Can there be too much of a good thing?

[Jerry Kluger]

I was wondering whether it is a good thing when one architect is dominant in the construction of courses in an area/location?  Much has been made of the fact that Jack Nicklaus is designing a course near Sand Hills so is variety not a good thing?  If only one architect had designed the courses at Bandon, no matter who, would that necessarily have made it better, worse or no difference at all?  JN did all the courses at Desert Mountain - some are clearly better than others but did that make it a bad idea? Pete Dye did the courses at Kohler and at Paiute - would it have been better if others had been brought in?  

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

I was discussing this subject with a new client the other day ... whether he should have us build both courses, or find another designer to do his second.

The prevailing wisdom of marketing gurus is that two names are better than one, because it's all about the name to them.  There are exceptions to this in modern development -- Devil's Pulpit and Paintbrush in Canada, all the Desert Mountain courses by Nicklaus, World Woods, and Stonewall, to name a few -- and all of them seem to have done all right.  It is certainly understandable that a client would reward an architect who had performed well with a chance to repeat that success, but that is the exception these days, not the rule.

No one ever thinks back.  Most of the best 36-hole complexes were built before marketing was king -- Royal Melbourne, Winged Foot, Sunningdale, Portrush, Baltusrol, The Berkshire, and Oak Hill, to name a few.  It's hard to imagine those courses would fail to attract golfers today because they couldn't advertise Arnold Palmer's name alongside Gary Player's.

[Bill Gayne]

Mike Strantz built two courses at the same time in the Williamsburg, Virginia area. The courses are very different with one being a parkland and the other being a fake links style course.

I think having the two course so different is more the exception on multiple course efforts. All of the Donald Ross Courses around Pinehurst and Southern Pines do well but there's a lot of deja vu.

[cary lichtenstein]

Very interesting question:

I think it is architect and developer dependent. What the developer wants and the range of the particular architect.

I would never know that The River and Whistling Straits were done by the same architect, Pete Dye.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I agree with you and that is why I was surprised by the reaction to Jack doing DR near SH.  I would think that the three designers at Bandon make that a much more attractive destination as it gives you the opportunity to see what three great teams can come up with.  I guess that some people believe that C & C built the perfect course and only they are good enough to build another in the area.

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

I think you are misreading the response on the Sand Hills thread.

Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw would not have looked at the Dismal River project, out of respect for their client at Sand Hills.  They did look at the land for The Prairie Club several years ago when Dick Youngscap was thinking of becoming involved there, but when he passed on it, Bill passed too, and suggested several other designers' names to the landowner.

(Likewise, I don't think you would see any of us who worked at Bandon Dunes build a course for another developer in that general area.)

I think the thread about Nicklaus not looking at Sand Hills is more about his personality and method of operation.

A similar story, though:  when we were hired to do the second course at Stonewall, my former associate Gil Hanse had already begun working on his new French Creek course just across the road.  Because the two projects were somewhat in competition, I felt that I shouldn't go over to see what Gil was doing, unless specifically invited to do so; it never fails to be awkward to be asked one's comments on the work of a former associate.  But I DID want to see a couple of holes to make sure we wouldn't build a course in the same style that Gil was using, so I drove out there late one evening and looked at the first three holes he had built, just to make sure that we were on a different tack.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I haven't had a chance to play Stonewall but I must say that I am a big fan of French Creek as I think it would be great fun to play over and over.  The basic premise of the other thread was the concern that Nicklaus did not, shall we say, bother, to go look at Sand Hills.  Still, I did get the impression that some were expressing an opinion that Nicklaus could never approach what was done at SH.  

[Tim Liddy]

Architect / client relationships have a lot to do with it as well. In my experience, clients are normally very active in the design of their golf courses.  I would like to think the relationship and creative experience of developing a golf course together usually forges a tight friendship that will supersede potential marketing variety.  

 The opposite can happen also. I would speculate that changes of architects have more to do with personal relationships than is reported.  Marketing be dammed when you are dealing with billionaires.  

[TEPaul]

"No one ever thinks back.  Most of the best 36-hole complexes were built before marketing was king -- Royal Melbourne, Winged Foot, Sunningdale, Portrush, Baltusrol, The Berkshire, and Oak Hill, to name a few.  It's hard to imagine those courses would fail to attract golfers today because they couldn't advertise Arnold Palmer's name alongside Gary Player's."

TomD:

Those courses are private clubs. They don't exactly need to interest golfers with who the architect was to get them through their doors every day--at least not the way the public sector courses probaby do who must rely far more on non-repeat golfers.

Nevertheless, you're right, the modern-day advertizing and marketing juggernaut has changed things. I think modern-day marketing and advertizing has been somewhat of a selffulling prophecy for some architects. Their famous names may get first-timer's attention but after that it really doesn't matter. There're all kinds of things about clubs and courses that bring golfers back and in the grand scheme of things who the architect was is probably pretty low on the totem pole of why golfers actually return and return again. The sad fact is, most golfers, particularly in America just aren't that discriminating.

I could go out on any of the courses in and around say Amelia Island Florida and ask all the golfers on those courses who the architect was of the course they are playing and I bet less than 5% of them would have any clue!

(Those courses down there, among some other less well known architects, were built by Pete Dye, Tom Fazio and Arnold Palmer too.)      

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: How about a housing developer - I would imagine that in marketing their golf course community the name of the architect can add a great deal to the marketing of the course.