[Craig_Rokke]

Whatever line of work you may be in, you've probably had a customer ask you do do something the way he or she wanted it done, and not necessarily the way you wanted it done. You probably said "ok", even though it wasn't what you had in mind. Perhaps the situation went yet a step further. Maybe doing things this way compromised your standards, or your values. Perhaps you were even worried that the customer's idea would reflect poorly on you or your company. But you probably tried to make him happy just the same. After all, a happy customer, is a paying customer.

I would think one of the biggest challenges of designing a course is to make your client happy, without compromising your own ideals and standards. I imagine that most club owners or decision-makers are used to being in charge
and making important decisions. Most have also probably
been around golf for a long time, too. To me, those two
forces working in tandem, must be capable of an occasional frustrating situation for an architect.

I'm not suggesting that most course design experiences are fraught with contention. I would bet that a firm and an owner usually have time to get comfortable with each other during the initial interview/proposal process. But that doesn't mean sizeable philosophical differences can't develop during the project.

What I'm wondering is this: how does an architect ensure
that he has a comfortable amount of artistic control over the project? Are there contractual steps that can be taken
to ensure that the "captain of industry" opening up his new course won't become a meddlesome nuisance who wants to
impose unsound design principles on the course's design? ("Come on! I was just at Sawgrass. My new course deserves at least four island greens! And I also saw two greens melded
together at another course. I want you to find a way to
link three greens together. It'll be a first!")

Furthermore, if an architect is near the top of the design profession, how much more leverage is he afforded in this arena? Drawing the only analogy I can think of at the moment, consider successful NFL coaches.  Guys like Parcells, or Jimmy Johnson, etc. Once they got a Super Bowl win under their belt, they usually wanted more control. And they usually got it.

Can succesful architects, who's services are in demand, get  a guarantee of a similar level of artistic license and control? Can they get to a point where they can dictate the terms enough so that they, too, can be both the coach and the GM?

[Jim Thompson]

Craig,

Unlike coaches who stay and continue to develop and be involved with the day to day of the team, architects leave once the course is ready to grow-in.

If you were to hire an architect to build your home, would you write the check and get out of the way or would you want him/her to ask you what you'd like?  I would remind you that the biggest part of developing anything is listening.  Listening to the local market and creating something that meets that need.  You don't get to the top by being a bull in a china shop and demanding things your way.  That approach only works once and tends to leave a very ugly wake.  Building consensus, nurturing the teams goals and foci are the keys to long term / continued improvement and success.  Furthermore, if the interview and mutual discovery phase does not produce a ninety percent match between developer and architect, it is in the interest of both parties to continue their searches.

No way the guy with the checkbook should give absolute control to someone who doesn't have to live with the results.  The return on the architect's time comes at the end of construction; the developer's takes quite a bit longer.  Especially if maximizing real estate is NOT the primary goal.  Take the Parcells approach in context.  Parcells said, "If I'm going to be asked to cook the meal, I'd like to be able to pick the groceries."  In the golf business the architect doesn't cook the meal unless he / she is the end operator.  The operator has to live with the record (P&L) not the architect.

As for the wacky ideas.  If you know your stuff, you should be able to educate others; including the developer to see the potential risks of poor design concepts.  Many times if both parties communicate and listen to each other the results are greater than the individual visions.  

Many will tell you that the shaper, the grow-in super, the owner, etc… influenced and improved the original design.  That’s why it’s so important to spend time on site.  It’s not just to clear up your own ideas of the plan but, to get feedback from others who have spent time on the site.  When you are on site and see a shaper sitting on a parked piece of equipment looking at the grade plan and the land in front of him shaking his head, you’d best go ask him what he’s thinking.  He might just be seeing something you didn’t.  Most times it is the opportunity to do something better.  That’s why so many good architects started on a dozer or a grounds crew.

If you want 100% control, you’d better be willing to be alone and doing everything yourself with your own funding.  You’ll only do it once though; because it doesn’t work.

Cheers!

JT

[Craig_Rokke]

Perhaps I inadvertently came across as suggesting that a
good architect should have the free reign to shove his design down a client's throat. I didn't mean that at at. In fact, I
would suggest that to survive in that business, you must have great people skills and a real knack for selling your ideas.

I more was wondering if anyone out therehas really gotten
to the point where they have an inordinate amount of control
in implementing their designs.

[Matt_Ward]

Craig:

Let me give you something to consider -- I am a writer and I work with someone who is a graphic artist and we service a range of clients.

The reason people hire us is because we have delivered proven products that work -- they are high quality and make money for them. The smart clients understand you hire people because of what they bring to the table. If they stick their nose into everything beyond a degree of reasonableness -- hard to define what that is or when it happens -- then ultimately what's the point in hiring someone?

Smart people understand what they don't know and aren't caught up with such ego that prevents them from admitinng what they don't know. Sometimes the smart play is to surround yourself with even smarter people. Ultimately, the person doing the hiring isn't worried that their precious ego will be shattered. They fully know that what they are going far exceeds anything their limied imaginations can conceive.

[Mark Brown]

I think Pete Dye, Crensaw & Coore and Tom Doak have gotten to the point where they are like a Parcell. One reason Nicklaus, Fazio, Rees Jones etc. don't have as much control because most of their projects are in residential communitys where they can't control everything.

[Joe Hancock]

Since we're all guessing....

My guess is most archies get SOME projects with a lot of control, and other projects with less control. No one gets to a point of total control with every project.

If that were the case, Tom Doak wouldn't have signed up as a collaborater with Nicklaus at Sebonac.....control freaks don't play well with others.

Just an opinion.....

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()