Who would you hire?

[ed_getka]

Jim,
 I understand your point about different architects for different criteria, but as  someone pointed out the criteria were primarily financially based. With that basis some of the architects I would have chosen for a hypothetical project become too risky since they are not big name architects and when money is on the line I would choose differently than when I'm guided by passion.

That said, I would choose Mike DeVries for the restoration work after seeing what he is doing at the Meadow Club outside of SF.

If the criteria were choosing an architect for a course that will be fun to play, challenging, and a course you would enjoy playing every day for the rest of your life I have more options. From what I've seen and learned in a few months here I would be interested in having C&C, Doak, Hanse, DeVries, or Harbottle off the top of my head and feel confident I would get the desired product.

[ed_getka]

Jim,
 I understand your point about different architects for different criteria, but as  someone pointed out the criteria were primarily financially based. With that basis some of the architects I would have chosen for a hypothetical project become too risky since they are not big name architects and when money is on the line I would choose differently than when I'm guided by passion.

That said, I would choose Mike DeVries for the restoration work after seeing what he is doing at the Meadow Club outside of SF.

If the criteria were choosing an architect for a course that will be fun to play, challenging, and a course you would enjoy playing every day for the rest of your life I have more options. From what I've seen and learned in a few months here I would be interested in having C&C, Doak, Hanse, DeVries, or Harbottle off the top of my head and feel confident I would get the desired product.

[jim_lewis]

Some of the responses to my original post seem to take exception to my use of financial considerations as a primary factor in choosing an architect. Of course, there are other important considerations, but except for the billionaire in my first case, who can do whatever he likes, virtually all other projects will be driven largely by financial considerations. Selling real restate, attracting members, attracting resort and daily fee guests, and/or attracting investors are all unavoidable facts of life if you want to build a golf course these days. I wish it were not so and I am thankful for those few wealthy individuals who love golf enough to spend (and even lose) big bucks to build their dream course without caring about the aforementioned financial factors. O.K., so some of them build courses we don't like. Still, I think we should encourage rather than ridicule the wealthy course builder. I wonder how many of the great "Golden Age" courses that we love would have been built if it had not been for wealthy men who wanted to build a course as a centerpiece of their expensive, exclusive  private clubs.

I remember when my young son could not understand why I bought a chevy station wagon when he thought a Mercedes would have been better.

[Bill_Coggins]

Jim,

I believe that if you state the the reader builds the course and can put ANY archie's name on it, 4 of the 6 answers don't change.  Indicating that the actual quality of the course is immaterial.

The other two (1 & 6) seem to be the same question if indeed you believe that the principles of classical course design do hold water.  I fail to see why a different choice is made, unless you have little faith in classical design ideas. :-/

[jim_lewis]

Bill:

I'm sorry, but I am having trouble following the point you are making. Maybe it's my poor reading comprehension, but if you would be so kind as to re-state.

I agree that the architect selected for nos. 1 and 6 could be the same, but I draw this distinction. If I am building a course for the purpose of competeing to host a US Open, I think I need a big-name architect and a course that can challenge the very best players to shoot par. I think that is what the USGA would require and that is why I chose Pete Dye. In case #1 I may not need a big-name architect, and the course does not have to be so tough that my members/friends and I won't enjoy playing it on a regular basis. Hence, my choice of C&C.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim,

Just in case I implied otherwise, let me state clearly I agree wholeheartedly that financial considerations play a big part in golf projects.  Like you point out, it has been that way for a long time.  I'm guessing George Thomas didn't accept a fee for designing courses because he was wealthy enough to do so.

[Slag_Bandoon]

1. Me with several drunken advisers and a nurse for each.  
2. Me, but I'd probably embezzle the whole kitty and flee to hide out in the Cairngorms to scheme up a plot for world domination.
3. Me. By profitable, you mean for the designer, right?
4. Me. (Assuming the real estate in question is a 4000 square foot living quarters for the super, otherwise known as me.)
5. Dig up the dead guy responsible and tell him about Tiger and the rest of the ball riflers and dart tossers and see if he's still interested in being involved with such a game.    
6. Me, but refer to #2 for probable end result.    

  That was easy.  

  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,
If you are going strictly by the numbers the obvious choice for #2 is Nicklaus. The real estate sells faster at his courses by about 33% and at higher prices.  
Nicklaus Signature -        37.5 avg. mil. per yr./ per course  
Arnold Palmer   -             26.1
Weiskopf & Morrish -       22.9
Rees Jones -                 17.6
RTJ Junior-                   15.2
Tom Fazio -                  13.8
Arthur Hills-                  13.8
Gary Player-                 11.4
Pete Dye-                     2.9
 

Staying with the numbers, the choice for #3 would be: either a Fazio or Dye course. Their avg. fees = $108.00 @
Nicklaus would follow at $97, then Weiskopf at $96

I don't think you could come up with a better architect for #6
than your choice.  

[jim_lewis]

Jim:

Your numbers are a little surprizing, but I were convince that they are valid predictors, I would swith my choice in a hearbeat, given the perameters laid out in case #2.

However, I would pick at your numbers a little.

