[Matt_Ward]

I just have to ask those who know -- how much of any design is really compromise? A few examples would be most illuminating. Clearly, the dynamics of dealing with a deep-pocketed single owner will result in less and less discussion when compared to when a number of others are involved but I'm sure there are issues in that scenario too.

I say this because at publicly owned facilities the involvement of a number of people can likely result in a number of modifications / changes -- even dumbing down of the original concept.

Clearly, architects of clout (high reputation) will get a good bit more wiggle room to hold fast to their ideals but I have to wonder how much elasticity is there for people when they design and how much has to be done / mandated before an architect says they've had it.

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt — I strive for less than 5%. I try and win the wars and lose the smaller battles.

At a course we are building in Mexico currently we have designed a lagoon which under-crosses as parkway — the golfer must go from No. 1 to No. 2 under the parkway, along with the waterway. Too bad, but it's a reality. Now the client is balking at the bridge cost...I say, no sweat. Allow the lagoon to be only on one side and we'll adjust to it.

At first this seemed a big loss, but now I am not joined at the hip to it — it's only a lagoon!

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
Surely you know the answer to a question like this.  What are you really looking for  

As just one example, Nicklaus won't even begin to build a golf course before knowing who will be playing it.  Sounds like "compromise" to me!  

I would venture to say that there has never been a course built where there wasn't compromise of some kind.  I'm sure some will argue that they just build the "best" course they can on the site at hand.  Frankly I don't buy that.  I think they build the "best" course they can on the site at hand (given all the constraints at hand).  

Even at Shadow Creek there were compromises as I'm sure Fazio and Wynn did not agree on everything.  

[mike_malone]

 I wish i knew why Flynn did not build the #10 hole at Rolling Green as 260 yards.He did build it as 245.I wonder if the Quakers were concerned with "par".I wonder if he compromised.Other than that he seemed to do what he wanted  to on this sight.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Fine:

Does Cypress Point provide one of the most disappointing "compromises", e.g., rejection of plans for #13 and #14, the latter to run along the ocean about where 17 Mile Drive is located?

Tim

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Matt,

I think this is a good topic to discuss because it helps me to flush out my own stance.  I can be high and mighty and say there is no compromise in my bones, in fact I think I have blown that line before, but alas I know every moment of every project and there are compromises of varying nature and degree along the way.  I am involved in a project that is just getting hammered by storm water management. wetlands, lack of land, and so on.  It never improves, but slowly gets compromised.  However, i have been with the client now through this process for 7 years, and the course is definately not what is was in the beginning, and a smart architect like Forrest who only compromises 5% would have bailed, but I am committed to the client, I like them very much, and I am committed to squeezing out as good a course as possible.  When it opens the critics will have a field day, and many will wonder why would someone be involved in this mess, but I will see a damn good effort, a fun course, and a mutually satisfying relationship with a bunch of great guys in the end.  Believe me there has been some knock down drag out fights with the engineers, some tense moments with the client, but we will get the best we can get out of it, and I think some experimentation with features will be ventured into that personally will benefit me on future projects, so in the end we will all feel good about it.  the golfers will have a charming little adventure, and the rest of you will never see it as you chase the next big project by the big boys.  Compromise is hard.  You should never do what you do not want to do, but a project is more than the final product, it is as much about the people you work with, the process you endure, and the improvisation you must be willingly to do to make it happen in the end that makes all of the compromises meaningless, except to the critics, whom have no clue about the people, the process, and the improvisation.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
It is probably one of many good examples.  Architects ALWAYS have to make compromises, some are self induced, others are dictated to them.  

Anyone beg to differ with that opinion?
Mark

[Marty Bonnar]

Mark
I'd go further to say that ANY thing which is a product of 'DESIGN' is a compromise.
Compromises are the reason that modifications, amendments, revisions, updates, etc, etc exist!
The design process normally goes along the lines of:
1. Client requires Product
2. Designer produces 'Initial Proposals'
3. Client rejects IP's on whatever grounds
4. Designer submits 'Re-design'
5. Client rejects on different grounds
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 as necessary until COMPROMISE is reached.


