Measuring an Architect's Impact on the Game

[Tim Gavrich]

The recent thread asking for short lists of architects' best/most representative public courses in juxtaposition with this Merion (this is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Merion thread; fear not) business got me thinking.  I don't have exact data or anything, but my humble, conservative educated guess would say that this DG spends about 50% of its time discussing golf courses that probably at least 50% of its participants and 99% of all golfers will never play.  And naturally, a good portion of the architects discussed design mostly for a conclusion consisting of a golf course most people will never play because it's private, or quite expensive to play on a regular basis in the cases when it's a public course (this new Pound Ridge Course being a recent example of that).

When I think of architects under this category, some prominent names come to mind.  From many years ago, I'll give William Flynn as an example of an architect whose golf courses are either private (Shinnecock, Pepper Pike, Indian Creek) or very expensive to play (Upper Cascades, Atlantic City CC).  I was reading a profile of one of Flynn's courses on the "Courses by Country" section of the site earlier and noticed that Flynn is described as "underrated," and could not help but think that that is likely because so few of his courses are available to the public.

Tom Fazio seems to be this way too.  The least expensive-to-play Fazio course I know of is Richmond's Independence GC at $83.50 on the weekends for non-Virginia residents (VSGA card carriers get a $10 break, which to me doesn't seem like too much).  I will concede Independence as a somewhat special case because it houses the VSGA and is known as being very junior-friendly.  But...

How much impact does a dead architect have on the game if most (perhaps over 80% of) golfers will never have the opportunity to play a course he designed?  How much impact does a living architect have on the game if he devotes the vast majority of his time and talent to designing courses that most (perhaps over 80% of) golfers will never have the opportunity to play?

One of our (W&L Golf team) home courses is the Vista Links in nearby Buena Vista (pronounced "Byoo-na Vista" by those who live around here), VA.  It opened about four years ago and charges a maximum of about $45 for 18, cart included.  And on what I assume is a pretty small budget, the golf course is kept in pretty darned good shape almost year-round and is a neat course to boot (I have to take a few more pics of critical holes, then I plan on doing a My Home Course piece about it, perhaps in juxtaposition with Lexington Golf & Country Club, a golf course polar opposite VL, which serves as our other home course).  It is affordable, well-maintained, and functional as a place for those less moneyed to play a couple times per week without going bankrupt.  It's places like Vista Links (Wintonbury Hills in Bloomfield, CT deserves mention as another such golf course) that help to grow the game.  Here's hoping that modern architects build and renovate more golf courses that don't require a six-figure salary (much less a six-figure initiation fee) to play.

Cheers.

--Tim Gavrich

Yeah yeah, I know it's partially about the money, but Pete Dye (with the help of Tim Liddy, at least in the case of Wintonbury) has done it a few times pro bono.  Others can join in.

[John Moore II]

This is a very interesting way to look at things. Maybe the better question is how to measure an architects on the average golfer's game. Because how many architects design very good courses that are accessible to the general golfing public. And by general public, I would say that excludes Bandon, Kiawah, Kohler, and the very high end clubs like that. 
--How many very great clubs, in terms of architecture, are open to the public for under say $150?
--In my mind, that is the nature of impacting the game of golf, at least for the average golfer.

[Jason McNamara]

Tim -

Just to kick this around a bit, a GCA who primarily does private work could have apprentices who ultimately bring many of the same ideas (in differing form, admittedly) to more accessible courses.

Is there also something to those who design more maintenance-intensive private/resort courses, to the extent those influence more mid-market courses?  I realize much of that "keeping up with the Joneses*" occurs after the architect has moved on, just something else to consider.

Jason

*either generically or specifically, in the case.

[JNC Lyon]

I agree with the idea that proteges of great architect can bring the "Good News" to public golf.  Axland and Proctor would be a good example at Wild Horse.  However, generally it is about the money--private clients have more ability to create a course with sophistication.  I know of many good public courses that fall short of greatness because it's clear that they were made to produce fast play and fairness to public golf.  I feel like golf courses are discussed here without regard for whether they are private or public.  But ultimately, an architect will seek to do work at high end resorts and private courses, not because of the money, but because these situations allow him much more creativity.

[Jim Johnson]

--How many very great clubs, in terms of architecture, are open to the public for under say $150?
--In my mind, that is the nature of impacting the game of golf, at least for the average golfer.

I'd go a step further and ask how many very great clubs, in terms of architecture, are open to the public for under say $75? I'm not plopping down $100+ too many times, not in the next little while anyway. 

