News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Adam_F_Collins

Designer Collaboration Issues
« on: April 04, 2004, 12:54:33 PM »
After seeing Tom Doak's post about his project with Jack Nicklaus, I find myself wondering how various architects handle the process of collaboration. Sometimes, human chemistry is so good between people, that conflict is solved with relative ease. However, this chemistry is rare.  

I'm in the Graphic field myself, and if it's any indication, designers are certainly a group with strong opinions. Strong opinions and convictions can easily lead to disagreement and the old adage, "Too many cooks..." comes quickly to mind.

True collaborations - where more than one designer plays an equal role (in the SAME role) in determining the direction of a project - are a very delicate balance and difficult to carry through to a mutually satisfying conclusion.

The problem often comes in there being no way to settle differences.

I find that it is often best to create some kind of division of responsibilities or try to find a way to create areas of expertise for each, which give 'final say' to one designer on different issues. This discretion creates an 'out' and avoids deadlock.

Another adage comes to mind "There are no great collaborations". While I disagree with the statement, I do believe that creating truly great design that is truly collaborative is one of the great challenges - yet potentially one of the most satisfying experiences a designer can have.

Thoughts?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2004, 01:07:57 PM »
Adam,

I have collaborated in design a couple of ways - with tour pros, where I am really in charge, and they just edit, with my own staff, where we have spirited debate (although I have outvoted them in the finals 1-3 on occaision ;))

On one occaison, I had the pleasure, owing to mid design sale of a course, to collaborate with Jay Moorish.  It was a great experience, and I learned a lot.  Of course, Jay is great at telling Nicklaus (and Wieskophh) stories, but along the way, I picked up tidbits in those stories about how the greatest player ever thought about course management and strategy.

My staff was in awe of him, just listening.  And while we were responsible for creating construction drawings, he did sit down at the concept stage, reviewing plans, and in the field and come up with several good suggestions that we incorporated.  He was great to work with, but I suppose a different personality might have produced different results.

I also collaborated with John Fought on a course design that never got its funding, and loved that experience as well, for similar reasons.  I had never met John, but we became friends later because of that experience.

As to whether either course came out signifigantly better because of the collaboration, I can't say, because we don't get mulligans on such things.  Overall, the public probably can't tell the difference.  However, I did learn general things from both that helped.  And there were specific things that would have come out differently because of the collaboration.

I recall standing on a green site with Fought (a former tour player, and now real designer in his own right) discussing what we should do.  When I suggested a certain bunker placement behind the green, he rejected it because it was right in the direct path to the next tee.  Similarly, I rejected a bunker placement directly in the access line from path to green.  His perspective was of a tournament walker, which I considered lightly, thinking it would be a 100% cart course.  Now, I don't bunker on the direct line to the next tee.  And I presume John doesn't bunker without thinking about cart path to green circulation, either, after that experience.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2004, 01:37:52 PM »
The above comments seem to generally be asking about collaboration of archie to pro.  But, what about dual archies?  Can anyone comment as to the outcomes of the relationships with some of the early architects?  Colt-Allison, Langford-Morreau, etc.  We all know of the numerous collaborations with MacKenzie and both pros, ams, women ::) ;D, and other archies... (though we probably don't know enough, nor never will) ;)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2004, 01:40:39 PM »
RJ,

I think the dynamics change once you take on a partner in a business relationship.  However, I'll bet you find that most partnerships eventually assigned one partner or the other to a project, either by geography, or by timing (its my turn for the next one) with the other playing a minor role in the design.

My comments were directed at a one time collaboration among two equally credentialled architects from different businesses, although I may flatter myself in saying that about myself and Jay Morish.  Or, for that matter, John Fought.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Adam_F_Collins

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2004, 02:02:05 PM »
I'm interested in situations where the two or more architects are more or less equal - If there's a primary designer who is just asking for input from others, it's not a true collaboration - in that case, the designer is just getting input and can opt to take it or leave it. Those situations are not so difficult as there is still one person with one vision and that person has final say on where the design moves.

Think of Jack and Tom. In this case, while Jack is a Tour Pro, he is also a world-renowned golf course architect. Tom is also a renowned golf course architect. They have their own styles, interests, concerns, values, hopes, dreams and opinions. They also have separate business operations, associates etc. It's easy to see how it could be both a challenge and a pleasure...

How do people at that level collaborate?

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2004, 02:06:18 PM »
Quote
- If there's a primary designer who is just asking for input from others, it's not a true collaboration - in that case, the designer is just getting input and can opt to take it or leave it.

