[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

process of modifying his own design ?

Do architects inherently resist altering their initial design ?

Is it an admission that they got it wrong the first time ?

Or is it an indication that they're capable of critical analysis and introspection when it comes to there work ?

How many courses have a hole that's substantively changed within two years of opening ? 

[JESII]

I don't know any of the answers, but if an architect is incapable of objectively analyzing their own work and improving upon it if and when requested they should not be in business too long.

Look at the best courses in the States...many took years of evolution. After all, the 18th green at Pine Valley had a pimple/boil in it that you would not believe...

[jeffwarne]

my experience has been the opposite...
and they like to charge for it
seems like the redo ought to be free-particularly when it's their idea

[Ian_L]

Is it an admission that they got it wrong the first time ?

Just because a hole could be better doesn't mean the architect got it wrong the first time.  I don't think there's a catch-all answer here.

[Tony Ristola]

1. process of modifying his own design ?

2. Do architects inherently resist altering their initial design ?

3. Is it an admission that they got it wrong the first time ?

4. Or is it an indication that they're capable of critical analysis and introspection when it comes to there work ?

5. How many courses have a hole that's substantively changed within two years of opening ? 

To answer a few:
1. It is getting guys to understand your vision.

2. Inherently resist changing the original design? No, not this guy.  There is so much that can be improved upon; virtually every item of every hole that requires "building". Then there are the conversations you have during construction; walking around and looking... you never know what the next day will bring... opportunities appear at random and often. Opportunities are a valuable raw material that cannot be measured until the project is completed.

Sitting in a machine yourself moving dirt, you begin to see things unimaginable during the design phase in an office.

All the little improvements piled together should add to a much better project.

3. Nobody ever has or ever will draw perfect plans, and nobody left alone with plans for long periods will build the golf course as envisioned by the architect. A hole or portion of a hole can be built in thousands upon thousands of ways.

It's not that the original scheme is "wrong", it's simply that it can be improved upon.

Design and construction are not separate jobs, but different parts of the same job; Design.

You stop designing when the place is grassed. Then once grown in, you have the last bit of designing to do.; working with the super to get the course to look and play as intended.

.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tony,
That last sentence begs a question. 

Just what does it take to get the course to look and play as intended, especially since grow-in could take a few years?

Do clients typically retain an architect to visit periodically during the grow-in years? 

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,
That last sentence begs a question. 

Just what does it take to get the course to look and play as intended, especially since grow-in could take a few years?

Do clients typically retain an architect to visit periodically during the grow-in years? 

Grow-in, unless in a hostile environment usually doesn't take a few years.


What does it take? Communication and then a guy who is on board with the concept.
The problem is when that guy leaves or a board comes in with their "ideas" for "improvement" or "change".

All it takes is one season with an unsympathetic super to trash much of the original concept.

I don't know what others do, but anyone taking on several projects at any one time would be hard pressed to go back and assist. The more projects, the less likely, and why would they want to? There's virtually no cash in the exercise. I'm a glutton... willing to go back at any time to assist, and have been addressing it in other ways; for the long term.

.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tony - thanks

[Rich Goodale]

Good question, Pat

The difference between current expectations, philosophies and practices and those of 100 or so years ago intrigues me.

Today, clients and architects seem hell-bent on producing courses which are ready for serious play on Day One, so designed that there is relatively little room for change in the routing, and supported by egos which seem to be resistant to any change, even if the possiblities exist.

Compare this to any of the previous "golden ages."  In the first one (~1850-1900), layouts were more templates than finished products.  Courses like Carnoustie, County Down and Dornoch were altered almost immediately after the original deisgners (e.g. Alan Robertson, Old Tom Morrris) left and then continuously, over periods of decades.  In the second one (~1915-1935) places like Merion and Pine Valley and Augusta and Muirfield and Sunningdale were also frequently altered.

To me, the old designers seemed to be more comfortable in their skins in letting their clients do with their properties what they wished.   Part of this was obviously the logistical difficulties of getting back to theier courses in the days of arduous transport.  Other reasons I would posit, however, included faith in the quality of the people in whose care they left the courses, (e.g. Sutherland in the case of Morris and Crump in the case of Colt); the financial exigencies of their day, and (some of) their lack of hubris.

Do today's architects really think that they got it 100% right on any of the courses they have designed and had built?  If so, why and how do you know?

Rich

[Niall C]

Good question, Pat

The difference between current expectations, philosophies and practices and those of 100 or so years ago intrigues me.

Today, clients and architects seem hell-bent on producing courses which are ready for serious play on Day One, so designed that there is relatively little room for change in the routing, and supported by egos which seem to be resistant to any change, even if the possiblities exist.

Compare this to any of the previous "golden ages."  In the first one (~1850-1900), layouts were more templates than finished products.  Courses like Carnoustie, County Down and Dornoch were altered almost immediately after the original deisgners (e.g. Alan Robertson, Old Tom Morrris) left and then continuously, over periods of decades.  In the second one (~1915-1935) places like Merion and Pine Valley and Augusta and Muirfield and Sunningdale were also frequently altered.

