Who should get the design credit for a “topo” cour

[Mark_Fine]

I haven’t had time to read the posts about Bethpage and whether Tillinghast is the course's true architect, but I would have guessed this topic about "topo" courses was touched on.  For the benefit of the few who don't know what I mean by a "topo" course, it is one where the architect designed the routing and the holes using a topography map of the property and never really saw it in person (or spent little, if any time there).  I’ll share one experience of my own and I’d be curious to hear others thoughts.

I was invited several years ago to attend the opening of a new private course designed by a “very high profile architect”.  I was fortunate to play my round that day with the VP of the construction company who built the course, his site manager and the key shaper who built the tees, greens and bunkers.  It was one of the more enlightening rounds of golf I’ve gotten to play.  

One of the first things the one gentleman told me was that the architect wouldn’t know where the first tee was unless you told him!  The shaper said that he built the greens as he saw fit and modified and placed the bunkers to where he thought they worked and looked best.  The guys even talked how they re-routed some of the holes “in the field” because the original routing had problems.  The architect was there primarily for photo sessions and never really walked the property.  

So who should really get design credit for the golf course?  You tell me!  

Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Topic should say "topo" course!  Sorry about that!  

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

Several years ago I had a similiar experience except that the time we spent was in the office with the "real" architect, i.e., the person who did the routing, the placement of bunkers, the design of green complexes........really everything.

Though this individual may have preferred to get "credit", there was an understanding that for marketing reasons he would not.  Everyone understood what was going on and felt it was best for the firm.

My gut says I'd like the guy doing the work to get credit, but apparently marketing considerations aren't so easy to dismiss.

Clearly, however, when I guy goes out and starts his own firm, he will be taking the risk of winning or losing jobs and at that point will surely deserve credit.

This may not be politically correct in the GCA view, but I suspect it is real world in the golf business.

[George Pazin]

Tim -

It might be real world in the golf biz, but it sounds like it's getting close to violating truth in advertising laws. Sounds kind of like Mill Vanilli architecture to me.

[Tim Weiman]

George,

I'm not comfortable with the practice, but I'm not sure what truth in advertising would look like.  Do we move to a system like movie credits?  One could argue that is even more truthful than simply giving all the credit to some assistant.

Honestly, I don't really have the answer, in part because the entire marketing side seems like a different arena than the art form of golf architecture.  It's about selling rather than creating.

Anyway, if I'm ever involved in a project, on a personal level I will want to thank all those involved, but for practical reasons the public credit will probably go to the architect.  After all, he is the guy you hired.  The entire staff is there because of your confidence in him.

[RJ_Daley]

Tim,

I can't remember which course(s) I've seen this, but I do remember seeing some that have their score cards identify the archie and the construction company.  i.e. I think I saw one recently that said, "Dick Nuggent GCA, Wadsworth general contruction contractor".  

I think it is great when there is a design-build team and credits or common reference goes something like this:  Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf Associates, or "C&C and the Bunkerhill Gang"  

I do think that it is fitting that we try to adopt this sort of credit reference when speaking of golf course deisign work.  One thing about this convention of identifying golf course design/construction work would be a further definintion of what part of an archie-designer's body of work is good and bad.  Not to single out or suggest anything by this example but what about a more commonly referred naming or crediting convention that goes something like these examples.   Tom Fazio with Wadsworth Consturction General (Shadow Creek), VS Tom Fazio with McDonald Bros Contruction (Merion remodeling), or Joe Blow with Landscapes Unlimitted or Dick Smith with Bruce Company, etc.?  One might begin to see that certain designer's work is better or quite different with one construction entity than anothers... Smaller specialized constructors may get more deserved recognition that way as well, and it would help the developer/consumer to make more informed choices when trying to sift through some construction issues.

[Tim Weiman]

Dick Daley:

I've never seen reference to the contractor.

Your points are well taken.  I'm just not sure where to draw the line.  The old fashioned, marketing approach was to have a star, someone like Robert Trent Jones or Jack Nicklaus.  The marketing guys gave one guy all the credit and it seemed to work.  The project sold.  Real estate sold.  Resorts were built.  Etc.

Now along comes a group of golf architecture junkies wanting to upset the whole thing!

Certain architects do stand out for giving credit to their team.  Gil Hanse did so recently for Geoff Shackelford and Rustic Canyon.  I've heard and seen Tom Doak do so for his guys regarding Pacific Dunes and other sites.  And, we all appreciate Bill and Ben doing the same for Dan and Dave.

I've also seen the Fazio organization credit the superintendent on a project, e.g., John Zimmers at Sand Ridge.

Anyway, junkies like ourselves might like the movie credit thing, but for marketing purposes I doubt there is anything better than a star.  The trick is to get both: a talented team and an architect people want to follow.

[George Pazin]

I don't think a movie credit approach is necessary, but I do think some clarification is in order.