Over what time frame were the data collected? Nicklaus has
    been a big-name architect nationally longer than Fazio. But
    here in the Southeast (where I would build my course!)
    Fazio may be a bigger "name" architect today than Jack.
I might adjust for regional differences in real estate prices.
Exactly how did the study define real estate courses?
Some Fazio courses I know have a few, but by design,  very
    few houses. I wonder how those clubs that restrict the #
    of houses were counted? There are next to no houses on
    the Ocean course at Kiawah. Wonder how that figures into
    Dye's total.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,
Try this link  http://www.golf-research.com/archvalue.htm

[Scott_Burroughs]

There's a lot of valuable information there as well as some possibly misleading information.

With regard to the housing numbers, Nicklaus leads because his courses far outweigh the others in number of houses sold per year per course.  Dye averages far fewer.  Think of a bunch of his courses with no or few homes and that's why: Lost Canyons (2), Whistling Straits (2), Pete Dye GC, Rum Pointe, Brickyard Crossing, Purdue U's course.

Average numbers will almost always be misleading.  Averages take into account "outliers", which can skew numbers in the wrong direction.  Courses like Pasadera, with multi-million dollar homes, will skew an average upwards.  Weiskopf-Morrish actually had the highest average home price, then Palmer, then Nicklaus.  Median numbers would be better indicators.

Here's an example of average-skewing.  The 1985 Virginia Tech graduating class had an average income significantly higher than other classes around the same time period.  Why?  NFL's Bruce Smith graduated in 1985.

The numbers do show that Nicklaus courses tend to be more housing-oriented.  Pete Dye's aren't.

It was also surprising to see how prolific Art Hills has been in the last decade.  He produced the second most courses than anyone after the combination of Nicklaus Signature and Nicklaus Design.

Interesting also that C&C and Doak aren't on the "top 42" list, since they completely delve into fewer designs (Strantz too).

There's also several names I've never heard of:  Jerry Matthews (32 courses in 11 years!), Joel Goldstrand, Marty Johnson (I have a co-worker by that name), Gordon Lewis, Keith Foster, Gene Bates, Graves & Pascuzzo, Clifton-Ezell-Clifton, Bob Lohmann, Bruce Matthews III, and Lindy Lindsay.
What (and where) courses of significance have these guys done?

[Craig Van Egmond]

Jerry Matthews has done a ton of courses in the Michigan area.

Graves/Pascuzzo mostly work in the west coast with courses from California to Washington.  Here is Washington the biggies would be Canterwood and Port Ludlow.

Keith Foster has done work here in Washington, Arizona and Texas.  He did the Quarry in Texas, SunRidge Canyon in Arizona and Druids Glen here in Washington.

Linday Lindsay has done 3 courses in Oklahoma that are all executive style courses tied in with housing or athletic clubs. Some of them are Broken Arrow Golf and Athletic Club and The Links Golf and Athletic club. I haven't seen his work in person though.

Gene Bates did San Juan Oaks with Fred Couples.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Scott,
Yes, numbers can be misleading, averages too.
You said:  "Nicklaus leads because his courses far outweigh the others in number of houses sold per year per course."
That was my point, exactly. If you read Jim Lewis' question #2, he "needed" the project to sell homes and the investors were gambling their personal wealth. No matter how one looks at the numbers, "Nicklaus" sells more homes than any other architect, and faster too.

As for question #3, Fazio and Dye courses have the highest gr. fees of any architects. Once again, when addressing the needs of the project in question, going with the leader in this category would increase the odds of success, even if just an average.

[Anthony_Nysse]

1. C&C
2. C&C
3. C&C
4. C&C
5. C&C
6. C&C
 

[Anthony_Nysse]

1. C&C
2. C&C
3. C&C
4. C&C
5. C&C
6. C&C
 

[Chris Kane]

In an ideal world!

1.  Alistair MacKenzie (Rich Goodale's geneticists can find a way to wake him up)
2. Rees Jones
3. Nicklaus
4. do it myself...nothing to lose
5. Tom Doak/Mike Clayton
6. Greg Norman (must be good land)

[David Wigler]

Chris,

Are you serious about Greg Norman?  What have you seen of his that you liked.  I enjoyed TPC Sugarloaf and think it is an interesting course but it could never host an Open.  I think Tiburon may end up being one of the most overrated flops in history.  The course shows very little imagination and is useless for anyone between a 5 - 15 handicap.  The Norman design team was clueless in how they positioned their hazards, green complexes, etc.  As for Great White, it is an interesting attempt to build a desert course in a swamp, but nowhere near Open status.  I frankly view Greg Norman as a Gary Player in the making.  Guys want him for his name not his talent.  I’ll grant that seems like a great guy to be friends with - booze, parties (Hookers, right President Clinton) but his golf design talent is very mediocre.

[Chris Kane]

David,

What I've seen of Norman is Sanctuary Lakes and the Moonah Course at The National, both in Australia.  Sanctuary Lakes was nothing special, but the Moonah course was awesome.  

Moonah has already been ranked 10 in Australia, and don't be surprised if it goes higher.  Norman had the advantage of awesome land to work with, unlike the flat expanses he started with at Sanctaury Lakes.

My impression of him is that he is hit-and-miss: comes out with a lot of shockers but very occasionally brings out a classic given the right site.  That was the case with Moonah.  Moonah does have the potential to host an Australian tour event in the future.

Don't know about his American courses, but from your assessment, they are nothing to write home about!

[David Wigler]

Chris,

Thank you for the subtle education.  Sometimes I forget that broad generaliztions are usually inaccurate.  I hope to someday get to Australia.  If I do, I will be sure to play Moonah before I group Norman with Player.