To me, the old designers seemed to be more comfortable in their skins in letting their clients do with their properties what they wished.   Part of this was obviously the logistical difficulties of getting back to theier courses in the days of arduous transport.  Other reasons I would posit, however, included faith in the quality of the people in whose care they left the courses, (e.g. Sutherland in the case of Morris and Crump in the case of Colt); the financial exigencies of their day, and (some of) their lack of hubris.

Do today's architects really think that they got it 100% right on any of the courses they have designed and had built?  If so, why and how do you know?

Rich

Rich

I think also back then, especially on the early courses, that what these early guys were doing was laying out a course on an existing landscape and then tweaking whatever was there to provide additional hazards to the ones they had incorporated in the routing. They were largely accepting what was already there so perhaps didn't feel too precious about it.

Maybe todays guys have a different mindset in that they are largely creating the playing field rather than tweaking whats already there, therefore they are naturally going to be more defensive when it comes to making changes especially if they have toiled to produce as good a course as they could in the first place.

I suppose only the architects on this site will be able to answer that one.

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Good points, Niall.

Maybe one of the dstinctions is that the ODG's could stand on a site and say "I can play golf here!" whilst today the architect would say "I can build a golf course here!."  Very different circumstances and mindsets.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"The difference between current expectations, philosophies and practices and those of 100 or so years ago intrigues me."


Rich:

Me too. It has for years and it intrigues me more every day!

Look again at Patrick's questions above. Do you really think they could be answered in even remotely the same way if we consider them in the context of today's professional architects compared to the very early peripatetic professional architects who usually retained day jobs as a professional at some club? I don't.

Do you think they could be answered in the same way if we considered them in the context of today's professional architects compared to the so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers who did such still famous work on some select projects, and generally took years and even decades constantly refining it during a certain defined era (those kinds of projects only began from say generally the late 1890s until around the end of WW1, and then after that none of them were begun again)? I don't.

Do you think they could be answered in the same way if we considered them in the context of today's professional architects compared to the far more organized professional architects of the Golden Age, particularly after around the end of WW1 and into the 1920s, '30s, '40s, '50s etc? Actually, I do.

At least I consider the latter example a whole lot more of the same kind of architectural modus operandi or process.

The latter example is pretty much and apples to apples comparison while the first two are very much apples compared to oranges or apples compared to kumquats or perhaps even apples compared to lettuce or corn or wheat. 

[Anthony Gray]

  I think that the architect knows that design is an evolution.


   Anthony

[TEPaul]

Richard the Inquistive:

I hope you do understand that the apples to whatever comparison (the modus and processes of the very old days compared to the more modern architects) did finally all come together in one glorious place at one glorious time in a total flash of melded brilliance between the old ways and the old days and the modern times to come------and that was when Bobby J and Alister Mac et al decided to replicate the Mother of all "Lost in the Mists of Time" archittecture----TOC----in a FRUIT ORCHARD in GEORGIA!!!!

In effect and in fact, the old Mother Nature bestowed agrostis and festuca and natural blowouts of the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th century TOC finally became APPLES and ORANGES and KUMQUATS etc in the embodiment of ANGC!

[Steve Burrows]

It's no different than an author wanting to revisit a book that was published years before.  Editing is a constant process, and I would suspect even the most well known authors might jump at the oppoortunity to change a few things and re-print the book, so long as money and time were not an option.  This works even better for works of non-fiction.  When the paradigm shifts or changes, the material must be updated.  Many editions are published for textbooks and guides, etc.  Indeed, this is why we are now all reading and loving our new copies of "The World Atlas of Golf." 

Similarly, if a given course requires changes in the mind of the architect (or the owner/developer), whether the issues are a result of their own initial oversights, mistakes, or otherwise, then I would think that he or she would not shy away from the opportunity of revisting the site and making it better.  Didn't MacKenzie and Tillinghast espouse such concepts as "economy," and "elasticity."  Aren't these two ideas exactly the kinds of things that are being discussed here in this thread; the ability to observe how the course actually plays versus how it was designed to play, and then make after-the-fact alterations, if necessary? 

[TEPaul]

Steve Burrows:

Like all things in life I'm quite sure architects differ greatly in how they feel about their architecture being changed. I'm sure their opinions also have a good deal to do with who does it too (them or someone else). Some may mind it a whole lot more than others and a good example is probably Herbert Fowler about whom it has always been said that he was totally adamant that his architecture not be changed after the fact of him bringing it into play, and certainly not by someone else. 

[Rich Goodale]

Richard the Inquistive:

I hope you do understand that the apples to whatever comparison (the modus and processes of the very old days compared to the more modern architects) did finally all come together in one glorious place at one glorious time in a total flash of melded brilliance between the old ways and the old days and the modern times to come------and that was when Bobby J and Alister Mac et al decided to replicate the Mother of all "Lost in the Mists of Time" archittecture----TOC----in a FRUIT ORCHARD in GEORGIA!!!!