Sad, but true....

[Mark_Fine]

Martin,
And even in those few cases where the owner goes away for two years and returns when the golf course is done (the architect has had to make his/her own compromises as to how they route and design the golf course).
Mark

[Marty Bonnar]

Crikey! Good point,
And it didn't even occur to me that I hadn't got to Steps 7 thru 112 - otherwise known as the 'Construction Process'  

FBD.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,
It is probably one of many good examples.  Architects ALWAYS have to make compromises, some are self induced, others are dictated to them.  

Anyone beg to differ with that opinion?

I wonder what Jack Nicklaus would say about The Bear's Club ?   Being the owner/devleoper and architect has its advantages.

[Matt_Ward]

I wonder is compromise more of an issue at what takes place with publicly owned facilities where the likelihood of having quite a few "voices" involved in the project versus those that are privately owned by a single person?

One other question -- how much should be shared with outsiders regarding the compromises made? Would knowing this information provide a greater sense of what was ultimately achieved or should it even matter?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Many seem to think that compromise involves unfit owners.  Some one, somewhere wrote that in order to get the holes we want, it is necessary to place other holes over less than ideal ground.

My point is, in any design the land forces compromises, from a legal (ie property line) standpoint, but often, topography and trees, not to mention wetlands, etc.  To get one thing in a routing, you give up something else.

In some regards, this goes back to the notion that some have epoused here that any site has one perfect routing.  It doesn't.  It may have several perfect routings, or none, but most likely, it will yield at least a few very good routings.

Sometimes, the architect (or owner) must decide whether to select the routing with the most good features, or one with one great feature, and several ho-hum ones, which perhaps can be corrected with earthmoving or landscaping.

Design 101 First Lesson - All design is a compromise.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Matt,

I do not think you can assume a privately owned course will have fewer voices involved than a publicly owned course, and I do not think you can assume it is just the owner's voice that breathes compromise into the process.

What you as a reporter can learn by investigating is your job.  As an architect it becomes nearly impossible, and always irritating to discuss the past, and the specific process that led from A to Z.  Personally, it is irrelavent to appreciating the final product.  I can sit in awe of a landscape and it does not add one degree more of appreciation if I am given the geological history that led up to what I am seeing.  It is being present, alive and aware of what I see that matters most.

[Brian Phillips]

Kelly,

Isn't what you are going through what makes a good architect 'great' without the punters really knowing it?

If you manage to create a good golf course out of what you describe isn't that one of the most satisfying things you can do in this business...even if the punters (on here or elsewhere) don't realise what you have done?

Brian

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt — I've worked with committees and it takes a real sales job to get them in your camp...and also to believe, trust and become participants, not just evaluators of your ideas.

You have been to The Hideout and I hope the design product you saw there did not look too much like it had been the product of a committee. Most of the discussion we had was about trees — many old specimens which were dear to the hearts of those who live there and needed to be accounted for in the design. We also had lots of discussion about back tee placement and the like.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

I really enjoyed The Hideout -- I thought the layout used the property quite well -- there were a few holes I had questions about that I have mentioned previously but when you have such a unique site it's hard to imagine how it can be underserved but it does happen from time to time -- see Bay Harbor in Michigan as one example that comes to mind in that category.

Kelly:

As a media person I'm interested in the before, the during and after in golf development sites. Learning where things were at and how they have arrived at where they are now helps me understand and appreciate the final product even more.

[Michael Dugger]

Many seem to think that compromise involves unfit owners.  Some one, somewhere wrote that in order to get the holes we want, it is necessary to place other holes over less than ideal ground.

Mr. Doak wrote it in the Anatomy, although I think he phrased it more along the lines of "holes we relish"

6, half doz the other

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()