Is there a standard for naming an assisting architect as co-designer of a course

[Frank Giordano]

I'm currently working on a piece about the Ryder Cup and would like to get some feedback from any of the architects who frequent  this site.  My concern involves how they decide whether or not to recognize associates who contribute to the design work for new courses, specifically how they decide if they should deem the course a  Brauer/associate's name or Doak/associate's name, etc.  (With a Coore/Crenshaw course, the matter is crystal clear.) The issue comes up because the designers of Albatross were Robert von Hagge, Rick Baril and a Frenchman, but the only "architect" the French Federation has designated is Mr. Chesneau.    That designation is not accidental, as the federation and Le Golf National resort have basically ignored von Hagge altogether as an architect and, when they do acknowledge he was involved at all, it was merely as a consultant.  In latter years, his name has been expunged altogether.The architect of record, however, was an inexperienced building architect who got the commission by virtue of being a member of the federation, but he was specifically charged to find someone as a "consultant"  to build an essentially von Hagge style stadium course, like the TPC at the Woodlands, in Texas.I'm curious to know if there's some standard or universal way of determining if someone, who basically takes charge of and controls the design process, gets to be a named architect or co-designer.

[Tom_Doak]

Frank:


In short, there is no standard.


The provenance of Le Golf National is an open question:  von Hagge's associates feel that his input was written out after the fact by the Frenchman who finished the project.  Easy to see how that might happen, in France.


In The Confidential Guide, I normally list my own courses as my designs, "with [lead associate's name]", not as co-designer but as a way to recognize their input.  I sometimes do this for other designers' work too, when I know; but those architects are not too happy about it, and I understand why.  There is really no upside to naming someone as a co-designer, unless they are leaving the firm:  the last thing you want is for future clients to think one associate is better or more important than the others because he got more credit somewhere before.  [As an example:  I gave Gil Hanse a co-design credit for Stonewall, and some people assumed that meant I'd let him do the whole project ... when in fact I was on site about 130 days.]


Even then, sometimes the guy who had the most input on the design was a shaper, rather than the lead associate.


You say "with a Coore/Crenshaw course, the matter is crystal clear," as if they didn't have talented people helping them, just as I do.  But their talented people don't get as much recognition, because they would already be third in line, and few writers want to go that deep with the story.  So, Bill and Ben don't have to deal with the b.s. of "who did what" as much as I have.

[Jeff Schley]

I think of being a co-author on a research article for a university professor.  You can do your research, write up your research, but then to get credit you must publish your research in a recognized publication which is recognized by ISI (International Scientific Indexing).  You don't get credit for the research unless it makes it into a ISI recognized journal and to do so the researcher must pass the editors review, which is made up of peers for that particular field.  So that is the auditing built into the system for academic publishing recognition and works fairly well.

Where the ambiguity comes in is where "gifted" authorship is given, whereas a scientist is cited as a co-author of the research. There is a generally accepted criteria, which sometimes can be stretched for being a co-author:

Only those who meet all of the following three criteria should be co-author of an article:

"1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

3) final approval of the version to be published.

Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3."

[Tom_Doak]

For a golf course, how many people could reasonably be given "final approval".  Even having two of us at Sebonack was very hard to do ... it meant that I had to be there whenever Jack was, so we didn't keep editing each other and never reach a conclusion.

[Frank Giordano]

Frank:


In short, there is no standard.


The provenance of Le Golf National is an open question:  von Hagge's associates feel that his input was written out after the fact by the Frenchman who finished the project.  Easy to see how that might happen, in France.


In The Confidential Guide, I normally list my own courses as my designs, "with [lead associate's name]", not as co-designer but as a way to recognize their input.  I sometimes do this for other designers' work too, when I know; but those architects are not too happy about it, and I understand why.  There is really no upside to naming someone as a co-designer, unless they are leaving the firm:  the last thing you want is for future clients to think one associate is better or more important than the others because he got more credit somewhere before.  [As an example:  I gave Gil Hanse a co-design credit for Stonewall, and some people assumed that meant I'd let him do the whole project ... when in fact I was on site about 130 days.]


Even then, sometimes the guy who had the most input on the design was a shaper, rather than the lead associate.


You say "with a Coore/Crenshaw course, the matter is crystal clear," as if they didn't have talented people helping them, just as I do.  But their talented people don't get as much recognition, because they would already be third in line, and few writers want to go that deep with the story.  So, Bill and Ben don't have to deal with the b.s. of "who did what" as much as I have.

[Frank Giordano]

Thanks for the reply Tom.




I didn't think there was a standard in golf, but I appreciate hearing from professionals, even in different disciplines, about the considerations made to "give credit where credit is due."  Tom understands the sense of frustration the von Hagge group feels, in a case where chauvinism seems to have been a significant criterion for denying him due recognition.  But in reality, Bob and Rick Baril didn't make some minor or even only a few significant changes at Albatross.  They chucked the original design and routing altogether, at the start of their cooperation with Chesneau.  And they were granted lead responsibility for controlling the design process, all the way to the end; von Hagge would have it no other way if he were to sign on.  The stadium amphitheater for the final four holes was their sole work.  A strong case could be made -- I'll be trying to make it -- that the real designer for Albatross was the von Hagge-Baril, tandem.  Hubert Chesneau, the named architect, signed a contract to do the job, but as soon as von Hagge got involved, Chesneau had minimum impact on the design; at best, he functioned as an assistant to Rick and Bob, it seems to me.