In effect and in fact, the old Mother Nature bestowed agrostis and festuca and natural blowouts of the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th century TOC finally became APPLES and ORANGES and KUMQUATS etc in the embodiment of ANGC!

Tom

There is an apple tree behind the 10th green at Dornoch, but it does not flower.  Fruit trees cannot propagate in sandy soil, nor can golf propagate in soil where fruit trees will prosper.  So has it been said and so will it always be.

Rich

[Peter Pallotta]

One other way to look at this, I think:

I've mentioned before how it was said of the great film director John Ford that he edited his films 'in the camera'.  That is, since in the old studio days not even a John Ford got the final cut/edit for his pictures, Ford learned how to film his scenes (what to shoot and what NOT to shot) so that the raw footage he provided the editor could only be cut and put together in ONE way, FORD'S way. I think modern architects are much better than their predecessors at designing their courses 'in the camera'.  Why they had to learn to do this I'm not sure, but I think that it must have to do with the demands of a professional career. But of courses, sometimes a mistake can be made

Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Interesting, Peter, but while Ford apparently managed to control all the shots (and thus the material with which any picture could be made), no GCA will ever be able to control the land he has been given, no matter how clever his routing.  In fact, if he tries to control the land it is far more likely that a narrow and sterile course will be created, without the robustness which existed and still exists with the truly great old courses.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Tom
There is an apple tree behind the 10th green at Dornoch, but it does not flower.  Fruit trees cannot propagate in sandy soil, nor can golf propagate in soil where fruit trees will prosper.  So has it been said and so will it always be.
Rich"



Richie Rich:

Doesn't that just about say it all? That just might be the finest symbolic explanation of the entire history of golf course architecture as it transmogrophied from the Old World to the New World.

You have a fruit tree behind the 10th green at Dornoch and it will not flower, propagate or bear fruit!?!

Symbolically, that means that the Old World of golf and architecture is akin to some barren old biddy who can no longer produce offspring and consequently will soon just shrivel up and die away, while America and American golf and architecture is symbolically like the flowering young lass who is nubile, sexual and sensual, impregnable, highly propagatable, as in remarkably FECUND (capable of reproducing offspring----eg FRUIT!).

"Give me your LEMONS and I will make you some delicious LEMONADE!"
 
 
 

[Lester George]

I honestly believe I have gotten better in 22 years of listening to suggestions (sometimes criticism) and responding with a better ability to change. 

Most often the criticism is tempered with "I" or some reference to one singular point of view or ones ability to play the hole.  Those are the easy ones.

I regularly visit or check in with clubs each year to see if there are cumulative issues and things to be discussed that may need review.  I will always debate the design intent or relevance and try to explain the reason for the way I did the hole.  Sometimes though I make changes. 

I just finished rebuilding a bunker (making it two) at Kinloch (and have done others) that I personally had no problem with.  The reason for the change was agronomic and I agreed it was reasonable.  Had I not wanted to change it, I would have been able to nix the idea.

Lester

[Norbert P]

1. process of modifying his own design ?

2. Do architects inherently resist altering their initial design ?

3. Is it an admission that they got it wrong the first time ?

4. Or is it an indication that they're capable of critical analysis and introspection when it comes to there work ?

5. How many courses have a hole that's substantively changed within two years of opening ? 

To answer a few:
1. It is getting guys to understand your vision.

2. Inherently resist changing the original design? No, not this guy.  There is so much that can be improved upon; virtually every item of every hole that requires "building". Then there are the conversations you have during construction; walking around and looking... you never know what the next day will bring... opportunities appear at random and often. Opportunities are a valuable raw material that cannot be measured until the project is completed.

Sitting in a machine yourself moving dirt, you begin to see things unimaginable during the design phase in an office.

All the little improvements piled together should add to a much better project.

3. Nobody ever has or ever will draw perfect plans, and nobody left alone with plans for long periods will build the golf course as envisioned by the architect. A hole or portion of a hole can be built in thousands upon thousands of ways.

It's not that the original scheme is "wrong", it's simply that it can be improved upon.

Design and construction are not separate jobs, but different parts of the same job; Design.

You stop designing when the place is grassed. Then once grown in, you have the last bit of designing to do.; working with the super to get the course to look and play as intended.

.

Tony, great answers but I mostly can relate to -->  "Sitting in a machine yourself moving dirt, you begin to see things..."

Ich will arbeit mit der, dude.

[TEPaul]

Slag Bandoon:

As I live and breath! Nice to see a post from you; it's been a while.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony, great answers but I mostly can relate to -->  "Sitting in a machine yourself moving dirt, you begin to see things..."

Ich will arbeit mit der, dude.

Beware of what you wish for.

[Tony Ristola]

dp.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()