Might we then ask this question in regards to Wilson or Crump?  They had plenty of top architects of their day pass through at various stages of those projects.  
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

A_Clay_Man

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2004, 02:35:37 PM »
Dick tells one great collaboration story about the convex finger bunker at Wild Horse.

I would wager that the dicey part comes when one side is not listened to, by the other.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2004, 05:31:02 PM »
Adam F:  I'll let you know in a year or two how it works.

One thing I have thought about, though, is that no one on this DG has ever tried to parse what parts of a Coore/Crenshaw design are Bill's and what parts are Ben's.  [I know them both well, and know only one instance myself.]

I would ask you all to show the same respect to Jack and to me.

tonyt

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2004, 06:25:09 PM »
Well said Tom.

Rather than disecting who did what stuff and ending up with a his and hers mindset of the final product in portions, it will be more interesting to discover what you learnt from each other, and how you might have come to an optimal outcome from each seeing the other's differing viewpoint on it. It will make for a more constructive and educational analysis of discovery and evolution than doing a divorce lawyer type split up of assets.

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2004, 06:31:02 PM »

One thing I have thought about, though, is that no one on this DG has ever tried to parse what parts of a Coore/Crenshaw design are Bill's and what parts are Ben's.  [I know them both well, and know only one instance myself.]

I would ask you all to show the same respect to Jack and to me.

Tom,

I sincerely hope that there is respect for you as you participate here and I hope that the amount of GCA gossip is limited until the end when the project itself can be examined.

However, from a historical perspective it is an interesting case study:

* C&C came together because of similar design philosophies. They subsequently formed a company together. D&N came together because of a very high profile project by an owner. I doubt you could find odds out there on the chances of Doak & Nicklaus going into business after this project.

* Nicklaus' design philosophy has changed dramatically over the years, and this has been confirmed by Jack himself. Is he moving towards "minimalism", and now will he listen to one of the leaders? (I would guess that you do not like that label, but get used to it, as Golf Digest is going to use it.) From the outside it appears that your design philosophy has been consistent since you left Pete Dye.

* As I currently have not even been to The Masters or Augusta National, I do not want to undermine Ben Crenshaw's 2 Green Jackets, but you are partnered with Jack Nicklaus !!!


TEPaul

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2004, 06:58:41 PM »
TomD:

I sure do agree with Mike Sweeney's post. I sure hope no one on here disrepects either you or Jack Nicklaus during the creaton of Sebonac but you do have to admit that you and Nicklaus partnering (and the reasons why) are about as different from why and how Coore and Crenshaw partnered and how they go about it as night and day.

Coore and Crenshaw appear to be just about as quietly symbiotic as any two architects could imaginably be. When one sees them together in the field for a time of even talks to either one about the way they work one can certainly sense that.

But you and Nicklaus really do appear to come from some fairly different architectural philosophies but at this point in Jack's career, as Mike Sweeney said, who the hell really knows.

Just the story of how Bill and Ben came together in the first place pretty much says it all about them and of course they've been doing it their unique way for about 20 years now.

This site certainly respects you and your new construction work. It's Nicklaus I'm not so certain of on here but I sure do hope they show him respect as this Sebonac project unveils.  

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2004, 08:56:00 PM »
I had an art studio for many years as part of my textile business and I can only tell you how much jealousy and animosity artists have for one another. If I hear it once, I heard it a thousand times, "She is so full of %#&*$".

Good luck Tom.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Will E

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2004, 09:05:43 PM »
What do you guys think this course will look like??
In Northern Michigan we have a Nicklaus course (the Bear) and Doak's High Pointe no more than two miles away from each other. They couldn't be farther apart in styles.

I'd doubt we'll see many greens on the Sebonac course look like number five at the Bear.

I'm very axious to see how this mix shakes out.

Adam_F_Collins

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2004, 11:07:49 PM »
Critics and analysts attempting to pull apart a collaborative work is pretty much a given. Especially when it is a work created by two or more influential artists. And depending on how you look at it, just the fact that people care enough to ponder it is perhaps a sign of great respect in itself.

Worrying about who did what on the part of the artist is where the potential for trouble lies.

The ideal collaboration is where the lines of division disappear and the whole is something more than a some of it's parts. The Beatles were more than John, Paul, George and Ringo all playing music at the same time.

Maybe Coore and Crenshaw are another example of a great collaboration. Maybe we don't parse out who did what because the combination of efforts transcends the individuals. It's just Coore and Crenshaw - and isn't it great?

I respect the effort of any artist willing to try to pool their efforts with another. While it can certainly be trying, there's always that chance that those involved will take their art to new places where neither could go alone.

If it turns out to be the case with the collaboration at Sebonac...

