Ideal Number of Site Visists?

[Mark_F]

Golf World's Biennial ranking of the best courses in GB and Ireland has landed in newsagents here today, and there is this little gem in their 'Five courses to Watch" section.

In briefly describing Doonbeg, they mention that Greg Norman was so taken with the site he made an "unprecedented 27 site visits".

My initial reaction was what a joke - both at Golf World for thinking that 27 site visits required the use of such an adjective, and Norman for making only 27 site visits to a property he thought was out of this world and represented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, ad nauseum, wank-wank etc, etc.

However, is this being unfair on Mr Norman?

Is it possible to craft a brilliant course with 27 site visits?

Because this obviously does not take into account the possibly countless number of hours he spent hunched over his desk working on the finer details.  Maybe his 27 site visits were from the crack of dawn to the last of the day's light.

I guess the answer is similar to those "honey, does my bum look too big in this?" questions, but if Doonbeg is such a magnificent piece of land, how many site visits would would be about right?

[Matthew Mollica]

Hi Mark,

Interesting subjective question, which I'm sure will evoke various different objective answers, from a range of respondants.

I'm sure there's a minimum amount of time any architect would like to spend on site. As to how far in excess of this one goes, would vary wildly IMHO.

It would have to vary with the eventual course quality, the type of site, and the size and skill of the team with whom the architect closely worked, as well as the philosophy and work ethic of the respective architect.

I do know that the Doonbeg site was up front in Norman's mind, for a long time. He was talking about it years ago, and unreservedly said that it was the best site he'd worked on to date, and that it may in fact be the best site he'll ever get to work on. I believe he meant this, and didn't just pump up the site for marketing purposes. He said the above in a small personal gathering while at another course site in Australia.

However long Norman spent at Doonbeg, the results speak for themselves, with the course being excellent, from all early indications ...

I find it interesting that Norman is reported as visiting Doonbeg 27 times. I regularly play a Greg Norman Design (GND) course, and could confidently say that he was at the site on significantly fewer than 27 occasions. I do know however, that his design team, most noteably Bob Harrison, virtually lived on course, for a long, long time.

No doubt, many GND courses bear small touches from Greg himself, while others may be primarily his own work.

Consequently, this too must have a large bearing on how many occasions an architect finds himself on site.

As many Aussies will attest, MacKenzie spent extremely short times on some courses, and the results in several instances are sensational. That's gonna throw a wrench in the works for this post...

I'm very interested to see what others say. Good stuff Mark !

Matthew

[TEPaul]

Matthew said:

"As many Aussies will attest, MacKenzie spent extremely short times on some courses, and the results in several instances are sensational. That's gonna throw a wrench in the works for this post..."

Not necessarily! As both contributors implied, to answer a question like how many site visits is the best amount for any course or any architect of primary attribution one would have to know a lot about any architectural company and the way they operate. That would take knowing a lot more about others like a project manager (foreman), the crews etc.

Various companies have so many different modus operandis with their creations. Some work very specifically to detailed plans and some do much more interpreting as they go day to day. There's definitely no single best way!

It's probably far more important to analyze the interworkings of project personnel and entities like the American Construction Co at Cypress, the foreman and team Ross may have assembled on various projects, the way Flynn kept iterating plans that eventually were constructed as drawn, the way C&C & the Boys interpret as they go, same with Hanse, Doak and their crews. Or maybe a situation like Shadow Creek where the vision of the owner may have been unusually central to the creation of the course.

Site visits from the primary architect definitely can't tell you exactly what you think it can. My take on visiting various sites, though, tells me that whomever is on site and when, it gets down to a lot of day to day problem solving. If there's someone on site day to day who can do that (whether the primary architect or someone else), things go fairly well. When a primary architect shows up occasionally and things have gone differently then he visualized and sort of gotten beyond him in the logical process of construction that's when things get complicated and probably may not work out well in the end somehow. That's probably how cost can rise needlessly too.

And at the other end of the spectrum there are the courses like Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia, Oakmont, NGLA, Pinehurst where it's known the primary architect spent inordinate amounts of time on site, sometimes even years, and in those cases it pretty generally shows positively in the results of the eventual architecture.

