[Matt_Ward]

I often wonder when I see a successful design by an architect on whether they will be able to engage different styles / motif on future projects.

In many cases that doesn't happen -- why? Those who hire an architect become enamored on what they saw / played from a previous job / course and as a result hire the architect to design something like the last design. This can carry on and on and on and on.

I can understand architects being hesitant to deviate because (a) it puts $$$ in their pocket and (b) it spreads their name to other future contacts which builds future job opportunities.

In my travels I often enjoy the initial work of a architect -- sometimes even several of them -- but sadly, it does become painfully clear that a style / format is generally at play and after playing a few of these styles / formats the repetitive nature becomes stale and quite predictable.

I often wonder if architects have the capacity to go beyond the one trick pony show act that has made them commercially successful but artistically limited. Are architects able to "break out of the box" with future work or does their initial success cause them to be straightjacketed in much the same way as Andy Griiffith and Carroll O'Connor were forever known as Sheriff Andy Taylor and Archie Bunker respectively in television circles?

Better yet -- do architects really want to expand their portfolio with different presentations and designs or is the $$$ to great to keep them in designing the same stuff time afer time after time.

I think of someone like Tom Fazio whose overall batting average on superior to outstanding courses is fairly limited from my personal plays of his layouts (50+ to date). No doubt TF has the capacity to go outside the box (see Glenwild, Dallas National, Galloway National, Karsten Creek and Black Diamond / Quarry as examples), but it just seems the desire to expand his design empire is more important than in pushing the craft side of the architectural envelope beyond the comfort zone of repetition.

At what point does the business side become the dominant aspect to the art and uniqueness of the design?

[Joe Hancock]

Matt,

Obviously, the only ones who can answer this question are the practicing architects who have faced the fork in the road.

I would presume it will boil down to where one's standards of success and financial stability are grounded, so to speak. For some, one well recieved, highly acclaimed effort may well be enough to satisfy their artistic and professional goals. For others, it may require developing an empire in the business sense. For me to say that Tom Fazio's goals are good or bad is pure speculation. The same would be true for any other architect. Is Jim Engh a bad guy because some think he is stuck on the same design features or look? I highly doubt it, for his goals may be different than my, or your, ideals of architecture. Personal values, motivations etc. are different for everyone.

If an architect thinks he/ she has a methodology or an instinct that he/ she belives in, who are we to question whether it is right or wrong?

If I built a world class golf course in Michigan, then replicated it in 30 other states so people didn't have to travel so far to enjoy my ideas, would that be a bad thing? I know that's unrealistic, but the question, being philosophical in nature, will gather many philosophical answers. There is no right or wrong here, just individual belief and values.

I do believe there are architects capable of breaking away from one design mold, btw.

Joe

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Outstanding question Matt.  I think in the end those that can build a little design empire and maintain a fairly constant, conservative route that keeps everyone in the organization on the same page win.  They have more credibility, make more money to feed the organization, and have more time to promote.  Those that take it one at a time, and do not have a large network from which to draw leads, for instance a golf pro associated with them, will likely fail, particularly in the down turns.  Obviously there will be exceptions, but in general the architect/pro organizations, and the big organizations will likely maintain the largest share of the market.  Most of these organizations have a difficult time with incorporating new, fresh approaches in each project because that is a difficult thing to do if the organization believes in a particular style, then the individuals are less likely to deviate from that style, or if the organization has less experienced architects in the field then they are more likely to keep to the playbook, or refer back to the previous project to inform their design ideas.  The business world can be a siginifcant damper on the design world.  Particularly those businsess persons who are a part of the golf management world, these people are probably the single most destructive force within the design world.  As an architect these are just the kind of people to avoid altogether for their view of the golf business is so restrictive and their assumptions about what design features adversely affect their bottomline often cloud their thinking when you are in the creative process, and therefore their pat responses are largely meaningless, and are simply knee jerk reactions for which they have no expereince and they have no basis for which to effectively respond to you.  As you go through the creative process in the field it is amusing to watch their knee jerk reactions to anything they think may affect their bottomline, but in the end when it is all said and done their concerns were without any merit.  They are like a fish out of water during the design/construction period theirfore it is just best to ignore them.  As a designer, if you listen too much and believe in theor business model you end up with standard, broilerplate stuff, and I think this type of thinking is what turns people off and why rounds go flat because they look down on the golfing public and treat them like simpletons.  You see it all the time in all aspects of life.  I mean when you see something whether it be a building, a house, a book cover, a piece of furniture, a song, and album, whatever, anything that was designed and it stirs your soul, I mean just causes you to think you have never seen something that is quite so startling and magnificent to behold you cannot not get it out of your head believe me it came from someone's own soul, deep within, rather than from a tried and true formula