JJ

[Tim Gavrich]

But ultimately, an architect will seek to do work at high end resorts and private courses, not because of the money, but because these situations allow him much more creativity.

Perhaps, but wouldn't a higher display of creativity be the design of a great golf course knowing full well that there is less superficial sophistication available?  That's what seems to be the case at Vista Links--Rick Jacobson did a very good job with presumably limited resources.  Show me an architect who can so that, and there's an architect well worthy of his position.

JJ--

Exactly.  The answer is "too few."  Pete Dye and Tim Liddy took a step in the right direction with Wintonbury Hills.  Let's hope it all continues.

[Tim Bert]

But ultimately, an architect will seek to do work at high end resorts and private courses, not because of the money, but because these situations allow him much more creativity.

Perhaps, but wouldn't a higher display of creativity be the design of a great golf course knowing full well that there is less superficial sophistication available?  That's what seems to be the case at Vista Links--Rick Jacobson did a very good job with presumably limited resources.  Show me an architect who can so that, and there's an architect well worthy of his position.

JJ--

Exactly.  The answer is "too few."  Pete Dye and Tim Liddy took a step in the right direction with Wintonbury Hills.  Let's hope it all continues.

Tim - I think an equally telling statement is that a $60 twilight fee on a weekday constitues affordable public golf these days.  I applaud the efforts to create Wintonbury and it is a great course to boot, but the 20 or so times I played it I didn't feel like the course was exactly expanding golf to a broader audience.  More likely re-directing the golf starved public in the Hartford area looking for a quality public course.

Mini thread-jack - The rate is still a bit cheaper for Bloomfield residents.  I'd be interested to know if Brad Klein has any stats available for public consumption on the % of the play that comes from Bloomfield vs. surrounding towns.  Has it settled in as a local muni or is it the Simsbury, Windsor, Avon crowd that is playing the course?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

It's possible for even big-name architects to work on "small" projects -- witness Nicklaus' work for the muni in Palm Beach, or our work on the Colorado Golf Association project.  All one needs to do is to take a massive pay cut -- AND to have faith that the client won't turn around and cash in on our names by charging higher green fees after we're through.  It's the latter that keeps most others from doing it.

One could also argue that architects should stay in their own strata.  If Tom Fazio starts doing $3 million public courses, he'll be taking business away from the smaller guys who really need those jobs, and they probably won't get hired to do the big-budget jobs that normally go to Fazio.

[Adam Clayman]

The premise does not ring true due to the propensity to borrow from another architects work. Growing up a muni golfer this truth became evident once I played some greats.

[Patrick Glynn]

Interesting topic. How does on go about defining/measuring just what "Impact on the Game" entails? I think its easier to look at it in the specific case, ie what the Architect did for you, and then perhaps try and generalise it (I understand that this is flawed but I prefer it to the broad sweeping generalisations)

I am not sure if the argument that if only 5-10% of people have played the course, then it can not have any far reaching influences. How many have played Augusta? and yet the change in course conditionings / colour of sands in unquestionable!

For me, when I was 14-15 I had played Lahinch, Portmarnock & Torrey Pines - along with a few local munis that were solid, if not inspiring. However I had never thought about the architecture of the courses, and I admit green speed/conditioning played a big part in how high I hated a course. All this changed on my first trip up to Bandon. I played with Ari Techner and we were schedules to play 19 on PD and another 18 on BD. After my first 18 at Pacific I was so in love with the place, we changed our tee time for Bandon to play another 18 at Pacific. And then went out and played the first 7 again. I loved everything about the place - the natural green sites, the undulating fairways, the firm turf. In short, pretty much everything about Pacific Dunes I loved. It sparked a huge interest in GCA for me; from angles and green contours, to maintenance melds & historic appreciation. I have since made the trip up to Bandon twice more, no mean feat for an Irish student . I have since go on to read pretty much anything I can find on Doak, MacK, OTM, Flynn, Crump, Fownes, Colt, CBM, and am loving this new found appreciation I have for the game. The last 4 names on the list I would not have even heard of if not for the trigger that was Doak/Pacific Dunes.

So does this have any relevance to "The Game" as we know it? I think it does, as I am not unique and I am sure PD&Doak had as much of an effect on countless others. Working at Pasatiempo for the summer, I found the members had a new appreciation for their course & Doak's restoration was so effortlessly seemless that you could not help but stand back and admire.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I'm flattered.  As with your experience, though, the impact of architecture gets transmitted one player at a time (and only maybe one player out of 20 or 100).  For me, it was playing Harbour Town as a kid, and seeing how different it was than Sterling Farms.