...the result could surely be one for the books.


Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2004, 03:11:43 AM »
With Nicklaus building a course very near Sand Hills and now an interesting collaboration, maybe this is an opportunity for Nicklaus to raise the quality level of his designs.  What Nicklaus envisions could possibly be a valuable addition to Doak's architectural skills.  For the highly skilled player, Nicklaus has created wonderful challenges--Bear Creek and PGA West Resort are great examples.  Perhaps we will eventually find the Ohio collaboration (Muirhead) far inferior to Long Island's newest great great course!

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2004, 05:34:15 AM »
Probably the closest comparison from a historical perspective is Spanish Bay where Sandy Tatum, Tom Watson and RTJ came together. It was a high profile project in a well known neighborhood with some famous neighbors. Maybe Tom & Jack should reach out to Sandy Tatum & Tom Watson to see how they dealt with the egos and environmental restrictions at Spanish Bay.

Most of the talk here is how "Tom & Jack" will mesh. Reality is they both have organizations that build the golf courses. How will they mesh in the field? I am sure we can all bore each other and Tom with stories of mergers and project teams that go wrong in the field in the business world, but they tend to work when the leaders communicate well with each other and their organizations.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2004, 09:31:56 PM »
Mike — The problem with your "Sandy Tatum, Tom Watson and RTJ" analogy is that you left off Don Knott, who did most of the work!

Collaborations were the mainstay of golf architecture in early days, so I see no reason they should not come back and work. Chemistry, as it was pointed out, is THE key.

By the way, Brauer needs to discuss the trouble he has working with himself! (Kidding.)
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

TEPaul

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2004, 11:31:14 PM »
"Collaborations were the mainstay of golf architecture in early days,...."

Forrest:

They were? Who or what are you speaking of? Certainly there was Crump and PVGC, the mother of all "stop in and make some suggestions" collaborative efforts! Other than that what are you referring to---MacKenzie and his constant partnering? Perhaps Fownes and Loeffler? Thomas & Bell, Ross and his regional foremen? Or perhaps the architect/engineer firms such as Macdonald/Raynor or Toomey & Flynn?

I know today there's a good amount of apparent collaboration between the famous tour pro and those who really do the work! Do you think that's pretty much always been true with Palmer or does he just always forget where the first hole is?   ;)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2004, 11:34:28 PM by TEPaul »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2004, 11:42:38 PM »
Tom —

You mention several. You cite "constant partnering" and  "the architect/engineer firms". "Constant Partnering" could apply to several golf architects. "Architect/engineer firms" were much different than today as the engineers often prepared plans and worked out a few design issues.

I was obviously not speaking of post war design offices. There are few touring pros who give a rat's tail about design with their name on it, other than (a) they get paid and (b) the design is well liked. The collaborations today seem not as out in the open.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

TEPaul

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2004, 11:56:06 PM »
Forrest:

Here's an interesting form of collaboration. Shortly after my golf club was formed in 1916 they hired Donald Ross to design the course. Ross slipped into Philadelphia and proclaimed our course would definitely be the finest in the area (apparently overlooking both Pine Valley and Merion East) and probably one of the best courses in the country!! He then scoured the district for the best superintendent in the area and strongly recommended we steal him---which we apparently did. That superintendent and a member who appears to have played the roll of our George Crump (one Weston Hibbs) appear to have done the vast amount of on site work. Donald Ross was there for at least three days that I know of. He did returm ten years later and made a whole series of hole by hole recommendations in what appears to be our first master plan!  ;)

Does that sound something like today? If your gonna be a super high production architect---what're you gonna do?

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2004, 12:18:47 AM »
This is an interesting point. Allow me to answer with the following observation:

In the "Golden Age" we have little records and not much was written. There was no GCA. Plans were a luxury.

Today we have loads of plans, all sorts of people (shapers, associates, writers, etc.) who have amassed a great deal of history — or what one day will become such. We also have tremendous as-builts of courses. With LIDAR we will soon have the ability to accurately record what was build down to the .25 of an inch — including ball washers, every tree and each blade of grass.

In 50 years there will be less uncertainty in who did what. Maybe not a consensus...but less uncertainty.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2004, 12:19:31 AM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

TEPaul

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2004, 09:18:55 AM »
Forrest:

Very good observations about all the ramifications of what technology in the modern age can do to establish an exact record, and how that was never so in the old days.