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

Thanks for the reply -- truth be told -- in my many travels the probability of seeing and playing "broilerplate" designs seems to grow as I watch the careers of architects mushroom into some gigantic "corporate" monster. This applies not just to the top 4-5 individuals / groups in the business but with others as well.

I have looked over the historical archives and seen something quite interesting -- many of the great designs came when people were just starting out and the "pressure" to morph a craft into a multi-headed business was not there. The freshness / originality was indeed unique. It just seems that few people can maintain that "creativity" or desire to one step beyond as they age.

I mean people need to have a broader assessment of what indeed comes forward as design. I mentioned the morphing of Tom Fazio into Tom Fazio, Inc. and it's clear plenty of his work is just a staple repetition of earlier models. To be fair -- the same can be said of the old timers who designed like Seth Raynor in continually repeating various design models of the same holes.

I can appreciate the pressures architects face from a business perspective. If future clients come to you and gush about a previous success it's far too easy to say "yes" and simply keep on cranking out the same "tried and true" patterns because the $$$ is certainly tempting.

I can also understand the unwillingness of many clients to allow the architect the "freedom" to expand beyond what intially caught the client's eye to start with.

As a course reviewer and golf media member I am under no allusions that just because this issue is raised it will change the minds and business plans of those involved. Nonetheless, those who do review courses need to especially observant of the new names entering the field and those who have toiled in relative obscurity.

I mentioned a previous example during one of my most recent treks to the northern plains -- the design of The GC at Red Rock in Rapid City, SD is a superb example of a layout that is both fresh and compelling. I have also mentioned the success Kelly Blake Moran did with such a demanding hilly site like The GC at Morgan Hill in Pennsy.

Clearly, the pressure is on the bigger names in the design business to understand that simply copying the same models over and over and over again may mean a deeper lining of pockets but it will fail to add to the initial design luster that many of these people have simply backed away from their earliest works. As a critic I pay close attention to these "cut'n paste designs."

What's the ultimate paradox is that people who have becomes successful and CAN insist to some degree for greater design freedom often capitulate and simply rehash the same tired design concepts to hapless clients who don't see design as anything more than simply selling the next home.  

[Matt_Ward]

What amazes me even more is how business success can temper the innovative and edgy design ideas that make for winning efforts. Being young int he design business can often mean not fixating on the botton line but on the creative side.

Does success simply mean throwing forward the same tired old hash of golf design?

I would hope there is a lesson in that.

[ForkaB]

Matt:

That's why the first albums from every great rock n' roller are the first.  

Dave

I've GOT to preserve that gem before you hit the @modify@ button!

[Andy Hodson]

Rich
Got to it before I could! Classic tautology, shivas. I have a friend who, upon standing on the eighteenth tee of (any) golf course, will say," this is the hardest finishing hole....on this golf course."

KBM
I wish I knew how to use the quote box, but your last sentence got me, sent chills up me. Because what you describe is passion. And when someone puts passion into an endeavor, greatness can follow.

(though your last sentence was beautiful poetry...at 84 words long I would hate to diagram it.)

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

I think Tom Fazio would say that he is building what his clients want, and I think he would be right.

