site visits

[Tommy Williamsen]

This has probably been discussed before but I couldn't find the thread.

When Kinloch was looking for an architect they chose a local, yet certainly not as yet renown, architect named Lester George.  Part of the reason, I am told, was because he could be on site more than some of the better known architects.

It seems like a risk.  Yet at the same time it makes a lot of sense.  It would seem that the fewer the visits the more the shaper becomes the de-facto co-designer.

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:

Yes, but if the shaper has spent several years working for the architect, then having him as a de-facto co-designer might be much better than an architect who shows up more but doesn't communicate with the shaper as well.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy:

Yes, but if the shaper has spent several years working for the architect, then having him as a de-facto co-designer might be much better than an architect who shows up more but doesn't communicate with the shaper as well.

Makes sense to me.  Do shapers tend to stay with architects or do many of them go out on their own?  How long does it generally take for an achitect to begin to trust his shaper?

When I was at Sebonack I was told that you had made many site visits.  I realize the immensity of the project but do you find that some sites require more visits or is that factored in by the initial contract?

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:

Most of my contracts don't specify a number of days or visits, just that I am there enough to personally supervise the design.  On recent courses it has worked out to about 10-12 days on site prior to groundbreaking (to get the routing set) and then about 15-25 days during construction (usually in stretches of 4-7 days at a time).  Plus travel time, of course!

As for shapers, not many are employed directly by architects, although many architects have "favorite" contractors and shapers with whom they have worked on a semi-regular basis.  My associates take turns shaping when they aren't running a project.

[Chris Cupit]

Tommy,

My budget couldn't afford Tom  , but I did end up with a great architect who was local and able to spend a lot of time on site.  

We used Medalist Golf Inc. and he had a favorite shaper (Joey) who we were able to get and he did a fabulous job for us.

From my very limited experience, time on the job was crucial to our success.

[Don_Mahaffey]

You take an Architect who has at least one full-time associate on site at all times, (sometimes more then 1 associate???) and I think you've got folks there who know what the boss wants since they've worked with him on other projects. Seems like a lot of the small-mid sized firms work this way. The big guy comes around often enough and communicates often enough to make sure his ideas get into the ground and you end up with something good. And, I like this model because I believe you get it done more efficiently and with less changes because the Architect has a presence on site at all times.

Contrast this to an Architect who draws great plans, puts them out to bid, and then trusts the contractor to get it right. Maybe the Architect makes a visit every other week, or for a few days a month. My experience with this method is when the Architect is on site, he spends most of his time critique and changing what HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT. That's a big difference IMO, than actually guiding the building process. However, I know some very successful projects get built with this model.
 
Just seems to me that a constant site presence means more then counting the days the big guy is on site, if you want the best efficiency.

My disclaimer is...I've haven't been involved in all that much construction. I base my opinions on the experience I have and what I’ve learned from some consultants who have been involved in many construction projects.
I'd love to hear from those out there with more experience.

[Greg Cameron]

Sensational asian site visits?http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/news/manila.php
An architect of diplomacy on the greens

[Mike Nuzzo]

Chris,
How far is Houston from you??  

My client did the same after getting to know me a bit.
He had a good idea I'd be on site much of the time - and I have been.

What he wasn't planning on was me bringing Don to the project - and that he thanks me for all the time.

[Jim Nugent]

Can anyone tell me exactly what the shaper does?  Thanks...

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jim,
A shaper contours and sculpts the earth to create smooth natural transitions of all the golf course features.
A shaper must have an extensive knowledge of cut & fill practices, mass grading techniques, survey procedures/grade checking, compaction management, drainage systems, turf maintenance restrictions and proper equipment selection, usage, operation and saftey.
A shaper is creative, resourceful and must properly understand and interpret verbal instructions and be able to read topographical grading plans and have a great deal of artistic vision.
A shaper provides valuable insights and suggestions to every detail, as they see every sq. foot of the course.
They ensure proper drainage of the course and get the base material - clay, sand, top soil - in as close to a final state as possible prior to finish work and grassing.
They make dirt look and work real good.

[Jim Nugent]

Thanks, Mike.  Are there any good courses where shapers were never used?  I'm guessing TOC hasn't had any, and maybe some of the other old courses.  Yes, no?  

[Paul Sinclair]

I have been working with Lester George, the same architect who designed Kinloch (as referred to in the original post on this subject), on a renovation of my home course -- Willow Oaks Country Club in Richmond, VA. We broke ground on the renovation on January 8 this year. Since then, Lester and his Design Associate Glenn Muckley have been on site 3-4 days per week. This is MUCH beyond their contractual obligation to the Club but they are obviously exceptionally devoted to what they are doing.

There is information about this project - including on-course videos with Lester George and our Course Superintendent Craig Fuller - available from the following link:

http://www.willowoakscc.net/renovation

I have not previously had the privilege of being closely involved with a golf course renovation. However, I am convinced from having seen Lester's constant presence on-site at our project that it is undeniably resulting in a renovation that will be beyond expectations. He has been able to make subtle and not so subtle changes to his original design plans based on his timely "on the ground" observations. Sometimes what you design on paper is not what you see on the ground. The ability to intervene timely when this occurs seems like an invaluable way to shepherd a project through to a successful result.