By the way, your 5% number is way high.  In its lifetime, Pacific Dunes has hosted maybe 300,000 rounds of golf, and probably 2/3 of them are repeat plays.  So at most it could have made an impact on 100,000 golfers out of the tens of millions who play.  Other than St. Andrews, I doubt any course could possibly have been around long enough to affect 5% of the golfing public.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Slightly on topic, but I recall working at Killian and Nugent when we had a new high budget commission and a much smaller one in rural Wisconsin. By seniority and family reasons, Bob Lohman got to be the big budget job project architect and I got Wisconsin!

They took me aside and told me that in reality, I was having more impact on golf in America by providing something high quality and low cost for a mid level club.

And that there was no such thing as a bad design project.  It was up to me to make something very good out of not a lot to work with.  The more trying the circumstance, the more you can have a positive impact.

I believe that and think that the Floyd Farleys, Bill Diddell, Ralph Plummers etc all have probably had more impact on golf and golfers than the top name guys.  Of course, it depends on how you look at it.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  What was the high budget project you wished you'd got?  And how did your more modest project turn out after the pep talk?

BTW, I don't agree with your conclusion.  Mr. Colt had a lot to do with setting the high standard of golf in England for everyone else to follow.  Dr. MacKenzie did the same for Australia.  The "trickle down" effect of such projects had to be significant.

[Scott Weersing]

The recent thread asking for short lists of architects' best/most representative public courses in juxtaposition with this Merion (this is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Merion thread; fear not) business got me thinking.  I don't have exact data or anything, but my humble, conservative educated guess would say that this DG spends about 50% of its time discussing golf courses that probably at least 50% of its participants and 99% of all golfers will never play.  And naturally, a good portion of the architects discussed design mostly for a conclusion consisting of a golf course most people will never play because it's private, or quite expensive to play on a regular basis in the cases when it's a public course (this new Pound Ridge Course being a recent example of that).

When I think of architects under this category, some prominent names come to mind.  From many years ago, I'll give William Flynn as an example of an architect whose golf courses are either private (Shinnecock, Pepper Pike, Indian Creek) or very expensive to play (Upper Cascades, Atlantic City CC).  I was reading a profile of one of Flynn's courses on the "Courses by Country" section of the site earlier and noticed that Flynn is described as "underrated," and could not help but think that that is likely because so few of his courses are available to the public.

Tom Fazio seems to be this way too.  The least expensive-to-play Fazio course I know of is Richmond's Independence GC at $83.50 on the weekends for non-Virginia residents (VSGA card carriers get a $10 break, which to me doesn't seem like too much).  I will concede Independence as a somewhat special case because it houses the VSGA and is known as being very junior-friendly.  But...

How much impact does a dead architect have on the game if most (perhaps over 80% of) golfers will never have the opportunity to play a course he designed?  How much impact does a living architect have on the game if he devotes the vast majority of his time and talent to designing courses that most (perhaps over 80% of) golfers will never have the opportunity to play?

One of our (W&L Golf team) home courses is the Vista Links in nearby Buena Vista (pronounced "Byoo-na Vista" by those who live around here), VA.  It opened about four years ago and charges a maximum of about $45 for 18, cart included.  And on what I assume is a pretty small budget, the golf course is kept in pretty darned good shape almost year-round and is a neat course to boot (I have to take a few more pics of critical holes, then I plan on doing a My Home Course piece about it, perhaps in juxtaposition with Lexington Golf & Country Club, a golf course polar opposite VL, which serves as our other home course).  It is affordable, well-maintained, and functional as a place for those less moneyed to play a couple times per week without going bankrupt.  It's places like Vista Links (Wintonbury Hills in Bloomfield, CT deserves mention as another such golf course) that help to grow the game.  Here's hoping that modern architects build and renovate more golf courses that don't require a six-figure salary (much less a six-figure initiation fee) to play.

Cheers.

--Tim Gavrich

Yeah yeah, I know it's partially about the money, but Pete Dye (with the help of Tim Liddy, at least in the case of Wintonbury) has done it a few times pro bono.  Others can join in.

Your comment about Fazio got me wondering, does Tom Fazio only design courses which are expensive to play? Are they expensive to play because of the cost of hiring Fazio, building the course and maintaining it?

I would say yes, Fazio courses are expensive because they cost more to build and maintain. But there in only one exception to this "Fazio Rule":


1. World Woods, Pine Barrens and Rolling Oaks, $50 for Sunday, June 1, 2008.

Everything else Fazio has designed is from $85 to $350.

