[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I have made that point for years!  You and I have done more for golf designing affordable public courses of some quality that won't make the top 100 than the top guys have done by creating our greatest courses, no?

But, isn't Honda now a higher rated vehicle for reliability than BMW?  What does that tell us?

I always laughed at the "I do a few courses at a time to preserve quality" tag lines.  We all do just a few courses at a time (except for TF and JN in the heyday) because that's all there ever was to do after we all got done competing for jobs.

"Small time architect" and "boutique shop" are the new minimalism - For both, some did it by choice, others by necessity.

Jeff,
I agree.....
I have always wanted to be a "boutique"  that's what all the hairdressers have isn't it?  And I am there....I am seriously thinking of opening me up a rib shack......just in my spare time.....

[Chip Gaskins]

This is the best thread on this site in a while!  Thanks you GCAs for offering up your thoughts.

Chip

[Scott_Burroughs]

But, let's do some simple math.  Say your two shapers/associates are making $100K per year plus benefits ... (that's a reasonable number if they're young and single, but not when they are 35 and starting a family) ... so that's $250,000 for the two of them.

What does someone's marital/family status have to do with what you pay them?  That has lawsuit written all over it.

[Ian Andrew]

We're almost all small size companies.

You would be suprised how many involve just one person.

I would consider Tom's firm big by modern standards - but that's because he has consistantly had the work.

(By the way - is it just me - or does anyone else cringe at the phrase "small time." It almost insinuates that we're not relevent.)

[Tom_Doak]

Scott B:

I don't think I can get sued for implying that the guy who's 35 and married is not going to settle for $100,000 per year to spend 180 days on the road.  But that's one of the problems of the business ... as they get more experience and want more pay, they get closer to the point where they no longer fit into the construction budget.

[Will Smith]

Hey there are tons of us out there who would kill to be small time (architects that is). As someone who has spent the last six or so years working construction, from finishing to shaping, on some of the best courses built over that time frame, I can tell you that there are a good number of us out there who would kill to be able to do one course very two years with a few of their good friends as shapers.

I have spent this time as an independent contractor, making far less (no beni's either) than those associate/shapers that Tom hired in his hypothetical and often spending long chunks away from home and wife. But that's what this business is all about right now. Getting dirty and learning, with the hope that someday there will be a payoff.

Tom talks about the deflationary spiral of his fees and that obviously trickles down the food chain. I know one shaper who is working for about 40 cents on the dollar this summer. But at least he has work. One result of our current economy my be that those who remain in golf design and construction may be the ones that truly have a passion for it and not those that are just cashing a paycheck.

Tom's shop has to be one of the biggest in golf today and it will be interesting to see what happens. His "boutique" firm is now right up there with JN and TF in terms staff and possibly overhead.

I am trying to be aggressive in this period and not wait around with a thumb inserted in my rear. We (any one in the golf business) have to rethink the model and that means cheaper golf that is hopefully more fun and less time consuming. To Jeff and Mike Y comments, this does not mean boring architecture. I think Tom's Common Ground looked pretty cool when I toured it last spring. Cheap green fees should not mean dumbing down the architecture, but maybe making it a little more simple and more streamlined, and definitely 86ing the bells and whistles.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Geez, when I started in 1977 I made $200 a week, but it was nearly all an office job and the field trips were a mere bonus.  I thought most of us in the biz took advantage of the thousands of resumes we get to keep entry level salaries low in this glamorous gca biz of ours.......

Shapers do have a pretty flexible fee structure.  When Asia was going great guns 20 years ago, a guy making $45-60K went for no less than $120K over there.  (Of course, my fees for design were generally doubled over there as well) When that died, they all stressed that they would work for much less here. I think its the same cycle right now, but I do agree with TD that life in the golf construction biz is pretty hard and by all rights, the guys doing it the field should be entitled to a reasonable comp package.  It just doesn't always happen.

[Michael Dugger]

Tom talks about the deflationary spiral of his fees and that obviously trickles down the food chain. I know one shaper who is working for about 40 cents on the dollar this summer. But at least he has work. One result of our current economy my be that those who remain in golf design and construction may be the ones that truly have a passion for it and not those that are just cashing a paycheck.

On the surface that seems logical, but I cannot agree.

We do not always make decisions because we are or are not passionate about something, often times it is because we need the money.

So the best guys are not always best served "sucking it up"

[Ulrich Mayring]

Perhaps Tony Ristola can provide some insight. He operates on the basis of "on-site all-day, every day" and "one course at a time". As far as I can glean from his website (http://www.agolfarchitect.com) he has no employees and uses whatever local construction company is available.

