vision. No matter what the circumstances its a collaborative effort....why not let tallented men do their thing? Ross & company built a few duds, but the successes far outnumbered the duds.

[Jeff_Brauer]

This discussion presumes that an architect can predict in advance when a project will be bad.  Of course, many times you can, if the budget is unrealistically low, the site is 100% flood plain, or the Owner really has terrible vision.  Unfortuneatly, these factors don't always announce themselves in neon lights right up front!

Also, using the Notre Dame course and C and C as an example, only because TePaul mentioned it, could you blame C and C (or any other architect) for taking on a gently rolling midwest site, confident in their abiliity, and with the memory that they turned another equal, or worse site, into a respectable golf course?

As my mentors always said, there aren't really any bad golf design projects at the beginning, but there are some at the end.  Its all what you do with it.......

It is true that most of us can't afford to turn down projects, although you do learn there are usually certain clients you can't afford to have.  However, I think Tom Doak even said  that turning down clients, or perhaps walking away during a project (I don't remember) can also get you in trouble reputation wise.  

[Forrest Richardson]

I designed a very low budget project on completely flat land — four feet of contour change in 3/4 mile. If I had had $1 million more to move dirt I would have created a better project. Still proud of it, just always had wished for more than  $2.2 million in total. Sorry I do not have too many pictures, but I found this on the courses website...

[A_Clay_Man]

Forrest- Are those greenshapes the real deal? I don't know that I have ever seen so much variety. Is that a star green? I also see a boot and a bone and the inverted "L" on 9 & 18, looks very cool. Interesting how the each nine's flow, is set-up by  the 2nd and 11th.

Brian- Maybe I was unclear, but are there provisions in the "typical" contract that specifically deal with problems or conflicts that may arise, be it personal or on the ground? And if not, why not?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Before dismissing ideals in favor of practicality, I was interested in the story about the winner of the Pritzker Architectural Prive, Zaha Hadid, whom I believe worked for many years on designs that were never built.  Many years ago people just said her designs were not possible to build.  Now they are more accepted and projects are getting built, and she wins a big prize.  She said architecture is about ideas.  IDEAS, IDEAS, IDEAS.  I have a little boy when in 2nd grade writes a 25 page report front and back pages, the class was told to write two.  He misspells, punctuation is not always correct, and I wouldn't say one word about the mistakes, fortunately neither did the teacher.  There are way too many rules and guidelines for so much of what we do.  Rather than just letting people develop big ideas, we immediately set about finding what's wrong with the ideas, correcting the mistakes, pointing out why they are not practical, quoting dead people to help cut down live people with big ideas, and at some point you suck the life out of the kid, they give up writing, and art and music because the rules and set ways stifle their creativity and they become a businessman where the corporate structure seems to be the only way to get ahead for most.  I think golf and golf architecture is stifled, certainly this site promotes a set of standards, and to waver from that causes one to be dismissed.  So, before the "practical", or "old masters is the only way people" stifle your creative ideas maybe those who look in here whom may have real serious ideas but can't seem to be taken seriously should look the other way and keep dreaming because golf architecture needs more than what is offered here.

I did want to clarify that I used the word we when I identified those that critisize and stifle ideas.  I am guilty as well.  It is a natural tendancy to analyze, and critique, and a dangerous one.

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam — Those shapes are fairly accurate. I believe the plan was prepared from our original plans...and those were adhered to fairly well...no choice!

Kelly — I'm in agreement.