How much do architects really improve over the course of their careers?

[CHrisB]

Golf is a game of constantly seeking improvement. Players of every level are always trying to find any way they can to improve some aspect of their game.

But how do golf course architects "improve"? And how much do they improve over the course of their careers?

How much better was Ross in 1946 than he was in 1920? How much better is Doak now than he was when he was doing High Pointe? And just how are they "better" at what they do later in their careers than in the beginning?

(Or are they no better than they ever were, but because of early successes, they just get better projects and pieces of land to work with?)

Some architects produce some of their best work early in their careers, then simply reproduce those ideas in their later work.

Are there historical examples of architects who produced average work for a while but then at some point "got it", and then started producing outstanding designs?

[Forrest Richardson]

174%.

[BCrosby]

It's petty clear that MacKenzie got better as he got older. His best years were the five or six years at the end of his life.

Cypress, RM, Pasa, Crystal Downs and Augusta National - that's one heck of a way to ring down the curtain.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:

The answer to your question would depend on how smart the architect is, and how much more work he takes on.

I'm not sure I've gotten a lot better at "design", really ... most of the courses I've seen which influenced me, I saw before I was 25 (except the Australian courses which I saw when I was 27).

What I have improved at:

a)  I'm more practiced on how to build beautiful bunkers and interesting greens, how to make natural-looking clearings, and other construction skills.  Practice makes perfect.

b)  There are a few new issues ... how to use backgrounds better in routing the course, how to hide mowing lines and cart paths ... which I didn't think about much at High Pointe, but which I understand well today.

c)  I keep attracting more good people to work for me.

d)  I'm better at the people part of the business -- talking to and understanding my clients, and collaborating with all of the people it takes to build a great golf course.

However, most of us take all this improvement and "dilute" it somewhat by taking on more work than we used to get, so that we don't spend as much quality time on any one course.  (That's why Crump and Hugh Wilson and some of the one-timers were so good, they focused exclusively on that one project.)  MacKenzie rarely ever spent a lot of time on a single project, so his work does not appear diluted later on when he got busy.

I believe I have improved enough to keep up the quality level even as we've taken on more work, but I know there is a limit ... if I said yes to even half the calls we get, there is no way I could spend as much time as I need to on each of them.

[Lester George]

I'm much better today than I was yesterday....

Seriously, like Tom D, I feel practice goes a long way.  I try to never design the same type of look twice or keep things the same.  Itell my associates to challenge things, ask questions, keep it fresh, so on.  

I think after 20 years I'm better at building because there isn't much I haven't experienced or talked to colleagues about as far as construction techniques and practices.  You learn from mistakes, but you also learn by being creative and innovative and taking some risk.  

I know my plans keep getting more sophisticated because we are in such a dynamic environment.  I haven't heard anyone tell me to "get it to us when you can" lately.  

I have always been comfortable at planning and routing, but I still concentrate on it highly because you can not fix a bad routing.  I am trying new things, but I still stick to whats brung me.  

I am also still experimenting with texture, color, location of different turf types to make the courses more aesthtically enticing.  

Any architect who is doing the same thing he was doing last week, last month or last year is treading water.  There are only two choices from there, sink or swim.  

Not a philosophy lesson, just an opinion.  For me, if not doing or trying something different, I hardly feel I can improve.  You should get better or do something else.  

Lester

[cary lichtenstein]

I think the biggest leap from bad to good has been Nicklaus

[TEPaul]

This is a question I'd like to see Kelly Blake Moran's answer to. It seems like this is a question he frequently deals with when he speaks and from personal experience I see him almost constantly considering this question. Not just that but any current architect who has a willingness to really analyze what Max Behr wrote gets my vote as an architect who's constantly thinking about improvement and increased understanding. The old adage---"remember to always know what you don't know" gets my vote as something that even the best should keep in the back of their minds too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think it depends on the architect of course.  Everything Lester says is true. Whenever I think I have improved my work a little bit, I find others have improved theirs a lot.

The real key to improving not mentioned yet is the ability to tell owners "it costs what it costs."  This is not to say thay we should convince them to blow money on waterfalls, or whatever, but most beginning archies work suffers from poor funding for the basics.  You get a lot better when you learn that budgets can often be flexible, at least enough to get adequate irrigation, drainage, etc.

Also, as Lester says, if you don't try anything new, you can't get better. On the other hand, if you try new things you are going to make mistakes.  So, I guess the key is not making the SAME mistakes.  Yet, I see many architects building the exact same thing when it looks horrible and doesn't play well.  Either they don't know, or don't care.

The vast majority of us don't fall in that category.  I am afraid of EVER falling into the "mail it in" category.

[paul cowley]

....I'm still traveling the 'the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know' highway.......no end in site [thank God].

[TEPaul]

"So TEP, know what you don't know about Max Behr, my friend!"

redanman:

Because I said any architect who is willing to study what Behr wrote gets my vote do you think that's the same thing as me saying I know everything there is to know about Max Behr?

Maybe you see that in my remark but I'm afraid I don't.    

