[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - thanks.

I've written and erased this post 3 times, which probably means I should just leave it alone for a while.

Very interesting thoughts, even if I limit their relevance just to golf course architecture....

Thanks
P

[Tom_Doak]

I've always believed that the main Dividing Line is between Planners (who think they can solve the whole design on paper) and Builders (who let the design evolve significantly in the field during construction).

In that light, I believe that Builders have the advantage that their design is evolving on an everyday basis during construction.  In our case we have anywhere from 3 to 8 sets of experienced eyes out there building the features of the course ... and I think when you have that sort of attention to detail that it's less likely you are going to see the need to make changes soon after the course is finished.

I'm not sure there is ever such a thing as "nailing" a design but I think it's more likely that some designers second-guess themselves too much.  I have seen plenty of greens evolve for the better during construction, but I have yet to see one where a client didn't like the first version and the second take turned out better.

As for building in room to expand, it's hard to do nowadays -- in general, if we have left any opportunities on the table to extend a course, the client would prefer that we just go ahead and build those tees while we are at it.  I've always prided myself on trying to be efficient with space, because more acres = more money; but the more efficient you are, the less room you've left to expand.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thanks.

Has it played out that way with the old greats and their best courses? What I mean is, over the long term, has there been any signicant difference in how the courses of the ODGs who were "builders" have fared compared to the courses by the ODGs who were "planners"?

Thanks
P

[paul cowley]

Peter....much of my advocacy for change is echoed by the ODG's design approach and exhibited in the best of what the ODG's produced.

Given the opportunity, many of them changed not only their immediate predecessor's work, but the work of their current competitors all the time.

One of the best known among them was even paid to go on a national tour promoting change.

Wouldn't that be a fantasy job in the tough times ahead?


Tom....I agree with you about Planners vs Builders.....which is why I advocate for the combined Planner/Builder model as the most complete form among those designing and building today.

[paul cowley]

Kelly....I live in south Georgia.

Love Golf Design is similar to Tom Doaks in that we design/build, project manage, employ our own shapers and feature people, or direct general contractors....all primarily to be able to control the entire planning, design and construction process....which would include the 'feature work' as you describe it.

The weather does change quite a bit in both of the locales you mentioned...its far from boring.

[Tom_Doak]

Hey, Paul, I'm glad you are seeing the light but I think it's fair to point out that I've got seven associates who have all worked on my payroll for between 7 and 16 years, and they are the ones who do a lot of the shaping -- that's not quite the same arrangement as Love Golf Design.

I believe it's an important distinction, too; if I didn't, I would have a lot fewer worries and a lot more cash in my own bank account.

[paul cowley]

Tom....I admire your model and I think you know that. I think it's unique to this business and a credit to your foresite.  Your commitment to your associates and interns is commendable and I hope it repays itself squared.

That said,  I think both our organizations are 'builders', as you describe them, and foremost strive to get it right in the field.

Something tells me that Kelly has a problem with that comparison.

Or maybe just me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()