[RJ_Daley]

I think the most important time that the architect spends on the site is in the discovery and routing phaze.  It is like falling in love.  Enfatuation, followed by courting, and finally the consumation, (admittedly a somewhat 'old fashion concept' )  I think that the designer must spend long periods on the raw land, walking it over and over, finding routes and features to be used in green sites.  After getting to intimately know the ground, then perhaps if the archie is organized with his own crew or must co-ordinate with a GC construction entity from a bid process, the time spent depends on how well the construction entity or team can interpret the designer/archies plans.  I think it is most important in the discovery-routing that the most time is spent on site if the construction entity is competent and has its own man there constantly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Could one make a case that the number of site visits could be inversely proportionate to the talent of the architect ?

[Slag Bandoon]

 How many "arm waves" does it take to qualify as a site visit?

Mark F., What are the other 4 to "watch"?

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

I don't know if Greg Norman actually made 27 site visits to Doonbeg and, if so, how many were made prior to permitting approval.

The property owner who provided most of the land shared with me his scrap book with many pictures of Greg and his family. Clearly, Norman was enthusiastic about the property and made enough visits to impress the Pender family.

Based on four site visits, including one before any work was done, I still feel the site wasn't that great to begin with and that the Norman marketing folks have applied their fair share of hype.

Actually, when I first walked the property, two things stood out: while I could imagine sites for tees and greens, there didn't seem to be many natural landing areas in the sand dunes. In that sense, the property seemed disadvantaged relative to Lahinch just up the road. Then, too, the flat land behind the sand dunes didn't offer attractive views.

Beides the challenges inherent in the site itself, my sense is that Norman initially erred on the side of difficulty. I remember having conservations with personnel on site about certain shots suggesting that Greg Norman could play them, but I doubt the typical 18 handicapper could. During one visit, a local fellow from Limerick with a game about this level told me he would play the course......once. My impression, as I returned for subsequent inspections, was that the course risked being a brute that lacked charm, a course everyone would play once but not feel so anxious to return.

I realize you didn't mean this thread to be a review of Doonbeg and really don't mean to do that. What I am saying is that while clearly Norman thought highly of the site, it really
wasn't that easy to work with and needed adjustments (a reality check) during the construction process.

So, it could well be that Norman (or lead design associates) spent a far amount of time on site.

[redanman]

Given that Pete Dye lived on many a site, it is likely he might suggest "daily".

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't think the number of site visits is inversely proportional to talent!

I also think that 27 visits by Norman would be some kind of a record for tour pros involved in design.  I presume his associates made at least twice, and probably three times as many.

I have made as few as a dozen, with associates making more, and as many as 100 (such as at the Quarry).  We probably average, as a firm, 45 visits per 18 hole project.  The number of visits any architect makes to a project, quite frankly, probably reflects his schedule and his personal interest in the project.

One thing missing from the discussion is the productivity of the site visit.  I like to have several shapers on hand, and have the work concentrate on fine shaping while I am there.  The good construction companies bend over backwards to make this time productive.  On one project with LUI, I ended up staying over Memorial Day Weekend, just because they had brought in some shapers, and I wanted to see the finished results before going home.

Occaisionally, a construction foremand seems to go out of his way to make sure they are working on anything but shaping the day I am there!  I don't know what they think they gain, but usually its a power trip, and later, we hear, "If you want changes, you should have asked for them last month."  Of course, last month, it was," We aren't working on this area, you'll have to get to that next month."

I also hate when corporate conglomerates take up my site time with meetings, designed to fill their schedule, where I spend most of my time explaining to them whats going on, rather than working one on one with shapers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

The number of site visits can be a function of the architects style.  Some like to delegate, some like getting involved in micro management, and details.

As you indicated, the number of site visits may also be impacted by his involvement with other projects, and their locations.

An increasing number of site visits doesn't guarantee that the product incrementally benefits from those visits.

The number of site visits by Donald Ross would seem to support that theory.

There is no set answer, each property and each project have their own unique requirements.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I guess I tried to imply that I like to get involved mostly in the shaping and grading details.  I also like to edge my own bunkers, and usually, fine tune clearing lines on wooded sites, since I have some definite ideas on that.  As an idea guy, I am often better off sending a trusted associate to check catch basin grades, etc. that are as much engineering as artistic.  Its not that I can't, but my time is best spent getting the finished product right.  Also, rank has privelge, and I want to do the fun stuff!

