Architects---how competitive do you find your business...

« **Reply #50 on:** February 18, 2006, 01:13:48 PM »

Quote from: Forrest Richardson on February 18, 2006, 12:40:00 PM

Then again, you offer an exciting internship program and I will guess that you get all the candidates you could ever hope for.

Is the internship exciting program because of the courses or all the parties?

Quote

If your contribution extends to a wider universe — that will make your accomplishments a richer experience, now and forever.

Are you saying his contribution doesn't extend to a wider universe?

His many different contributions have helped me greatly.

« **Reply #51 on:** February 18, 2006, 01:46:53 PM »

I think Tom's internship program would be exciting to any young and enthusiastic golf architect student. I don't know about the parties.

Tom would benefit from sharing his thoughts about golf course design — and golf — with other architects in a one-on-one, or small group environments. GCA is, of course, good. But it does not take the place of becoming involved with a professional organization of other golf architects.

The wider universe I speak of is a hundred or so golf architects who gather periodically to gain and share their gains. It has nothing to do with popularity, magazine articles or who's hot.

« **Reply #52 on:** February 18, 2006, 01:56:08 PM »

ASGCA

I'm a member - I don't believe it brings me any work - it can be argued that it gives me some form of credibility to people who don't know who I am. The work you do and the people who refer you are the key - memberships to societies don't really improve this situation.

Internships

There needs to be more - its the weakness of the business. To many it is simply that a business - they don't want anyone who can't make them money right away - that's the reality of a business.

I for one am glad of the few internship programs out there - I once interned and it helped me get going. Many interns end up with the firm they begin with, I did for a while. The main problem with interns now is they expect to be well paid to be taught - they need to decide between learning and renumeration - they usually can't have it both ways. I interned whereever I could get the best experience EVERY summer and always passed on the cash - I look back and know that was the right thing to do. Most ask about money before they ask about the experience they can get.

« **Reply #53 on:** February 18, 2006, 02:07:58 PM »

Forrest,
I wasn't referring to GCA.

« **Reply #54 on:** February 18, 2006, 02:58:57 PM »

I have found this tread most interesting.

As a Golf course designer(note non architect as Tennessee thinks you must be a licenses architect to even use the term Architect and I am not), I entered the business much like many “golden guys” via the turf route.

I never worked for a GCA. I have learned the old fashioned way through mistakes of my own and others (as well as seeing things done right that I liked) If I had it to do all over again, I would have worked for M Hurdzan & J Kidwell (if they would have had me) and learn a lot in a short period.

I had always had a goal once "meeting qualifications" of the ASGCA to join, thinking membership would :
1) help gain me more business,
2) teach me through association of other great designers,
3) Be considered accredited by the main group people associated today’s designer with.

After meeting the minimums in 97’, I obtained the forms and just did not get too excited about applying. Cost was a consideration. The application fee was a grand but if they did not let me in , I got it back. Dues were also I think about a grand a year then.

In Jan 05’ I thought about membership again and got the forms and spoke with two members in San Diego@ the GCSAA about joining and one offered to sponsor me. The application fee went to $1500 NON refundable and I had just enough projects to qualify.

Again I decide to “table it “

I spoke with Gary Baird in December about membership again, and was offered sponsorship buy him and was about to pull the trigger and go through the process when I read the thread of those that were not members.

I have always thought the society was a good group to be in, but it is difficult for us smaller firm guys to get in and that appears to be just what the ASGCA wants, to limit membership. IMHO

I may again decide to apply this year and I am sure some here would even sponsor me. It is a long enduring process though, and it’s value is unclear to me.

As far as the competition, yes it is tough and yes there are plenty of folks out there competing, but I suspect that any GCA that wants work will find it. It may be a bit harder for some now that it was few years ago, but like business has been always, if you go out and try hard to get work, you will. I have NEVER had someone call me and say “I want you”. Hope it happens – Monday morning would be soon enough. I have had clients hire me quickly AFTER I found them and made presentations though.