[Jim Nugent]

The great architects give us something to dream about.  Even if we never play their courses, we see Pebble, ANGC, TOC and many other great courses on TV.  Millions of us read about them, in magazines, newspapers and on the internet.  We see them live at tournaments we attend.  I saw Riviera and Olympic Lake that way. 

And from time to time we play some of those courses.  I caddied as a kid, and played on two U.S. Open courses, plus a few more really good classic designs in the St. Louis area.  Also, if I counted right, 3 of Golf Magazine's 10 best in the world are public...7 of the top 20...10 of the top 40 and 14 of the top 50.  So maybe more golfers than you think do play some of the top designs from the top architects. 

Would be interesting to know how many golfers have played a top 100 course in their lives.  Take any legit list you like. 

Last thought: as Doak said, there also is probably a trickle-down effect.  e.g. how many knock-offs are there of the Redan, Alps, Eden, and other templates?  How many less-expensive designs still absorb principles from the greats? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:  What was the high budget project you wished you'd got?  And how did your more modest project turn out after the pep talk?

BTW, I don't agree with your conclusion.  Mr. Colt had a lot to do with setting the high standard of golf in England for everyone else to follow.  Dr. MacKenzie did the same for Australia.  The "trickle down" effect of such projects had to be significant.

Tom,

They were splitting up Forest Preserve National (now George Dunne, I believe) in Tinley Park, IL and Lake Arrowhead in Nekoosa, WI, with me going to the piney northwoods to build an $800K course, vs. a $1.6Mil course near Chicago!  This was 1979-80.  Dunne made the top 100 public course lists for a while.  Don't know if it still does.  On the other hand, I always had a soft spot for Lake Arrowhead, building it myself with a crew of college kids and one oft drunk shaper.  I think it came out pretty well and is an affordable, enjoyable play.

As I said, there are many ways to impact the game.  While Colt set a high standard, as other gca's have as well, it also takes the mid level gca's to bring those concepts and qualities directly to the masses.  Both are important.  Maybe in Colts day, when all construction (except the occaionsal Lido) was pretty straightforward top designs were a real difference maker, perhaps for very little cost. 

Today, would benchmarking to a JN, TF, high cost courses, but at a much lower cost have more impact or less on the most golfers?  Finding a way to create interest for $4M rather than $8M does have a positive impact on the game.  There are probably more positive influences in design today than there ever were in terms of pure numbers of gca's doing good work.  I wonder who borrows from who, but up until the 80's, by and large, there seemed to be a big split in the quality of the high end private club work and the lower end club and muni work.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, I'm glad you've mentioned the old days at K&N. From my travels and observations, the principles that came out of that office have had significant impact on the game. In your (and Jim Engh's) case it's each architect, one at a time, who has built upon what you learned back in your formative years (so to speak) which has had a huge impact on the game (midwest).

After having seen your green complex work at Pioneer, and then hearing interesting reports on the gca at The Highlands, I'm intrigued to see more.

Would you say you are doing things any differently today?

[Tim Gavrich]

Good responses all.

I wasn't thinking about the impact on the game of courses like ANGC that everyone knows even though so few will ever play them.  I did look to gear this more towards the architects.  Scott Weersing's recent comment is exactly what I mean.  Out of the dozens of courses that Fazio has designed, only the World Woods courses seem to fall into that low-price category.  It seems a little disproportionate.  The fact that high-paid lawyers are strongly recommended to do at least certain minumum amount of pro bono work per year is something that keeps the system working, it seems.  It makes things a little better for the "little guy."  I think that much the same concept in golf course architecture would allow for the creation of more low-budget courses for all people (rather than the richest among the rich) to enjoy.

Tom Doak--

I see your point about how if big-name designers started taking lower-profile, lower-pay jobs they'd make things more difficult for the smaller-name architects.  I don't know the golf course architecture market like you do, but suppose every big name was asked to make about one in every ten of his projects more or less a "pro bono" job (e.g. low-rate new public course or renovation of an existing low-rate public course), either by himself or in collaboration with a local architect.  Would such a scenario be viable or would it make things too difficult for the small-time architect even then?

[Ed Oden]

The fact that high-paid lawyers are strongly recommended to do at least certain minumum amount of pro bono work per year is something that keeps the system working, it seems.