To me, there is a fundamental difference between a head architect designing a course & overseeing its construction, even if that is only through an onsite representative & a cell phone, as contrasted with the head of a company receiving credit when all the work, save a few "suggestions," is done by some design associate.

Mark's question is a little tougher to categorize. If the architect using the topo does in fact create the routing, then I think he deserves top billing, as it were, maybe even sole billing. My admittedly ignorant view of building golf courses places the top priority on the routing.

What is standard practice in building architecture? When Pei or Pelli design skyscrapers or museums, are they creating the basic framework & allowing associates/engineers to do the details, or are they pretty much just doing the sales work, getting the commission & letting associates do all the work? I'm asking this question seriously, not to be a jerk.

I think in Hollywood, the lead credit on writing pretty much always goes to the person who has the original idea & does the first draft of the screenplay, not necessarily the person who writes the final script.

I don't think anyone truly believes Bill Gates is writing the code for Windows, but I think many believe that the person credited with a course really did design it, not an associate.

[Dan Kelly]

Geo. Pazin said it: Milli Vanilli architecture!

If the so-called architect can't find his way to the first tee, it's just plain old-fashioned consumer fraud to give him credit and to market the course as though he had designed it.

We -- the GCA we; the media we; the big public WE -- shouldn't stand for it. We shouldn't be willing to say, in the case of golf courses or any other product: "Oh, well, that's just marketing -- so it doesn't matter if it's all a pack of lies."

How about this radical notion?

Credit the COMPANY (or COMPANIES), with subcredits to leading individuals therein. Credit the actual lead architect as the "Architect." Credit the big-name drop-in-for-opening-day guy as a "Consulting Architect."

Vagrant thought: Do people really play golf courses and buy golf-course property because there's a big name attached to it? Do people really go to Jeff Brauer's Giant's Ridge because Lanny Wadkins supposedly designed it -- or because they've heard good things about the course?

I suppose it's some of both.

There's a golf-course community in the works at Lake City, Minnesota, that apparently has a pretty good advertising budget, because I've been hearing its ads for several months now on local talk radio. It's advertised as being "Hale Irwin-designed and -owned." (Why I should want to live in a Hale Irwin-OWNED community, I haven't the foggiest hint of a clue.) Later in the copy, they urge listeners to put some money down now and then (minimal paraphrase) "watch Hale Irwin and Mother Nature create" a fantastic golf course.

I guess if it doesn't turn out fantastic, Hale can blame Mother.

[Tim Weiman]

Dan Kelly:

Big names do matter when it comes to sales and marketing.  That might be kind of shallow, but it is the real world.

[Bye]

It all depends on the arrangement that the architect has with his employees.  If you're getting paid to work for a "name" they're his courses, like it or not.

Also, I can't imagine a contractor on opening day discrediting an architect. Usually "high profile" architects have a very high profile on site.

[Dan Kelly]

Tim --

I don't doubt that.

What I continue to wonder is: If golf developers' marketing relies heavily (if not quite exclusively) on the big-name "architect," isn't the big names' marketing power sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Take Giant's Ridge. The developers made a big deal of Lanny Wadkins' role in its design. I'm guessing that that role was, in fact, minimal.

I believe that the course has been quite successful -- PROVING, I suppose, the power of the big name.

But I doubt it. My sense is that the first Giant's Ridge course was a success because the reviews and the word-of-mouth were outstanding, and those reviews and that word-of-mouth had NOTHING to do with Lanny Wadkins. Nothing.



  

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe I should re-emphasize the term "topo" (e.g. a mailed in routing/design).  I think it was at Oak Tree (it's been a few years) where after playing the Pete Dye course I asked about the other one on the property.  My host said, "Oh that's just a topo Ross course that really isn't worth playing.  He was never on site."  Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to do my own inspection.  Now is that a Ross course or not?  I guess it is with an * next to the architect's name.
Mark

[Tim Weiman]

Dan Kelly:

I can't imagine why anyone would think a course is better because some PGA Tour pro put his name on it, but apparently, there are plenty of people who do.

So, somebody making the investment decision goes ahead and puts out another quarter million.

I'm willing to show up on opening day for half that but so far nobody is willing to pay me.

Maybe Tommy N can be the first GCA star to make a quick buck.  If Tommy gets it, he better throw a big party.

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

We use the term all the time, but I really don't know what "mailed in" means.

Who does what on a "mail in" job?

[Mark_Fine]

I remember discussing "mail in" golf course designs many years ago with Geoff Shackelford.  I kidded him that very soon you'll be able to purchace a CAD drawing of a golf course layout on-line and just have someone go try to build it for you!  He cringed at the thought!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I've given this considerable thought and the only fair thing to do is to give ME credit for the course in question  

[Jeff_McDowell]

Big name designers don't always have a positive financial impact on courses. Tom Lehman was involved in a course in central MN that went bankrupt in less than two years from opening. I didn't play it, but comments from people who did were very consistent - "I won't go back".

