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?

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

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.

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.)

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:

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.

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.