There was a public project near home that I bid a year back and became one of 3 finalist. One was well know for higher fees, 4x for similar work than I bid. The other I considered an close equal. All 3 bids were with $600.00 I still question how that happened.

Jeff you mention how you have worked this business for 25 years and now are (unemployable).
If I need to go back to golf course green keeping, you can be my assistant. It’s that or I too might not find a good job. But my resume says “Jack of all trades”

FWIW, I was certified by the GCSAA and it NEVER brought me any pay raises or notoriety. I suspect the ASGCA might be the same, but I will never know unless I join.

I have never found NOT being a member costing me a job and doubt that a member has used it against me.

I do like the point of it being a “society” and not an professional association. I will use that if I need to….

Jeff B , maybe as an ex Pres, you can get those other Ross jacket guys to make it a little easier to join the group and allow us small guys in without totally undressing our wallets and our dignity.
SmileyMany of us would be open to being a part of the group.

Jerry

« **Reply #55 on:** February 18, 2006, 03:14:32 PM »

Mike — I was not referring to GC Atlas exclusively. It is but one form of back-and-forth dialogue. The ASGCA represents another — among professionals who gather and learn, share, gain and go at each other in intellectual rounds. Sort of like Rock-em-sock-em Robots, but dressed in tartans.

If you practice in North America, and are qualified, I feel membership is important. Not essential. Just important.

- - -

Jerry — The 170+ members of the ASGCA are an indication that membership is not meant to exclude, except on the basis of requirements. If you meet the requirements, go through all the steps, and "pass" the interview process, I think you will find it worthwhile.

« **Reply #56 on:** February 18, 2006, 03:21:39 PM »

I Agree Forrest,

but, Say GM makes 1 million cars a year Ford 1.2 million and Dodge 900,000 and Lexus only 500,000

If the Automakers Society said you had to make 600,000 to get in, would that make the Lexus guys not worthy of membership?

That appears to be the case with the society. Not everyone designs

18 hole courses every year. Some of my courses are Par 3's that are NOT considered eligible as part of membership. They still are golf courses by every stretch.

« **Reply #57 on:** February 18, 2006, 03:31:02 PM »

The requirement for five completed courses is in no way similar to Ford, GM or Lexus. The requirement to complete five courses establishes a benchmark; mostly that you are in the business and have attained a level of work and clientele which brings you beyond just one or two (or three or four) projects. I think the requirement could be much greater...but am grateful it was just five!

This member does not agree with the par-3 guideline. I think that a par-3 course should count as much as an regulation-length, 18-hole. Like remodels, perhaps there should be a reasonable limit, or equilavent "worth" in applying. I would encourage you to ask for clarification on whether a par-3 might count as much as, let's say, a 9-hole course. If you have specifics you can e-mail me, I will seek an answer if you don't feel like asking yourself.

We have adjusted requirements in the recent past to accept remodels and to clarify the guideline on 9-hole courses. I supported each of these changes, as did the majority of members and the Board.

« **Reply #58 on:** February 18, 2006, 04:00:59 PM »

Forrest,
If the ASGCA is interested in those of us that practice GCA full time to be admitted and to learn from the experts, then I think the benchmark is too high for membership.

Why has there never been a classification of membership for those that are interns such as T Doak and many other have. Would it not help the future of the ASGCA to let newbies that are wanting to get better at the profession into the society?

Someone made mention that there were 300 practicing GCA in the US. It does seem that the ASGCA has a few MIA.

I wonder if Jack Neville was around today if he would be a member? He did design the best public course in America.... oops he missed the requirements and did less than 5 courses so he must not be worthy.

What was the "requirements" when the ASGCA started?
I wonder how many members in 1948 would meet the qualifications of today?

I would suggest that the benchmark is set so high so keep membership down and fees up for those who are members. If that is reality or not.

Why else would it appear to be so exclusive?

« **Reply #59 on:** February 18, 2006, 04:16:26 PM »

Jerry — I am not the best to answer all of those questions. I had the honor of talking with Jack Neville in the 1970s. I can safely say that he would have answered your question by saying that he was fortunate to have been involved in Pebble Beach, but that he hardly considered himself a "golf course architect."

