Golf Course Architects-$$$$$$

« **on:** November 22, 2006, 01:54:10 AM »

Good Evening:

I have a few quick questions for the group. Which golf course architect charges the highest design fee per project? What is the that fee?

Which golf course architect charges the least for design fees and produces a great product?

Cheers,

John

« **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2006, 02:10:47 AM »

This thread from a couple of weeks ago might help you.

Tiger Woods Design Fee
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=26582;start=msg500253#msg500253

« **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2006, 06:29:04 AM »

Fees run the gamut, from $100,000 to $2.5 million for a full design, usually including some form of overseeing the construction process. Tiger might be in another realm of fees if and when he gets a job but that's an anomaly and not very helpful in explaining the market. Golf course design fees usually are about 2-7% of the total cost of the golf side of things, but that can vary as well depending upon land costs, construction budgets, permitting fees and whether you include the clubhouse

« **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2006, 08:26:18 AM »

The most (base fee) is for a Jack Nicklaus Signature Course -- $2.5 million.

Nobody is going to go on record as charging the least. Back in the day, I designed High Pointe for $75,000, and shaped most of it, too; Dave Axland and Dan Proctor did Wild Horse for a similar deal. But nobody is going to keep working for peanuts after they've established they can get the job done.

« **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2006, 11:15:58 AM »

Tom,
$75K for High Point, did you make any money on that one? I would imagine you just want to have the chance to do work in the beginning, but I was just wondering what the break even point was for that project? Was anybody working with you at that time?

« **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2006, 11:21:28 AM »

Tom Doak,

How did the $75K work? Do you get $75K and all the costs for wages of construction workers, equipment costs, etc. come out of your pocket?

« **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2006, 11:46:03 AM »

Ed / Aaron: I thought $75,000 was a lot of money when I was 26.

Seriously, though, do you think I paid anybody out of that? I helped the client find a good superintendent (Tom Mead) to help with project management and grow-in, but the client paid him. However, Tom and I were in essence the general contractor for the course -- hiring people and subcontractors, keeping track of expenditures -- so we would have been a bargain at twice the price.

That is one reason it's difficult to compare fees as apples to apples. Today,

my design fee includes paying my lead associate for his work on the job (if we also shape it, we charge separately for that);

Nicklaus' or Fazio's fee includes one of their associates, and maybe a second "on-site guy" and possibly all travel expenses as well -- though I think it's only fair to point out that Nicklaus & Lipe or Fazio & Marzolf don't put in as many days on site as Doak & lead associate do;

Pete Dye's fee only ever included Pete, everyone else was put on the owner's payroll, but Pete was cutting out a contractor's profit in the process.

Most designers' contracts are "plus expenses"; my contract at High Pointe provided housing but that's all.

« **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2006, 10:17:49 PM »

Tom,

Just curious, did you have any other courses laid-out waiting for construction, or any other jobs in the pipeline, when you guys started building High Pointe?

And, how did that job come to a 26-year old Tom Doak? Again, just curious.

« **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2006, 11:19:43 PM »

I designed my first course for less than $20,000. I had absolutely no idea what it costs, what it should cost, or how much was at stake. I was 25 and quite un-worldly.

« **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2006, 11:30:13 PM »

Tom,
What were your 2nd & 3rd fees?
Do you or anyone market their fees like a membership filling up?
Cheers

« **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2006, 11:42:04 PM »

Jeff:

No, I didn't have any other jobs lined up when High Pointe started. Doug Grove, the golf pro at Grand Traverse Resort, was friends with the developers and he introduced me; Doug got my name from Fred Muller at Crystal Downs, who I'd gotten to know from two trips to see the Downs. Brian Morgan referred me to Larry Young for the job at The Legends when High Pointe was mostly complete and growing in. In the beginning, finding work is all about personal references.

« **Reply #11 on:** November 22, 2006, 11:55:20 PM »

Tom,

Your answer is kinda the reason I asked. 6-7 years of traveling around, meeting people, working with Rod (and a few others), is starting to pay off for me in regard to referrals for work. I've actually had a couple very interesting conversations this week. Networking is indeed key.