I'm not sure the number of site visits to different projects by Ross proves anything. although Brad Klein might have something to say.  I think Ross experts do, in fact, notice a difference in courses he spent a lot of time on versus his paper jobs.  Certainly, Pinehurst, which benefitted not only from constant tinkering and visits, but also from presumably and evolution of Ross' thinking over the years is one such example.

The other problem (as I see it) with your statement is that we can never know if some of the Ross paper jobs or one visit jobs wouldn't have been better had he been there more, or at more opportune times.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I agree, but we also don't know how many might have been the worse off for his foray into the details.

I think the construction management of the creative side of an architects design is open to their particular style.
Some enjoy wallowing in the details, others abhor it.  

I don't believe that there is a set answer, and that each architect makes decisions weighing all factors at the particular site/project and the balance of their work in progress.

Sooner or later the law of diminishing returns has to insert its influence.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have seen the diminishing returns theory in effect.

Sometimes, during site visits, either me or an associate, wanting to get things "just right" overdo it.  Once a shaper said, "I think we already had it this way - twice!"  One rule I have is, "If I am the only one who will know the difference if we change it, then we won't change it."

As you allude, there needs to be a mixture of concept and technical guys/gals in every office to be truly functional.  Of course, that assumes they each do what they do best.  There is always pressure to let everyone conceptualize, as its fun.  There is also benefit in getting different opinions.  But, trying to take a creative person and make him a construction manager is usually akin to putting the proverbial round peg in a square hole.  Most of my associates over time have been better at one or the other.

[Forrest Richardson]

I like Jeff B.'s number. Recently I've used 50 as a magic number after construction begins, although there is honestly no such magic number. Clients want to know, however. It depends on who is building the course, who is in charge, and the tupe of course. A "plans driven" project, i.e, one on relatively flat land, no vegetation, etc. may require less sits visits as the bulk of work takes place in between visits. On the converse, a very wooded site with interesting topo and character, plus clearing and grading that cannot be anticipated on plans, may require weekly -- or even daily -- visits. I've made as many as 100 and as few as 30.

[Forrest Richardson]

By the way...have you all noticed how Jeff B.'s posts are very often multiple, often a few in succession? Is this how he has amassed 400+ posts?!

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci,

Yes, I guess you could. And also inversely proportionate to how good the land is too, I would say.  And how many courses you have designed would have to have some effect too.  And how many great courses you've seen and studied?

But then again, doesn't the last give an infinite advantage to the modern architect?  After all, MacKenzie, Ross and Colt et al didn't have the advantage of studying the great classics.  Or did they?  

Whilst we're talking  inverse proportionates, could you say that the better a golfer, the worse the architect?  And why?

Mark,

Could one make a case that the number of site visits could be inversely proportionate to the talent of the architect ?

[Tom Fischer]

Mark:

Could you list the top 15 or 20 courses for those of us who don't have access to the magazine?  Thanks.

[Mark_F]

Matthew,

That would be The Moonah course, I presume?

Interesting that you say he spent significantly less than 27 days.  Does that make it a Greg Norman course, or a Bob Harrison course?

Did Norman actually get to pick his site first over Thomson/Wolveridge?    

Hi Mark,

Interesting subjective question, which I'm sure will evoke various different objective answers, from a range of respondants.

I'm sure there's a minimum amount of time any architect would like to spend on site. As to how far in excess of this one goes, would vary wildly IMHO.

It would have to vary with the eventual course quality, the type of site, and the size and skill of the team with whom the architect closely worked, as well as the philosophy and work ethic of the respective architect.

I do know that the Doonbeg site was up front in Norman's mind, for a long time. He was talking about it years ago, and unreservedly said that it was the best site he'd worked on to date, and that it may in fact be the best site he'll ever get to work on. I believe he meant this, and didn't just pump up the site for marketing purposes. He said the above in a small personal gathering while at another course site in Australia.

However long Norman spent at Doonbeg, the results speak for themselves, with the course being excellent, from all early indications ...

I find it interesting that Norman is reported as visiting Doonbeg 27 times. I regularly play a Greg Norman Design (GND) course, and could confidently say that he was at the site on significantly fewer than 27 occasions. I do know however, that his design team, most noteably Bob Harrison, virtually lived on course, for a long, long time.

No doubt, many GND courses bear small touches from Greg himself, while others may be primarily his own work.

Consequently, this too must have a large bearing on how many occasions an architect finds himself on site.