As Jeff Brauer indicated, the PGA Tour is pretty exclusive. I went to school with a friend who worked like mad to get on tour. After 30 years and many thousands of dollars, he now teaches kids and newbies at a reputable course. Before you get defensive — I am not directly comparing ASGCA with the abilities of the threshold of the PGA's main tour. But, 171:300 is not a bad ratio. If 300 is right, and it probably is close, a majority of the remaining non-ASGCA members are likely not practicing full time, may not meet requirements, or are stuck as an associate where it may take them a long while to work through their firm's project list to get qualified. Your position is also understandable — a small office with projects which bring you close to the five required. Then, there are those who do not want to be a member or have not applied for a variety of reasons. That number seems small.

I have offered — previosuly — the suggestion of having regional symposiums and meetings of members where associates and others can meet. This came up again recently. This time, by others. I think it would be a neat extension of the Society. I support it.

« **Reply #60 on:** February 18, 2006, 05:25:43 PM »

I think regional meetings might help those at power to see how involved the non members who qualify, want to be involved in the society. I have no problem explaining my postion to you or any other member of the group as long as it does not fall on deaf ears.

I would be glad to host a local meeting in Nashville if they are truly serious.

FWIW:

I think Neville was despite his humble statement to you! Don't you?

« **Reply #61 on:** February 18, 2006, 05:43:45 PM »

Neville was what?

« **Reply #62 on:** February 18, 2006, 05:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Forrest Richardson on February 18, 2006, 05:43:45 PM

Neville was what?

A golf course architect. He was credited with PB.

« **Reply #63 on:** February 18, 2006, 05:51:02 PM »

Tom D,

Yes I am proud of my ASGCA membership. And you have the right to be proud to be an "maverick outsider."

However, I am also proud and cognizant of what ASGCA for 60 years has done to further the profession in general. Yes, there are some areas we haven't led to counteract the many areas we have.

And there have been some human foibles, the foremost being the human pettiness that kept Wilson and many of his protoges out of the society, and which may not make a Tom Doak and a few others feel comfortable enough to join.

I understand if ASGCA members don't feel they have gotten any help from the group, and don't apologize if any project inquires that come to the home office are directed to only those who pay the dues for that privlege. But, the dues do go mostly to foster education and furtherment of common issues to the profession.

Jerry,

I spent many nights debating the actual memberhsip provisions years ago. (I was once membership chairman, as well) The historical requirement of five courses has been in place since the beginning. The idea has always been to make someone have that much experience to be qualified. That, and no pattern of ethical blemishes that anyone knows of.

So, yeah, there is a little of the "show me" attitude of getting in, but we have never been able to come up with a better system to determine minimum definitions of "experienced" than a certain number of courses completed.

If we set it at four or ten, and added par 3 courses in the mix, someone would be unhappy with three courses, including one par 3. So, we keep it at five for some consistency.

The restrictions on those five have varied a little bit - the most recent change was to add back comprehensive remodels to meet some of those requirements. The reason? Given the lack of new work out there, conscientious, full time golf course architects could never get in, and we don't want that to happen.

We have discussed and dismissed all sort of associate membership classifications. In the end, we simply prefer things the way they are. Interns don't have ultimate responsibility for designing the course. And Neville would not have qualified - a one time designer, even if he gets ocean front property is not a full time active course architect for whom the society was designed

As to the initiation fee, there is a reason for that as well. It is meant to discourage those who aren't really in the biz full time, and we feel anyone committed to a lifetime of golf design professionalism would be glad to pony that up. As mentioned, we are much more open to those kind of members than in the early days, and it is not intended to keep a full time gca out.

In short, we will be around for the duration. If you feel you will be, I think you should complete the application process. If your experience in the society is anything near mine, you won't be sorry. (Neither would Tom Doak, Kelly B Moran or Mike Young)

Another relative weakness of our membership system is the relative ease that someone who comes up as an associate of an ASGCA member has an advantage. In fact, as the requirements and application got a bit stronger in the 90's, I always felt a little bit guilty about being in the middle of that! Had some of the rules that got put in place while I was membership chair been in place in 1980, I would have not been a member quite as quickly as I did. I think that the fact that I managed to get in so easily was the biggest sign that the system was far too easy and had to be changed.........

