174%.

Chris:

The answer to your question would depend on how smart the architect is, and how much more work he takes on.

I'm not sure I've gotten a lot better at "design", really ... most of the courses I've seen which influenced me, I saw before I was 25 (except the Australian courses which I saw when I was 27).

What I have improved at:

a)  I'm more practiced on how to build beautiful bunkers and interesting greens, how to make natural-looking clearings, and other construction skills.  Practice makes perfect.

b)  There are a few new issues ... how to use backgrounds better in routing the course, how to hide mowing lines and cart paths ... which I didn't think about much at High Pointe, but which I understand well today.

c)  I keep attracting more good people to work for me.

d)  I'm better at the people part of the business -- talking to and understanding my clients, and collaborating with all of the people it takes to build a great golf course.

However, most of us take all this improvement and "dilute" it somewhat by taking on more work than we used to get, so that we don't spend as much quality time on any one course.  (That's why Crump and Hugh Wilson and some of the one-timers were so good, they focused exclusively on that one project.)  MacKenzie rarely ever spent a lot of time on a single project, so his work does not appear diluted later on when he got busy.

I believe I have improved enough to keep up the quality level even as we've taken on more work, but I know there is a limit ... if I said yes to even half the calls we get, there is no way I could spend as much time as I need to on each of them.

I think the biggest leap from bad to good has been Nicklaus

I think it depends on the architect of course.  Everything Lester says is true. Whenever I think I have improved my work a little bit, I find others have improved theirs a lot.

The real key to improving not mentioned yet is the ability to tell owners "it costs what it costs."  This is not to say thay we should convince them to blow money on waterfalls, or whatever, but most beginning archies work suffers from poor funding for the basics.  You get a lot better when you learn that budgets can often be flexible, at least enough to get adequate irrigation, drainage, etc.

Also, as Lester says, if you don't try anything new, you can't get better. On the other hand, if you try new things you are going to make mistakes.  So, I guess the key is not making the SAME mistakes.  Yet, I see many architects building the exact same thing when it looks horrible and doesn't play well.  Either they don't know, or don't care.

The vast majority of us don't fall in that category.  I am afraid of EVER falling into the "mail it in" category.

"So TEP, know what you don't know about Max Behr, my friend!"

redanman:

Because I said any architect who is willing to study what Behr wrote gets my vote do you think that's the same thing as me saying I know everything there is to know about Max Behr?

Maybe you see that in my remark but I'm afraid I don't.    

redanman:

Thank you. As far as knowing all there is to know about Max Behr and his philosophy about golf and architecture, I'm sure that will always be a virtual impossibility---at least for me no matter how much of him I've read or contemplate. I think, like some others do, that his message or his philosophy about golf and architecture was completely awesome (he looked into how it at least affected "man" (the golfer) more deeply by a mile than anyone else ever has, in my opinion) but the irony is his style of writing was so bizarre it makes that fact everlastingly less than apparent. The real poser to me is if Behr's writing style had been more easily understood would those who did have an influence on golf and architecture been more likely to listen to what he was saying and do something about it?

Lester,

Another way to answer the improvement question, besides the comment about learning to lead them to wise spending, is perhaps learning how to pick your clients!  We probably have all taken clients that we know will be less than ideal if work is slow.

As to an gca's status on a project, obviously, any club that interviews restoration specialists, or big name archies, or even respected regional archies, goes in with the attitude repsecting their opinion and letting them lead.

I think that most of us went through a period when we started of being hired because we are cheap.  That implies that the client doesn't respect what a gca can do for him, but thinks its a necessary evil, perhaps just to back up the greens chairman, or whatever.  I know some of my first jobs came at the recommendation of a contractor, which reinforced that opinion.

I also think there is a split between gca's on how to charge for renovation work - some do it for relatively low fees to fill in between new courses, while those who do it as their primary work have to charge a renumerative fee.  Of course, the newbies are always less expensive.  My point is the amount of fee paid probably helps set club expectations of leading, as well.

No disagreement there, Tom.  There are always people challenging you, your knowledge, your authority, etc.  Higher fees not only increase the expectation of leading, but also leading well, as you say.

I hate to say it, but this could cynically be stated as "Architects learn to BS clients with more authority in their voice".

I wonder if the frequent visitors to this board realize just how much "input" gca types get, rather than assuming that we have a free hand, as it should ideally be.

At lunch, I was musing that most of my best projects, like those in Minnesota were those where I had a comparitively free hand, as the Owners trusted me, and yet didn't really know a lot about golf.

Tom/Jeff -

Understood and agreed. I'm sure you get lots of "input" from lots of sources during a project. My point is that you can't be happy about that (usually). And if it gets too bad, I suspect at some point you would rather to walk away than have your name associated with a project where there were unacceptable limits on your control.

Bob



 

Jeff,

There you go again, making another excellent point.  

I totally believe I have encountered architects who have reached their ultimate level of creativity and design talent.  When I can tell an architects work from an airplane by the shapes and holes, something is wrong.(I've done this on two occasions, not that I right everytime)

Anyway, some people will never get beyond a certain creative level.  Again, I think this is true in all professions.  

I just got out of a meeting with Andy and Glenn (my associates) where we were discussing a really cool opportunity for a somewhat unique green at a club we are renovating.  there was alot of energy and excitement in the discussion until we remembered the client.  It was like dumping cold water on us.  

We came to the realization that this particular client would never undersatnd or appreciate this green for what it was, only criticize it for being different.  Now, if I really want to build this green, I will debate, rationalize, demonstrate and sell every reason why this green should be on their golf course.  But they'll grind my edges down to the bone challenging my "authority", sanity, judgement, etc. using terms like "integrity" of the course, "traditional design", "not like the other holes", sound familiar.

As Tom said, they'll question every answer and answer every question.  You had better be able to lead because they will challenge everything.  And, in most cases, it's the lower end clients who expect more for less.  They want more input, even though they know you have worked at far more prestigous places, and they want more of your time because they think you are too expensive anyway.  Funny how that works.  

And just for the record, I have "fired" four clients in my career.  All were people who thought they new more than I did and were clearly not going to listen.  

The first time it happened was my very first job I ever got.  It was a $25,000 contract to design a 9 hole par three course.  I thought I was rich.  The very day after the contract was signed and the deposit sent, my client started compaining about paying surveyors to establish a benchmark.  I returned the deposit check, made the client sign a release and walked away, knowing I would soon starve.  

The last time I did it was last year on a 36 hole project, same kind of person.  In all cases, I always felt like if I couldn't control the outcome of the project, I shouldn't put my name on it.  Now I am so glad to have "fired" those people.  I believe that if you define your projects in life, you are better off than if your projects define you.  

Sorry for the rant.  Cheers.

Lester

 

Do you guys ever get any good ideas from your clients?

----

Interesting point, Jeff, about reaching the limits of one's talents. It's absolutely no doubt true about writers; no reason it shouldn't be true about designers, of golf courses or anything else.

 Its always interesting how other firms work....ours seems to get involved in the client relationship very early as we usually provide or collaborate on the conceptual master plan, not only as it pertains to golf but the project as a whole, i.e. structure, feasibility, demographics etc......usually by the time we break ground, we have a good working relationship.
...I try to not go much beyond the pink flag phase, and call it or cull it out as early as possible .....so far we have enjoyed generally excellent relationships with clients based on trust, teamwork and understanding.....................re-reading this, I think I might pink flag it as too good [but true ]