Although it's sometimes sort of maddening to try to research the old days I suppose the lack of exact records from those times makes a lot of what we do and discuss on this website happen. If they had the exact records back then that're available and possible today, particularly in the details of construction, it probably wouldn't be as much fun as most of us could not speculate as much! But obviously speculation has it's assets and liabilities.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2004, 09:36:56 AM »
Forrest,

You are so right! I was so wrong on my last project that I fired myself six times!  Of course, I hired myself back all six.....

I shamelessly used this thread to write a "ketchup" article for my Cybergolf series.  They'll be ticked, since it isn't posted there as of now, but this fairly well sums up my professional feelings on the matter......for my personal feelings, you will have to buy me something in a bar somewhere.....

Sharon I. Diaz asks, ‘Do architects ever collaborate?”

It is unusual, and often doesn’t work well, but it’s not unheard of.  Egos can get in the way to ruin things.  I’m not sure the story of intending to design a horse, and after a “design by committee” it became a camel was first told about golf design collaborations, but it may have been.  Collaborations are highly dependent on the personalities involved to say the least.

I have some experience collaborating, and it has been good, a sure sign of my level head!  Collaborations come in many forms – architect/pro, architect/architect, architect/past architect, architect/owner, and in one case, an architect/total stranger collaboration, as an interested – and persistent – golfer walked in off the street insisting we use his design ideas. That is, until I asked him to sign a document accepting legal liability for his unsafe recommendations.  We never saw him again!


In my collaborations with pros, their contributions varied from showing only for marketing purposes to a sincere and appreciative (if not experienced) interest and active involvement in the design conceptualizing.  Some even had knowledge and contributions towards the maintenance and management side, because the owned golf courses.

I have one course in I list as collaboration mostly because it had an architect when the original, partially built course went bankrupt. Years later, when we got the contract to finish the derelict course for another owner - even with the routing and features all changed on the final course - I was glad to share credit with the first designer, even though there was never collaboration.

I truly collaborated on Whitestone in Benbrook, TX with Jay Morish, as a result of a sale agreement for the project early in the planning from a group that routinely used my services to a group that routinely used his.  Since both owners wanted “their architect” and Jay, I and the course all were in the Dallas area, it was an easy decision to make all parties happy.

I actually did more grunt work, with responsibility to provide construction drawings and construction evaluation and administration, while Jay was involved in the design concepts completely.  Because of our personalities and mutual respect, this is worked out great!  My staff hung on every word he said.  He is wonderful about telling interesting stories about his days designing with Jack Nicklaus, and passed on lots of valuable information in the process.

I co-designed another course that never reached construction, and that was also a good experience.  That architect had been a top amateur player, and looked at things differently than I do in many areas.  We stood on one green site discussing potential bunker placements.  He rejected a bunker that stood in the direct walking line to the next tee.  I suggested it not block the path from cart path to green, figuring 99% of the golfers would ride.  In the end we compromised, finding bunker locations that served one more useful purpose.  Since then, I have paid greater attention to walking paths, and he, I’m sure, to circulation to and from the cart paths.

In each case, given that we each apprenticed for different architects, it is always interesting to see where we were similar, and where we were different in our thoughts as to the “right” way to do things.  Those types of learning situation are great for architects when they arise – provided our egos don’t make us overly defend a design position rather than discuss and examine various alternative solutions.  

After all, great design is really a lot of hard work in examining options in coming up with the very best one.  With that attitude, two heads can be better than one!



Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2004, 09:47:21 AM »
Mike — The problem with your "Sandy Tatum, Tom Watson and RTJ" analogy is that you left off Don Knott, who did most of the work!

Collaborations were the mainstay of golf architecture in early days, so I see no reason they should not come back and work. Chemistry, as it was pointed out, is THE key.


Forrest,

Don also did most of the work at Long Island National, yet it is called a "Bobby Jones Masterpiece" at the entrance. While Tom Doak often gives alot of credit to his crew and employees here, they certainly don't get it in the popular press where it is better to label someone a "rising star" for marketing purposes. It may not be right, but it is what it is.

I think collaborations worked in the old days because it was a more gentlemanly profession. Now it is a competitive business. I personally don't think this is a bad thing as competition can sometimes bring out the best in people.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Designer Collaboration Issues
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2004, 08:21:09 AM »
Mike:

I do give credit to my associates in other places -- there was a picture of all of them in GOLFWEEK, and Bruce and Don were quoted at length in the article [because they happened to be in the office when Dave Seanor visited].

But, you are right that most writers want me to be the focus of their story, because if they start talking about my associates they might have to start talking about others' associates also.  Our clients are also more interested in promoting my name than an associate's.

I am glad to accept great suggestions from my associates, but in the end, the final decision of what to build on our courses is mine to make.  In a true collaboration, neither architect always gets the final say.  That will be the hard part.