« **Reply #64 on:** February 18, 2006, 05:59:45 PM »

Jeff,
Good sell!
I would assume I would not get blackballed by you or Forrest if I apply

And if you want to spot me the Application fee until my next client pays the retainage........

« **Reply #65 on:** February 18, 2006, 06:08:20 PM »

Jerry — Mr, Neville was a collaborator. He went on to be consulted about a few other projects. I stand by my theory that he would not have considered himself a golf course architect, but just what I describe — a collaborator.

« **Reply #66 on:** February 18, 2006, 07:05:21 PM »

Forrest: Then I guess that disqualifies me.

But who's going to break the news to Jack that collaborating isn't architecture?

« **Reply #67 on:** February 18, 2006, 07:36:11 PM »

Tom D. — Maybe, just maybe, you misundertand my use of "collaborator". Of course we all collaborate. But there is a difference in the way you and I collaborate with associates, clients and others — and the way Jack Neville collaborated at the inception of Pebble Beach.

Mr. Neville, in a long conversation, gave me the feeling that he just helped layout out the course. And that he was a very lucky man to have been in the right place at the right time. He never set out to design golf courses, he was just asked to weigh in on what would work at Pebble Beach. The opinion that I draw from speaking with him about his life and Pebble Beach is that he never made the leap to design golf courses as his main profession.

From what I know of you and your work, Tom D., you make your living doing this...and you would more than qualify for membership. (That's my opinion.)

« **Reply #68 on:** February 18, 2006, 07:54:32 PM »

Jerry,
I am not a member of ASGCA. And I always tell myself will not get bogged down in one of these ASGCA discussions on this site. BUT I just read Jeff's post on membership requirements and I don't see any problem with the requirements EXCEPT I think allowing the introduction of remodels has to be very very closely scrutinized. there is so much marketing hype going on in the business today regarding restorations and remodels and when you dig into it there wasn't much architecture involved. Plus, I value the art of routing and can't see a remodel taking the place of an 18 hole project....and I don't consider some of these guys architects...many have just met a very qualified contractor and point for him...
NOW...as for the ASGCA...if they were more objective instead of subjective you would not hear TD being scolded for so many of his comments etc....
JMO

« **Reply #69 on:** February 18, 2006, 07:56:12 PM »

Thank you Forrest.

If I were eligable I would definately join today. Unfortunately by the time I'm eligible I might change my mind.

How does the ASGCA help someone like myself - currently ineligible?

Forrest and Jeff how many of your associates became members?

Cheers

« **Reply #70 on:** February 18, 2006, 08:15:46 PM »

Mike — Maybe this will help.

When I was twelve (12) I sent away for membership information to the ASGCA. That was a long thirty years, but I consider it worth the wait. (I was somewhat miffed that the requirements had gone from three to five courses, though!)

As I said, I believe there is a place for regional meetings for those who are passionate about the art form, but are not eligible for membership. I was glad to see this brought up recently.

As for how the ASGCA might help someone who is not eligable, I would say that the Society pushes for awareness about golf course design (EPA, ACOE, etc.); we try and get the word out about timely matters in the profession; and our members are constantly reminded to give students the time and consideration they deserve. At present, for example, I am volunteering on a committee to help the USGA establish an outline for a potential golf architecture library/collection. Hopefully, some or all of the above has or might help you. For each of the things I mention in this space, there are lots of others — the ASGCA Foundation, publishing, etc.

If not, consider my 30 year wait. I don't this that hurt me. It was something to strive for, among many other goals.

« **Reply #71 on:** February 18, 2006, 09:23:15 PM »

Jerry,

No, I frankly don't think I would blackball anyone without a criminal record, and you sound like a decent enough guy! If you want the entry fee, you'll have to ask my ex - she has all my money.....