Ulrich

[Will Smith]

Michael-
There is little doubt that many people passionate about the subject will be and already have been washed out of the business by the current economic situation. I may become one of them. But it may be those people who are willing to suffer through hard times because of their passion that get to see this on the other end. Unfortunately some these people were often not the ones cashing big pay checks when things were booming, so it might be harder for them to see things through.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In truth, many of the business development problems are the same if you are a design firm of 1, 5, or 25. Getting and keeping just the right amount of work for that amount of people is always problematical in what is traditionally a feast or famine business. The problem comes when you load up in the feast periods, believing that the feast is a normal Tuesday night meal.

When times were good, I ran my business a half a man "long" to make sure I could offer service, i.e. kept one more staffer than I thought I really needed. In bad times, I think its better to manage on the cost side, and run a half a man short, perhaps risking some pissed off clients and/or running those you do have to the overtime max.

[Ben Sims]

To architects and golf construction insiders,

Thank you for providing real word experience and educated theory.  This is a wonderful thread so far.

I want to use Renaissance as an example for a question.  I don't want to offend Mr. Doak OR his clients (I truly mean this and I currently have a crush on Stone Eagle and Ballyneal).  But their company's best work of the past 5 years or so isn't really in a new mold like, say, Rustic Canyon or their recent Common Ground (I mean that in an operational way, not in reference to the stirring architecture).  In deference to Renaissance, it's not their fault that the best land and most passionate clients (save Mr. Keiser) all have private aspirations.  My question is this: Can the future of the business support a financially viable golf course with the passion and interest of a Ballyneal or Stone Eagle?

It's a fair question.  Mr. Young and Mr. Brauer have mentioned the "honda vs. the bmw". In the current economic conditions, is a "honda" course (though reliable) going to grow the field through the hard times and into the future?  Hell, not even grow it, but just merely sustain it?! There must be those out there that believe that a point of saturation has been reached in reference to golf courses The evolution of the business is happening RIGHT NOW with many closings; some great work among those.  Don't act like I think it's all broken. I LOVE golf courses and being on a good one makes me happier than when I was a kid with my G.I Joe's. But the current business model must produce courses of more interest to the player in order to grow the business and ultimately the game.  Is consolidation between firms the answer?  Or back to my original point, very small firms with very small workloads? I am vehemently supportive of GCA that touts stirring and strategic architecture while remaining financially viable for client and "retail golfer" alike.  My theory is a new business model will be needed to reach that lofty goal.

I must be careful when speaking about things as subjective as "stirring" architecture.  I think my general point was conveyed effectively.  I promise, I am just trying to generate healthy and frank dialogue between really smart guys about a subject that I believe is very important the the future of GCA  All of you feel free to smite me down as I am completely "outside looking in" on this one. But sometimes when you're not in a microcosm; that's the best position to really investigate.  

Also!  is there anyone that can provide some numbers assessment?  I'd like to know how many golf courses from 1980-2000 were built by the largest 5 firms (in terms of courses built).  It would be nice to juxtapose that number with how many the other 98% of architects did in the same time period. I have a theory on that, but that's for later in the thread if the numbers come out.



Ian,

Small time was a poor choice of words.  I apologize for the connotation.  How about "small firm" architects.  Will that work?  

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

Ballyneal cost less than $3 million to build, even with an all-star team of construction guys.  At Stone Eagle, the construction budget was more like $10 million, and that didn't include a bunch of landscaping.  So, you are comparing apples and oranges in your question.  The only way Stone Eagle would become an affordable public course is after bankruptcy, whereas Ballyneal could be an affordable course, if it was a bit closer to a bit more people and had a bit longer playing season.

Like it says on my web site, some of the most acclaimed courses of the last 20 years have been some of the least expensive to build.

Common Ground actually cost considerably more than Ballyneal to build ... it has a much bigger irrigation system, there was some red tape and bureaucracy to deal with, and my shapers make more than they used to.  It's a $40 to $50 golf course because the land cost was zero and they are happy to operate out of a temporary clubhouse until the business needs something more than that.    I'm sure there is an architect out there who could've done it for even less, but we budgeted to the funds they had raised, and managed to throw in a few holes for the kids' course while staying on the number.

I think Jeff is right in general that it's a hard business to figure out at any level ... just like blackjack, the odds are similar whether the chips on the table are for $2 or $25 or $1000.  And our clients might be in an even tougher business than we are.

As for your numbers?  I'm sure Jeff B. has a better sense of the totals than I do.  The only numbers I know are that both Jack Nicklaus and Tom Fazio each built 175-200 courses in the USA between 1980 and 2008 (and Jack did another 100-125 overseas).  I started a bit later than that, but have now churned out 30 courses (25 in the USA) in twenty years.  I have no idea of the total number of courses which opened ... at the peak it was 400, but the peak didn't last too long.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()