As many Aussies will attest, MacKenzie spent extremely short times on some courses, and the results in several instances are sensational. That's gonna throw a wrench in the works for this post...

I'm very interested to see what others say. Good stuff Mark !

Matthew

[Mark_F]

Slag,
Turnberry's Kintyre course, The Devlin course at St Andrews Bay, The O'Meara course at Carton House in Ireland, and Queenwood in Surrey.

Anyone have any info/opinions on any of these?

 How many "arm waves" does it take to qualify as a site visit?

Mark F., What are the other 4 to "watch"?

[Mark_F]

Tom Fischer,
No worries.
1)Muirfield
2)RCD
3)Turnberry
4)St. Andrews
5)Birkdale
6)Loch Lomond
7)Portmarnock
8)Royal Portrush
9)Woodhall Spa
10)Ballybunion Old
11)Sunningdale Old
12)Carnoustie
13)kingsbarns
14)Ganton
15)Royal Dornoch - Travesty alert!
16)Royal St Georges
17)Gleneagles Kings
18)Walton Heath Old
19)Wentworth west - Value for money alert!
20)Troon
21)European Club
22)Royal Lytham
23)Waterville
24)Royal Liverpool
25)Notts
26)Swinley Forest
27)County Louth
28)sunningdale new
29)Saunton east
30)Lahinch -

Mark:

Could you list the top 15 or 20 courses for those of us who don't have access to the magazine?  Thanks.

[Mark_F]

Tim Weiman,
Maybe Greg Norman just gets excited over severe land?
 
The pictures on the club's website certainly make it seem exactly as you point out; the rough looks horrendous.

Mark Fine:

I don't know if Greg Norman actually made 27 site visits to Doonbeg and, if so, how many were made prior to permitting approval.

The property owner who provided most of the land shared with me his scrap book with many pictures of Greg and his family. Clearly, Norman was enthusiastic about the property and made enough visits to impress the Pender family.

Based on four site visits, including one before any work was done, I still feel the site wasn't that great to begin with and that the Norman marketing folks have applied their fair share of hype.

Actually, when I first walked the property, two things stood out: while I could imagine sites for tees and greens, there didn't seem to be many natural landing areas in the sand dunes. In that sense, the property seemed disadvantaged relative to Lahinch just up the road. Then, too, the flat land behind the sand dunes didn't offer attractive views.

Beides the challenges inherent in the site itself, my sense is that Norman initially erred on the side of difficulty. I remember having conservations with personnel on site about certain shots suggesting that Greg Norman could play them, but I doubt the typical 18 handicapper could. During one visit, a local fellow from Limerick with a game about this level told me he would play the course......once. My impression, as I returned for subsequent inspections, was that the course risked being a brute that lacked charm, a course everyone would play once but not feel so anxious to return.

I realize you didn't mean this thread to be a review of Doonbeg and really don't mean to do that. What I am saying is that while clearly Norman thought highly of the site, it really
wasn't that easy to work with and needed adjustments (a reality check) during the construction process.

So, it could well be that Norman (or lead design associates) spent a far amount of time on site.

[Forrest Richardson]

Greg has a very convenient system of transportation which allows him a grand advantage. This would be important if you had many other diversions that just design. I applaud him for making so many visits. Most others would probably have lived on site for long periods I suppose.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I think that CBM and Donald Ross might take issue with your theory on golfer/architects.

[Mark_Fine]

Just so you guys know, this is NOT my thread!  Mark_F is not me!  

[Matt Dupre]

No one seems to have brought up the business "aspects" of site visits - the more businesslike architects (i.e. the ones with rather far-flung "empires") have a fixed number of site visits included in their agreements with the developer (along with the requisite Grand Opening).  Any other visits are charged at time and expense (quite a bit when one's flying around on a private jet) and come out of the development budget.  In that case, the number of visits the architect makes may be purely a dollars and cents issue as opposed to a "love of the land/project" one.

That being said, Norman's visiting Doonbeg 27 times in light of all the other things Great White Shark Enterprises is involved with, along with an albeit reduced playing schedule, to me is a major indication of his commitment to the project.  While that may not equate to great design, truth-in-advertising won't become an issue....

As an aside, I've really enjoyed reading through numerous threads from 2002 during this holiday downtime, and hope that everyone has an even more enjoyable 2003 (where golf is concerned and where it's not).

Matt