[Lester George]

Jeff,

A good point, indeed.  I'm much more convincing (forceful?) at demonstrating to clients that spending the appropriate amount of money will serve them better in the long run.

I have a way of gently reminding most clubs that had they done their last project correctly, they wouldn't need me now.  They really appreciate the "tough love" approach.  What they don't like is sunshine blown in their ear.

Conversely,  I (like TD), believe that through the many years of scar tissue from slaying the dragons, I have learned how to handle people better and more importantly when to turn on the charm or ratchet down the ego.  

Most clients appreciate an architect who is willing to lead the pack.  They expect him to be the "authority" and will give him that responsibility if he earns their respect and trust.

Getting back to the original question,  If you're not improving, you're doing something else.  The minute you lose the passion to improve, you better move on.  I am certain that applies to any profession.  

Lester  

[TEPaul]

redanman:

Thank you. As far as knowing all there is to know about Max Behr and his philosophy about golf and architecture, I'm sure that will always be a virtual impossibility---at least for me no matter how much of him I've read or contemplate. I think, like some others do, that his message or his philosophy about golf and architecture was completely awesome (he looked into how it at least affected "man" (the golfer) more deeply by a mile than anyone else ever has, in my opinion) but the irony is his style of writing was so bizarre it makes that fact everlastingly less than apparent. The real poser to me is if Behr's writing style had been more easily understood would those who did have an influence on golf and architecture been more likely to listen to what he was saying and do something about it?

[BCrosby]

Lester says:

"Most clients appreciate an architect who is willing to lead the pack.  They expect him to be the "authority" and will give him that responsibility if he earns their respect and trust."

I think that hits the nail on the head.

There have been lots of debates here about architectural "responsibility".  

There is a school on gca that says it's never the archtitect's fault, that the club dictates its desired outcomes and the architect functions something like a design order-taker, simply carrying out the wishes of his paymaster.

There is another school that says good architects take responsibility, lead the pack and act as authorities when it comes to design questions.

I have never understood why architects would want their names associated with projects of the first type and why they wouldn't always insist that their commissions be of the second type.

Bob

     

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lester,

Another way to answer the improvement question, besides the comment about learning to lead them to wise spending, is perhaps learning how to pick your clients!  We probably have all taken clients that we know will be less than ideal if work is slow.

As to an gca's status on a project, obviously, any club that interviews restoration specialists, or big name archies, or even respected regional archies, goes in with the attitude repsecting their opinion and letting them lead.

I think that most of us went through a period when we started of being hired because we are cheap.  That implies that the client doesn't respect what a gca can do for him, but thinks its a necessary evil, perhaps just to back up the greens chairman, or whatever.  I know some of my first jobs came at the recommendation of a contractor, which reinforced that opinion.

I also think there is a split between gca's on how to charge for renovation work - some do it for relatively low fees to fill in between new courses, while those who do it as their primary work have to charge a renumerative fee.  Of course, the newbies are always less expensive.  My point is the amount of fee paid probably helps set club expectations of leading, as well.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  I agree with pretty much everything you have said, except for the last sentence, at least as it applies to new work.

As your fees get higher, you are dealing with clients who are can afford those fees -- rich and powerful people who are used to having their say.  They expect you to be the authority, but you'd better lead well, because they will jump all over a weak answer.

Bob Crosby:

You haven't dealt with clubs very much, have you?  Of course we would prefer for clubs to listen to everything we have to say with respect for our knowledge, but believe me, there are some members who question our every move, no matter what we are charging or what the quality of the golf course at which we're consulting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

No disagreement there, Tom.  There are always people challenging you, your knowledge, your authority, etc.  Higher fees not only increase the expectation of leading, but also leading well, as you say.

I hate to say it, but this could cynically be stated as "Architects learn to BS clients with more authority in their voice".

I wonder if the frequent visitors to this board realize just how much "input" gca types get, rather than assuming that we have a free hand, as it should ideally be.

At lunch, I was musing that most of my best projects, like those in Minnesota were those where I had a comparitively free hand, as the Owners trusted me, and yet didn't really know a lot about golf.

[Dan Kelly]

I wonder if the frequent visitors to this board realize just how much "input" gca types get....

I don't.

Do tell.

[BCrosby]

Tom/Jeff -

Understood and agreed. I'm sure you get lots of "input" from lots of sources during a project. My point is that you can't be happy about that (usually). And if it gets too bad, I suspect at some point you would rather to walk away than have your name associated with a project where there were unacceptable limits on your control.

Bob



 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder if the frequent visitors to this board realize just how much "input" gca types get....

I don't.

Do tell.

Yeah, I always thought this job would be easier without clients!  They do seem to be a necessary evil, and naturally, we get along with some better than others. It would take a lot for me to actually walk off a job. Its not a matter of ego - at some point we probably have a contract saying we have to produce a product, so its not easy to walk away.  Its easier to have a personality that rolls with the punches a bit.

To get back on topic, I also haven't seen a reply that says, each individual gca may have an upper limit to his/her talent! There is a natural design type personality, but no guarantee that someone with an engineering or other personality won't get in the business and sell some projects.