P.S. As you know, Fred Muller is one of the all-time great guys in golf.

« **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2006, 01:37:41 AM »

....well, as long as we are only talking design fee firsts, mine was $40,000 with $5,000 for expenses [which was a hell of a lot of money when I was 46].... and we hope to break ground after the first of the year.........

[actually the course was built for 1.2 M and got a GD Best Bargain OTY award.....and a best bargain design fee to boot!]

« **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2006, 08:27:33 AM »

I did my first course in 1985 for $00 design fee and anything I made was from supervising construction. I will say that I hear all of the fees that people say they charge...and it may be the case if they are turning down work...but I have seen some "national names" charge as little as $125,000 two years ago. And I have seen some $1.00 fees but that architect's construction company built the course. Personally, I have a fee I like to charge and it is negotiated from there....based on in country, international, owner, site etc....I think some can make as much with a $1.00 design fee and using their construction company.

« **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2006, 10:32:50 AM »

Brad has it right - although I bet some struggling guy could probably still charge less than $100K. As Mike alludes, I was struck recently by losing a renovation job to a well known, but presumably overstaffed gca on the basis of his price being "low bid" well under $100K.

Fees are a funny thing. In the traditional architecture/engineering office, the "standard" charge is about 7-8% for design and "periodic" construction visits. I still find that very profitable, with 6% profitable, 5% breakeven, and 4% or less a filler job that covers job costs, but not long term office overhead (things excluding office rent, but including ASGCA dues, seminars, Xmas bonuses, etc.)

The landscape architecture field, including golf architecture, has always tended towards lower fees, perhaps because there are more folks who want to provide that service than the market will support.

With new golf courses now costing over $4-4.5M in base construction costs, that means average fees "should" be about $300K, but with so few jobs available, many will charge closer to $200K (plus expenses) to get a job.

The problem I see is that as the golf business struggles, clients are getting more lawyers involved, and the level of care must go up to protect ourselves, at the same time fees are going down. I won't do a project without a battery of soil tests, full plans, tracking of quantities for field changes, etc. because clients don't have the money for "surprises" and want to take it out of someone elses pockets.

Or, as I posted last year:

The good news is we had our first profit in several quarters......

The bad news is - the profit was only several quarters!

« **Reply #15 on:** November 23, 2006, 11:14:15 AM »

Jeff,
As you menton above" clients don't have the $$$$ for surprises"...
I agree but would you also agree that most of the high profile "signature " jobs...have a tremendous "booboo" room in the budget and that ALL of these "signatures" will not work without a "show me the money" budget available for them to use. Recently i have heard several developments where they were told by the signature that he was not interested unless budget was $12 mill etc.....
Plus a signature can get away wth things I would be fired for...

« **Reply #16 on:** November 23, 2006, 12:29:09 PM »

My experience was that for renovation work, 6-8% of the job was the fee for the architect. There were also some fixed fees ranging from $75,000 to $200,000

« **Reply #17 on:** November 23, 2006, 03:45:37 PM »

Chris:

I've heard recently from a couple of clubs that architects were charging a percentage of the work (up to 10%) for consulting. That's always seemed wrong to me if it's formalized that way -- I know all about "feature creep" but I don't think the architect should have an incentive to promote it himself.

Is that standard now, Jeff? I thought the ASGCA bylaws I read years ago denounced setting fees as a percentage of construction costs.

« **Reply #18 on:** November 23, 2006, 03:50:39 PM »

Chris,

Sounds about right... 5-10% from my experience. Actually 0-10% from my experience but only if your particulalry nice.

Mike Young,
Sure, I would say some of the heavy hitters flex their muscle on some projects but would certainly stop short of saying they require such flexibility to take a job.

« **Reply #19 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:11:17 PM »

Tom:

I agree that charging based on a percentage of the job struck me as a conflict of interest. The architect's fee could increase if the "add-ons" piled up. That system also seems to feel like for amount A you get the basic plan, for a better job is amount A plus and for my best stuff it's amount A plus, plus!

While I can appreciate that it is more work to supervise the construction of 50 bunkers versus say 150, a flat fee assuming the owner and architect are working together in good faith on the project seems more fair.