I agree totally with Kelly that, generally speaking, people in the golf management culture are the worst in reacting to golf course design ideas.  

One of the best sets of greens I've ever built is at Riverfront in Virginia.  Before the course ever opened it was sold to a management company, and their "regional manager" told the superintendent that the contouring of the greens would cause too much slow play and that they would change some of the greens.  I couldn't believe they would consider spending money on their formula without giving the design a chance.  Fortunately, the course was too close to opening to pursue that avenue, and once it opened, the design won out.

Matt, the only problem with your logic here is that not all designers are truly creative.  They may appear creative when they've only done one or two courses, because their formula is new to you, but they still have a formula and it makes itself clear in the years to come.

There are a lot of one-trick ponies who are celebrated even here.  And there are a rare few who aren't.  More power to them.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Now we're getting somewhere!  

It must be difficult to be placed in a situation of having to paint the Mona Lisa over andover again.  Afterall is there anyone who has seen a Dali or a Picasso that can't identify another one the next time they see one.

The question is this.  For the Architects and designers out there, what do you do to keep the juices going?  Do you believe that every new course will be your best?  How do you keep yourself from cashing in by mailing one in?

Which begs the followup .....How do any of us keep our juices flowing?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Let's not confuse "business success" in the profesison with "creative success." Clearly, there are architects who have been seduced by the "dark side" (forgive my Star Wars terminology!) and moved away from anything more than what the bean counters and land owners demand. Look, I don't doubt that feeding the family takes priority over creativity for many in the field given the dearth of jobs available. However, the people at the top -- I count you among that rare circle of architects -- can exert some influence on what ultimately comes out. They won't win all the time as your example in VA points out. But, I have seen too many architects who folded like an envelope because a client seriously comes forward with a "pigs can fly" mentality on golf course development.

You raise a good point about Tom Fazio -- you say he's simply building what the client wants. Tom -- c'mon let's be a bit more genuine. A person of TF's stature could easily insist upon different things on any design simply because of the leverage HIS name gives him. Tom frankly turns down more work because he knows the leverage his name brings to any project. People seek him out and he's the one who ultimately says "yes" or "no." I think what likely happens is that Tom Fazio simply delves into his file of "pre-certified" plans and simply throws forward a few ideas that have germinated "COMMERCIAL" success in the past. I have played the limited number of superb TF designs that demonstrate to me at least his ability to deliver a superb design that flies in the face of the formulaic eye-candy layouts that have dominated his portfolio for quite some time. Why his batting average is not better creatively is something that escapes me but clearly his banker and accountant are quite happy with the results.

Tom -- I don't doubt that every architect can be "creative." My point was that those starting out who THEN gain stature will simply move towards a model of client satisfaction that brings in the $$$ and simply pushes aside the need to be creatively gifted with edgy and unique designs. Money has a habit of deluding creativity simply because the client wants it and is willing to pay big bucks to get what was done previously.

I rather enjoy playing courses with "new" architects because you finally get to see the possibility (not certainty) that such new efforts can bring. I mentioned how pleased I was in playing two designers who fly below the radar screen nationwide -- Ron Ferris' work at Red Rock in Rapid City, SD and Kelly's new design effort at The GC at Morgan Hill in Philipsburg, PA. I salute them for advancing the craft of golf design -- whether they remain true to that down the line is always the question that faces them and others in the industry.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I think you missed my point.

Ron Farris is an old friend of mine [Long Cove class of 1981] so he won't be offended if I use him as an example.  My point was, you have no idea if he's a "formula" architect or not, because you have only seen one course he's done.  It may be he would do every one of them just the same ... I don't think he will, but how would you know?  It's always easier to be "new and original" when you have no other work for comparison.

In the end, every golf course designer has some kind of guiding philosophy.  If you label that philosophy their "trick", then we're all one-trick ponies I suppose.