As far as granting recognition to an associate, or giving a boost to a collaborator's career, the French seem not at all to be interested, even today, at the period before staging the Ryder Cup.  In fact, it was von Hagge -- with Les Bordes recently elevating him to the top tier among the few noted designers working in France at that time -- who brought successful experience and prestige to the project.  Why he should have been treated as he's been mystifies me; and I've invited the French Federation of Golf to enlighten  me.

[Niall C]

Does the French Federation own the course ? If they do, are they that bothered who designed it ? I appreciate that the gca responsible would like the credit, even if only for marketing purposes, and we on here probably take notice of such things but I'm not sure the average golfer in this country and perhaps in Europe takes a blind bit of notice.

Also once the course is handed over the owners are free to do with it what they please and often do. I know that if a developer/owner signs up for a Nicklaus Signature design, Nicklaus insists they don't touch it or if they do they have to stop using his name but is there anyone else who can realistically do that ? And would they want to ?

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

“The Ego Standard”!?
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

It is pretty traditional for owners to credit the architect, even well after then own the course.


There are a couple of issues in play as to Frank's original question.  It seems that Von Hagge's company had at least a sub-contract to assist in the design of the course, so they should be credited.  I had a few of these, one with Jay Morrish, another with Gary Baird, and of course, many where tour pros were under contract as consultants.  Of course, all parties are credited without much regard to exactly what % of the design they may have done.  I think the theory is, they are all subject to the same lawsuit when things go wrong.  I haven't heard of a case where the jury award was split along the % each party participated in time or effort.


This is a different kettle of fish than the question of an associate working for a firm under contract to design a course.  In those cases, the tradition, if any, is to allow the head of the firm to dish out credit as they see fit, from none to the principal and primary associates who played a substantial role.  It is highly unusual to list more than one associate on any project, and most firm heads, even if only figureheads at that point in their career, decline to list anyone. 


And, in many cases, several associates do work together, and getting the project out the door with full plans, etc. does take a lot of work.  Many (I think Mike Y and I agree on this, but he can chime in) associates take sketches from the main guy, do a lot of detail work, but the head of firm still believes he should get all the credit, if for no other reason he/she has put the infrastructure in place to get jobs done (office, staff, software, etc) and as per above, is the one who will get sued, so you really don't know if an associate can do that when on his own.  Being a talented designer and being able to get a project to the finish line are often two separate skills.  The former is not worth much unless you have the latter as well.


The real test, to me, would be to ask the clients daily on site representative who they called when they had a problem?  Usually, an architect designates one associate to do that when they can't be present to answer the phone, make a site visit, etc.  If the client usually talks to the head of firm, perhaps no one else should get much credit.  If they were comfortable taking to the lead associate architect, then maybe they should.


While its the architect's prerogative, nothing stops the client from answering questions honestly, and many when asked will say "such and such did most of the work" and then its out there, and it tends to stick.  That can cause some problems when an associate leaves and takes a wee bit more credit for a project than the head of firm recalls!


OT, but similar things happen on the contracting side.  You run across ten guys who say "I built that project for Jack" (or whoever) and it takes some digging to find out.  I have people say that as shapers, and even down to lowly guys who run the seeding tractor, but want a piece of the golf contractor market, so they fudge a bit.

[Nicolas Joakimides]

It’s so obvious that The Golf National is a Von Hagge’s design ! I know a Hubert Chesneau course : very different style .
For me this course is 100% Von hagge.
We have 5 others Von Hagge courses in France. Unfortunately, they all look the same...


Nicolas J

[Stuart Hallett]

Frank,
I'd be very interested to read the answer from the FFGolf.
EGD tweaked the course for the Ryder Cup, does that mean they get a mention also. Or did EGD work under the signature of H. Chesneau, interesting.   
Maybe someone from EGD can shed some light on the matter.

[Frank Giordano]

The two parts of the letter I received from the FFG Executive Director, Christophe Muniesa, that reply to the last post:


The official position of the FFG is and has always been that Mr CHESNEAU designed the course and Mr Von Hagge and his team acted as consultant architects. The Golf National is definitely the brainchild of Hubert CHESNEAU. [size=78%] [/size][/font][/size][size=78%]As to the contribution of EGD:[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size]Thus, to give a complete and fair picture of the history of the Albatros course, one should also highlight the importance of the upgrading done by "EUROPEAN GOLF DESIGN, Jérémy Slessor", with H.Chesneau, "IMAGINIEUR (Didier COMTE)", Alejandro Reyes, and all the technicians for green redesign (n°1 and n°16), seeding, watering system, drainage, etc...