Also, I did not want to be faced with this conflict--the architect comes up with a great idea or plan and I hesitate to implement as I know it's not just the cost of the work but an additional 10% on top!

As the owner I need (within reason) to be certain of my project costs and the percentage system seemed less definitive to me.

I do have to brag on Michael Riley--we started our project March 1 of this year. He is a local architect so he was able to be on site a lot. He had done a driving range renovation for us three or four years ago and I couldn't believe the time and attention he gave to that project.

Anyway, we had some excellent candidates for the job and his previous dedication helped as we selected him.
From March 1 until the project was finished on October 15th, he was on site EVERY day except four! I mentioned this to another architect and they were very condescending and said something to the effect that he must not have had a lot of other work.

He painted every bunker line, every green tie-in and I could not imagine a better experience. Also, Medalist Golf promised to give him time to "sleep on" anything so he could come back and make changes--there was no rush to "get it done".

I honestley don't think it's reasonable to expect this kind of attention but as an owner the last thing I want to hear in an interview is talk about being on site "as needed" or once a week/month to check on the crew. Some interviewees insisted that their on site time could be limited since the crew knew exactly what should be done. Or, that their plans were so good, they didn't need to be on site.

Having seen the attention to detail and the number of changes that occur "in the dirt" I can't believe the monies people pay for guys that occasionally come to check on their work.

I want the guy that shows up in work boots not loafers.

« **Reply #20 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:17:57 PM »

Chris,
It was not long ago that some of the Architect groups looked down on such.....many would not even admit they had their own construction companies....But now as it becomes more common they seem to be accepting it....

« **Reply #21 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:18:47 PM »

As for renovation have seen it charged in both manners (Set fee vs. % of construction) at different times with the same firm... Cannot say I saw one bit of difference in how the work or subsequent changes were either proposed or handled.

« **Reply #22 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:26:21 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on November 23, 2006, 04:17:57 PM

Chris,
It was not long ago that some of the Architect groups looked down on such.....many would not even admit they had their own construction companies....But now as it becomes more common they seem to be accepting it....

Mike:

While it was not the best fit for me, I can see the advantages to the architect having/using his own crew. When executed perfectly it may offer substantial cost savings but I just wasn't keen on having an unknown and potentially significant number potentially hanging out there.

« **Reply #23 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:31:23 PM »

Chris,
Oh I don't think these guys I am speakng of had an unknown anymore than other construction companies. they just kept a different entity/corporation that bid and built the majority of their designs...yet if an architect came along and said he was on site more and had his own shapers or something they would say he was more of a builder than an architect....the argument did not hold water but I have seen it used by many that do huge amounts of drawings and few visits...

« **Reply #24 on:** November 23, 2006, 06:48:04 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 23, 2006, 03:45:37 PM

Chris:

I've heard recently from a couple of clubs that architects were charging a percentage of the work (up to 10%) for consulting. That's always seemed wrong to me if it's formalized that way -- I know all about "feature creep" but I don't think the architect should have an incentive to promote it himself.

Is that standard now, Jeff? I thought the ASGCA bylaws I read years ago denounced setting fees as a percentage of construction costs.

Tom,

Just to be clear, ASGCA doesn't propose any standard fees, although a long time ago, they sure did! Engineers often charge that kind of fee.

I calculate my fee a few different ways, and its almost always lump sum, so I don't profit from add on change orders. On the other hand, if there is a project where the actual scope is unknown, a % fee can simply reflect the extra work (say of building another nine, or adding a few holes in a remodel) and be fair both ways.

In my illustration, if a lump sum fee ended up being about those % fees were, then, for me, the profitability was as shown.

News:

jg7236

Andrew Balakshin

Brad Klein

Tom_Doak

ed_getka

Aaron Katz

Tom_Doak

Jeff_Mingay

Forrest Richardson

Mike Nuzzo

Tom_Doak

Jeff_Mingay

paul cowley

Mike_Young

Jeff_Brauer

Mike_Young

Chris Cupit

Tom_Doak

Greg Tallman

Chris Cupit

Mike_Young

Greg Tallman

Chris Cupit

Mike_Young

Jeff_Brauer