For them, improvement may be almost impossible. Yes, experience helps, but if they are poor players or non golfers, they may repeat the same mistakes.  If they are artistically challenged, even trying to copy a masterpiece green or feature may be tough - some people can think creatively, and others naturally don't. So, there will be a limit to how creative they can be, no matter how much experience.

[Lester George]

Jeff,

There you go again, making another excellent point.  

I totally believe I have encountered architects who have reached their ultimate level of creativity and design talent.  When I can tell an architects work from an airplane by the shapes and holes, something is wrong.(I've done this on two occasions, not that I right everytime)

Anyway, some people will never get beyond a certain creative level.  Again, I think this is true in all professions.  

I just got out of a meeting with Andy and Glenn (my associates) where we were discussing a really cool opportunity for a somewhat unique green at a club we are renovating.  there was alot of energy and excitement in the discussion until we remembered the client.  It was like dumping cold water on us.  

We came to the realization that this particular client would never undersatnd or appreciate this green for what it was, only criticize it for being different.  Now, if I really want to build this green, I will debate, rationalize, demonstrate and sell every reason why this green should be on their golf course.  But they'll grind my edges down to the bone challenging my "authority", sanity, judgement, etc. using terms like "integrity" of the course, "traditional design", "not like the other holes", sound familiar.

As Tom said, they'll question every answer and answer every question.  You had better be able to lead because they will challenge everything.  And, in most cases, it's the lower end clients who expect more for less.  They want more input, even though they know you have worked at far more prestigous places, and they want more of your time because they think you are too expensive anyway.  Funny how that works.  

And just for the record, I have "fired" four clients in my career.  All were people who thought they new more than I did and were clearly not going to listen.  

The first time it happened was my very first job I ever got.  It was a $25,000 contract to design a 9 hole par three course.  I thought I was rich.  The very day after the contract was signed and the deposit sent, my client started compaining about paying surveyors to establish a benchmark.  I returned the deposit check, made the client sign a release and walked away, knowing I would soon starve.  

The last time I did it was last year on a 36 hole project, same kind of person.  In all cases, I always felt like if I couldn't control the outcome of the project, I shouldn't put my name on it.  Now I am so glad to have "fired" those people.  I believe that if you define your projects in life, you are better off than if your projects define you.  

Sorry for the rant.  Cheers.

Lester

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lester,

Rant away friend!

I agree with your last statement, but my mentors were a bit more optimistic than you, I suppose, and passed that on to me. How, they asked, do you know ahead of time that a project will be bad?  

I grant you, sometimes you can smell the bad clients, ones without money, etc. a mile away.  However, sometimes, the ones I thought would be bad turned out good, and the ones I thought would be good turned out bad.  Projects I thought would never get past the routing stage got built, and slam dunks that should have got built never got off the ground.

Maybe my "client radar" needs a little adjusting!

[Dan Kelly]

Do you guys ever get any good ideas from your clients?

----

Interesting point, Jeff, about reaching the limits of one's talents. It's absolutely no doubt true about writers; no reason it shouldn't be true about designers, of golf courses or anything else.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Do you guys ever get any good ideas from your clients?

----

Do people ever get struck by lightning?  Does the moon ever eclipse the sun?

Of course we do, with about the same frequency!

Interesting about writers talent. I have heard of writers who only had "one good book" in them, as well as one hit wonder songwriters/singers.  In recent times, I can't think of any gca types that have only one good course and fall off the map.....

[paul cowley]

 Its always interesting how other firms work....ours seems to get involved in the client relationship very early as we usually provide or collaborate on the conceptual master plan, not only as it pertains to golf but the project as a whole, i.e. structure, feasibility, demographics etc......usually by the time we break ground, we have a good working relationship.
...I try to not go much beyond the pink flag phase, and call it or cull it out as early as possible .....so far we have enjoyed generally excellent relationships with clients based on trust, teamwork and understanding.....................re-reading this, I think I might pink flag it as too good [but true ]

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  Some of the courses I've been proudest of were projects where the client pretty much had no input other than to do our best work.  But in all of those instances, it's driven me crazy for years afterward because they don't understand what they have, and don't do a good job maintaining it.  (I won't name names here, most people are well aware of 2-3 which fit the description.)  So be careful what you wish for!

Also, I like your mentors' perspective.  A project will almost always turn out bad if you're convinced it will do so; a positive attitude goes a long way.  I know Mike Clayton and Bruce Hepner walked away from their first site visit to Barnbougle Dunes saying that it was a great piece of land, but that it would never happen ... fortunately we hung around long enough to find the right combination to make it happen.

Paul:  I've often thought that the relationships between a "name" pro and his clients are entirely different than what the rest of us deal with; the clients are more acutely aware of wanting the pro to be happy having his name on the course at the end of the day, whereas with Jeff or Lester or me they just want it to be done with.    Jack Nicklaus' associates have been really surprised at Sebonack just how involved Mr. Pascucci has been in our design decisions; the majority of their clients just let them run with things.  But I would argue that Sebonack is a better product BECAUSE Michael has been very involved ... and after all it really is his money we're spending, so he ought to like the finished product.