As for Tom Fazio, you're being a lot more harsh than I am.  Maybe he asks his clients what they want, and spends the bulk of his time on the projects that ask him for something special, while giving commercially proven ideas to those who ask for that.  [I have no idea, really, which of his clients have asked for what; this is pure speculation on my part.]  But why would he INSIST on doing something edgy for someone who didn't want it?  That would be a worse expression of ego, don't you think?

And for all you know, he doesn't like the projects you mentioned as much as some of the ones you think he mailed in.

[Dan Kelly]

In the end, every golf course designer has some kind of guiding philosophy.  If you label that philosophy their "trick", then we're all one-trick ponies I suppose.

And so it is in all of the arts, is it not?

How many artists continually reinvent themselves?

Tom Doak (and any other architects here present) -- I'd be interested to hear your guiding philosophy, in as few words as possible.

They say that in Hollywood, you need to be able to summarize your movie in a single sentence. Let's pretend you're in Hollywood, architects. Tell us: What's your guiding philosophy, in a single sentence (even an 84-word sentence, if necessary!)?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I think you also missed my original point.

The guys who are "superstars" in the field (judged by the amount of work they get -- not necessarily the product they produce) have the leverage to expand the craft they put forward but they CHOOSE to continue to push forward the same fast food design golf that is generally piss poor stuff. Nothing like the desire to cash in while the iron is hot.

Tom -- I don't attend meetings when TF is pitching design ideas to clients -- all I can go by is the finished work and it seems the client (who likely has little indepth knowledge of architecture) simply wants the same formulaic course that TF cranks out faster than McDonald's does hamburgers. TF can shape that dialogue and still keep the job because of his past successes. Given his unique standing HE is the one being courted -- not the other way around.

A person like TF has the LEVERAGE to simply say to prospective clients that while he appreciates their like for his past work he is fully capable in giving them something beyond that. I have personally played such courses that TF has done that feature such edgy and bold things with his design. Unfortunately, they are often in the minority and in many cases the folks here on GCA have not played the ones I am referring to.

Let's also speak about Ron Ferris -- he was given a great opportunity with Red Rock and he hit a home run there IMHO. Who is to say that future work won't cause a dumbing down of his work because it simply sells for clients -- both present and future. That was my point. Ron may resist that temptation to placate clients who simply want to sell houses and put forward his version of formulaic designs -- or he may temper the desire to "cash in" and still provide the kind of product that made him a "name" to start with. With Ron his portfolio is thin for any long term analysis to be made but I can see the effects of what has happened on some of the leading players in the industry. There's no doubt that when people are literally throwing $$$ for you or someone else to design a course you then have to decide how much of the craft is really important over the short term gain of your bank balance.

Clearly, you have people in the design business who are not really creative or thoroughly understand golf. Some are astute business people with a A+ rolodex of contacts and they are fortunate to simply move from one job to the next and simply spit forward the same old tired outcomes. I am not talking about those limited "creative" types.

The folks who are successful initially with edgy, fun and bold designs need to realize that the forces of status and $$$ are often too much for them to push aside and to continue with the unique and refreshing in their future projects.

Tom -- at the end of the day there is a balancing act between being the artiste and the businessman. I would hope that leaders in the field would understand what the game is about and how they would like to leave their legacy years after they are gone and the $$$ from the projects is long since spent.

Maybe I am expecting too much or just simple naive but if quality long term architecture is the goal then those who practice it need to be aware of how short term gain (the $$$ ) threatens the very basis of what their talent brings to the table.

[Joe Hancock]

Tom -- at the end of the day there is a balancing act between being the artiste and the businessman. I would hope that leaders in the field would understand what the game is about and how they would like to leave their legacy years after they are gone and the $$$ from the projects is long since spent.

Maybe I am expecting too much or just simple naive but if quality long term architecture is the goal then those who practice it need to be aware of how short term gain (the $$$ ) threatens the very basis of what their talent brings to the table.

Well, there ya go, Tom. I'm sure your business will finally take off once you implement these ideals. Be sure to report back to us, ok?

 ,

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()