Mike,

After advising you on another thread to not take the bait, of course I do so in defending even a hint of bias against the ASGCA. Your example of remodeling vs. new is a good one. When I did a survey of the members in 1989 or so, that was the feeling - only a new course provided the complete test of gca skills. As noted, we softened that up in response to market conditions since so many practitioners do only remodels (look at my previous post on 300 gca's in america) Rest assured, we do look at those carefully.

« **Reply #72 on:** February 19, 2006, 08:31:50 AM »

Tom Doak- BINGO

That said it all. Of course I have never collaborated with another but many like you have that may not get (all) the credit they deserve. I started a thread regarding this a while back...

JB , I have no criminal record but lack your ex's #'s please provide and IF I get the application fee from her I will slip half back to you. I'd guess it was yours to begin with. Before I apply, I want you to look over my course list and get your opinion on admission, since we would then have a common interest in the non refundable application fee.

Forrest, I though you told me the guidelines of 5 courses had not changed since 48’. I questioned that and you invoked more questioning when you said the requirements were 3 when you were twelve.

?

I have a great deal of respect for you not giving up in 30 years. I had given up on membership much earlier and still practice GCA.

And if Jeff's #'s from a previous post are correct and I can only expect to get .25 courses per year, (I did the math) I may not meet requirements in the future, No one will except the hottest GCA's out there (TD are you listening?)

I am with MN, What is the Society doing to get those of us that (IMHO) belong in?

Forrest, I am aware of the Environmental associations, had been aware as a Supt. maybe even more than when the Society hopped on that marketing bandwagon. I just do not think adding letters from those organization behind my name helps me as a GCA where ASGCA may.

MY , I agree with you on the gloried contractor. They are only interpreting plans of the original designer. Nothing new architecturally. They might as well been an associate collaborating. Not worthy of design credit, Right Forrest?

How those renovations might be counted and one of my par 3 courses is not counted is confusing to me.

I think the Society has merrit to be in and I do not think I would regret joining. I just think those that are in need open the crack in the door and let us all see what we are missing

One might think that the term "Society" in this case is of wealth and not of common interest. see Webster....

« **Reply #73 on:** February 19, 2006, 09:47:05 AM »

Jerry,

"I want you to look over my course list and get your opinion on admission, since we would then have a common interest in the non refundable application fee. "

I did that with Greg Muirhead and Steve Forrest before I applied - its the $1500 non refunable which is rediculous and frustrating - and I assume that's your issue.

What is the Society doing to get those of us that (IMHO) belong in?

Nobody is going to invite you - there are very few organizations in busines who invite people. They may occasionally encourage someone of high prominance like a Nicklaus or Coore (possibly even TD), but the rest of us (you and I) are left to apply. Did you wait for someone to ask you to design a course, or did you go find yourself a client.

I think the Society has merrit to be in and I do not think I would regret joining. I just think those that are in need open the crack in the door and let us all see what we are missing

I wondered too about joining and also about whether I'd get in. Review it with Jeff (rumour has he's pretty smart ) and then make your decision. It does not affect your ability to get work, but it is a fun group to hang around with for a week. There are no hidden secrets about how to be sucessful as an architect - almost everything the society does is published or covered in golf magazines. Your essentially paying to have the society lobby on your behalf on a series of issues that affect you as a designer.

« **Reply #74 on:** February 19, 2006, 10:28:10 AM »

Jerry — I do not believe I commented on when or how long the five course requirement was in effect. It has been a long time.

News:

Mike Nuzzo

Forrest Richardson

Ian Andrew

Mike Nuzzo

Jerry Lemons

Forrest Richardson

Jerry Lemons

Forrest Richardson

Jerry Lemons

Forrest Richardson

Jerry Lemons

Forrest Richardson

Jerry Lemons

Jeff_Brauer

Jerry Lemons

Forrest Richardson

Tom_Doak

Forrest Richardson

Mike_Young

Mike Nuzzo

Forrest Richardson

Jeff_Brauer

Jerry Lemons

Ian Andrew

Forrest Richardson