Tim, in my experience, very few "high-paid lawyers" do any real pro bono work.  Rather, it is very common for senior lawyers to accept pro bono work and then push it off on junior associates within their firms.  Just because the senior lawyer is the one accepting the pro bono community service award at the annual banquet doesn't mean they actually do the work themselves.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  It provides a great training ground for young lawyers and offers a valuable service to the community at large by dedicating expensive resources to those who might not otherwise be able to afford or access them.  I suspect much the same scenario would play out in golf course architecture.  That is, if pro bono gca became a civic/industry duty, then I'm guessing that most of the work would be done by associates rather than the "name" architect.  While that might not be exactly what you are looking for, it would still accomplish the goal of bringing affordable golf to needy communities.  And it would presumably create opportunities for young architects to develop their craft.  That's a win/win in my book.

Ed

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, I'm glad you've mentioned the old days at K&N. From my travels and observations, the principles that came out of that office have had significant impact on the game. In your (and Jim Engh's) case it's each architect, one at a time, who has built upon what you learned back in your formative years (so to speak) which has had a huge impact on the game (midwest).

After having seen your green complex work at Pioneer, and then hearing interesting reports on the gca at The Highlands, I'm intrigued to see more.

Would you say you are doing things any differently today?

Adam,

Someone else asked that recently and I posted something. I just don't remember what thread that was on, but it should be easy to find. Basically, I think I have more variety in my work now in greens, bunkers, etc.

[Matt Varney]

I feel the architect has a very big impact on the game.  Think about golf course architecture and where we would all be right now if guys like CBM, Ross, Colt, Tilly, Crump the list goes on and on all the way up to the modern architects just said the hell with designing golf courses.

We would have missed out on all these great course designs that for many of us on GCA value as national treasures much like national parks.  Architecture is all about design and aesthetics but, in golf it goes one step further creating a playground for us to play.  The architect's role in any project regardless of name is to create visually stimulating holes that creates a quality routing that will only make the land better than it was before the golf course project started.

Some architects command big fees but, they also have a superb design portfolio and with every project you can expect the bar to be set very high on the finished product deliverable.   
I am currently in the process of developing 2 golf courses in Tennessee with a couple more in the works.  We are working with Pete & P.B. Dye on a mountain course and with Lee Trevino & Jerry Lemons a Nashville based architect on a lake course. 

It woud have been easy to just pick some local architect but, having a great name taking the lead on the course design sets the tone for the whole project.  You only get one chance to make a first impression and in course design / construction if you screw up going back to fix the mistakes takes months maybe a year and cost millions to reshape and renovate a bad course design that nobody wants to play because it is not stimulating or challenging.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Tim G:

I would agree with Ed Oden's response to you.  For the Colorado Golf Association project, I tried diligently to sell the client on just letting my associates design and build the course and put their own names on it.  But, the CGA wanted me (and my name) personally involved, so we did it their way.  I kept the price the same, and took payment for myself in the form of some royalties over the next 20 years, which I can always donate back later if I want to.

I've made three site visits, and will make another in a week or so, but I have certainly let Don and Eric and Jim and Brian Schneider do more of the design work on this project than on some others -- not because of the money so much as because it was their impetus to take the project in the first place.  Unlike pro bono lawyering, I would guess, they are really enthusiastic about the opportunity, and it is showing through in the finished product. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D -

This seems like a good place to ask you -- what has been the most challenging aspect for you of having associates? What I mean is, has the building of your company and your brand been harder from a strictly business perspective, or has the challenge been more personal, i.e. letting go of some of what you used to do and still love doing?

Thanks
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

In some respects "the letting go" has been great for me -- it keeps my life a bit more balanced and prevents me from having any run-ins with clients! 

But, yes, there are parts of the work I miss doing myself.  I love to design greens, but frequently I am letting my associates have the first crack.  I know that when I used to hop on the bulldozer myself and build them, the design had a life of its own, and evolved over a day or two while I was sitting there making one pass at a time and letting my mind wander to other things ... I would start with an idea from say Woking, but after three hours the work in progress suddenly reminded me of Machrihanish, and off I went on a different tangent. 

We have one new project in planning where I may banish them all and take that part of the work back, just to see what I would do from scratch.  We'll see if I can make that happen.

However, I would have to say that taking all the time necessary to run my company has been the main culprit.  The associates all like to try their own hand at stuff, but most of them would still be happy letting me stick my nose into it more often, if I didn't have to be figuring out next year's sites too.

[Matt Varney]

Tom,

I have a few questions for you -

What do you look for in a property that fits your course design style?

Have you have ever designed a course working with a residential developer where the homesites actually had views of your course design (only single loaded not double loaded on both sides)?

Do you feel that great course design along with residential development can mix well like at a course like Cuscowilla or Wade Hampton?