We're also very fortunate to have a couple of great shapers who have worked with Lester before. They are doing a great job interpreting Lester's instructions and vision for the course.

[Lester George]

Paul,

Thanks for the nice comments, much appreciated.

Tommy,

In fact, Vinny Giles and I had already looked at a couple of projects together when Kinloch came along.  Our relationship goes back to 1987 while he was a practicing agent and I was just getting into the business.  Vinny knows all the top architects and could have picked any one of them.

Yes, one of the reasons I was chosen was proximity, but there were others, and I'm not sure they are all that risky, you will have to ask him.  

Just to clarify, I had never worked with either of the shapers at Kinloch before.  Although they learned very quickly what I wanted, I have forged a long relationship with them.  It comes down to trust.  No shaper I have ever had has been a de-facto architect I assure you, however, every shaper has been given a chance to show me his capabilities.  I let them take some chances because they are contibuting artists.  If I don't like it, we change it.  For the most part, shapers like the opportunity to show off their skills and I let them.  But they never assume the role of architect.  They follow my plans until they can demonstrate they understand the intent, then, as with most relationships, they are given more chances to excell.  

As far as site visits, I have never done what is in my contract.  I had one job that called for 24 visits, I made 41, at no additional expense.  That is my norm.  I take less work so I can personally supervise the work.  Willow Oaks (referenced above) was supposed to be about 24 visits if I recall, I know I have doubled that already and we still have 3 months to go.  Probably not that smart from a business (profit) perspective, but, at thte end of the day, no-one can say I didn't show up, which is what I am about.  

Lester

[Tommy Williamsen]

Lester, thanks for your comments.  I will be at Kinloch on Friday.  It is one of my favorite places to play.  I love the options off the tee and the wonderful greens complexes.

Interesting comments about the role of the shapers.  I had also heard how much of a hands on guy you are.  It is refreshing to hear. I wonder if the shapers have more of a role when the architect does not make so many site visits?

[Chris Cupit]

Chris,
How far is Houston from you??  

My client did the same after getting to know me a bit.
He had a good idea I'd be on site much of the time - and I have been.

What he wasn't planning on was me bringing Don to the project - and that he thanks me for all the time.

Only a couple of inches on the map

Atlanta

[Wayne_Kozun]

Thanks, Mike.  Are there any good courses where shapers were never used?  I'm guessing TOC hasn't had any, and maybe some of the other old courses.  Yes, no?  

Presumably pretty much every course prior to 1930 didn't really have shapers unless you consider someone with a horse-drawn bucket to be a shaper.

[Joe Hancock]

Thanks, Mike.  Are there any good courses where shapers were never used?  I'm guessing TOC hasn't had any, and maybe some of the other old courses.  Yes, no?  

Presumably pretty much every course prior to 1930 didn't really have shapers unless you consider someone with a horse-drawn bucket to be a shaper.

I would.....why wouldn't they be considered shapers?

Joe

[Brett Morris]

They'd definately be considered shapers.  There are some great photos of Ross at Pine Needles in 1928 using horses and wooden boards to final grade fairways.

[Gary_K]

It would seem that the fewer the visits the more the shaper becomes the de-facto co-designer.

I'm currently working as the civil engineer for a  golf course/residential/commercial development.  The architect visits the site for 2 days every 2-3 weeks.  I think having a good golf course builder (Landscapes Unlimited) and a good shaper (Squeak) makes it easier for the architect.  Being an outside observer, the shaper has some freedom to apply his personal touch on a job, however, the architect will have the final yay/nay on the work.  Being on site for 2 days every couple weeks allows the architect to review the couple holes that were discussed in detail the previous meeting and discuss the detail work that will occur on the next couple of holes until the next meeting.  

I also think that certain shapers 'click' better than others with an architect.  Some guys can pick-up the architect's vision of the hole better/quicker than others.  That's the case with about any business communication.  

I'm amazed at what these guys (shapers) can do with a dozer, especially forming bunkers.

Gary K.

[Jim Nugent]

Did TOC have any shapers?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Unless you believe that those elevated plateaus were exactly as they were found, yes, there was some shaping going on at TOC.  Shaping is any change to the ground to modify it for golf, with major ones calling for major earthmoving before shaping begins.  I think TOC did have some rudimentary shaping, but not to the degree that most modern courses have now.

As to site visits, I agree with Gary K.  A few days a week, well timed, usually gets the job done, esp. if LUI has a couple of shapers on the job, and I can spend the day bouncing back and forth between a couple of different work areas to finalize both, or all.

Its always interesting working with shapers.  They have seen a lot of styles.  Sometimes, they push for different ideas, and sometimes they are better than mine, if I have "brain freeze" on a particular day.  Other times, they don't consider design balance as I have, or the style they have in mind for one green is too different from my idea, or the other greens on the course. They have egos, too, so its always a good idea to work in some of their ideas early to keep them on your side, but I usually am fairly forceful in designing to my visions, unless their idea IS clearly better.

Like Lester, my contracts usually call for a number of days on site, but I usually exceed them greatly. I recall having 64 hotel nights at the Quarry from expense records, for instance, which might work out to over 90 days, given I would get there and spend 1/2 days before sleeping in that hotel bed.

No question that courses go from good to great with more field visits, no matter who the gca is.