[TEPaul]

"Topo" designing is something that should be looked into carefully on exactly what it might mean on a course by course basis or with certain architects on an architect by architect basis.

I sure don't have any detailed evidence but my gut feeling is that some architects may have done it and it does not necessarily have to mean an inferior product--in other words some just may have been very good at "topo" designing.

With no real evidence I have a feeling Hugh Alison may have been good at it and I'm a bit more sure that Donald Ross may have been far and away the best at it of any architect ever!

I think Ross's routing and designing sytle may very well have been centered around the "topo" and I think it may even indicate a career course style or theme with Ross.

Have you ever noticed that almost all of Ross's courses have as much of the high tee/valleyfairway/high green site as the site can offer routing feel to them?

I believe Ross may have developed that career theme through a habit of a particular "style" of "topo" routing and/or designing. I think he simply identified as many high tee and green sites as the topo gave him, probably used a ruler to measure what kind of holes he was getting in the overall and then possible started to "connect the dots" in various ways to come up with the best routing.

Basically I have a feeling that Ross on some of the courses he did just counted up and down the elevation lines! On my own course I do know he spent three days there in the beginning probably doing the routing.

I'll be damned and go to Hell!! You know what I just did?? I never thought to look at it before about routing and dates. But I wrote a comprehensive design evolution report about the architectural evolution of my course. Twenty five years ago a man wrote a regular history of Gulph Mills using all the notes and minutes from the beginning of the formation of the club. It says in those minutes that Ross spent 3 days at GMGC's property on July 1916. But if you look at the original Ross "stick routing" of GMGC it's dated June 1916! And the preliminary "stick routing" is basically exactly how the course was routed and built.

That very well may mean that they sent Ross a topo and he routed the course on it before he ever came to GMGC! If that date is not just the original surveyor's date and does indicate that Ross routed the course before arriving that supports my contention that he was one helluva good "topo" router and his style of "topo" designing may have been why so many of Ross's courses show that same high tee/valley fairway/high green site style or theme.  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

I come to a very different conclusion from your evidence of Ross' "topo" routing.  I'd say he was a very unimaginative topo router if all he did was go from high point to high point over valleys.  Thank god he never got a hold of Merion--just think what he would have done with the land forms on the front 9.  I suspect he would have crossed that stream a few times on his way from peak to peak rather than using it to create Wilson's marvelous 5th hole.........

[RJ_Daley]

WE shouldn't let this topic go by without recognising the manner that credit for Barona was given.  If I understand it correctly, Gary Roger Baird is the Architect of record, yet they have gone very public with giving Todd Eckenrode full credit for his work, including Todd's photo on company ads featuring Barona (Claifornia Washed Sod).  Since Barona is easily arguable as the top course in San Diego, the credit to Todd is well deserved and apparently properly placed.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm not sure I'd say what you did about Merion if Ross routed it. He certainly was a great architect and just because I said I might see a bit of a high tee/valley/high green site style to some of his courses doesn't mean he would miss a great natural landform like Merion's #5.

Anyone who's tried routing on raw land could immediately see that no architect would go side to side with holes on the land on the other side of Ardmore Ave--it's far too narrow side to side to do that! Don't forget I also said if he did "Topo" routings he may have counted up and down the elevation lines but he also would have used a ruler to scale to measure the length of holes!

He didn't do that everywhere on a piece of property--that would be impossible but to me he was sort of the opposite of a ridge running and valley running architect. But you have to do that sometimes and there are some good examples of the opposite like Seminole's great #4 running along the property's western ridge.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In the modern world, the most typical senario for "paper routing" is a land planner setting - or nearly setting - the routing through housing.  Sometimes, an local or cheaper architect is retained by the land planner or owner to at least get something good.  

I have routed a few courses in the preliminary stage (especially as a younger architect) that eventually got built using that routing, or something very, very close to it - but with a "bigger name" architect.  

I don't recall ever getting a shred of credit, nor am I sure I should.  Most architects can quote similar stories.

On the back side of this equation, I have lost a few jobs by not agreeing to use the preliminary routing, even in a few cases where I did enough 'free" work to demonstrate that I could build a course with less earthmoving, more frontage lots, etc.  Sometimes, the Owner is so bent on using his plan - even though changing it on paper is cheaper than constructing something - that the final architect is required to use the routing.

There are a few big names who do accept the land planner routings w/o question..  Why? To quote one, "Our fee is the same and we do less work"

I have also gotten a few of these jobs, as well.  If the original architect was any good, we can usually make a few changes, and make it work with our design parameters.

[Lou Duran]

In a just world, credit should accrue based on the relative contributions of the participants.  In reality, it often depends on the client and the intended market.

A course developed to sell lots and/or memberships to the wealthy will usually require a brand name designer such as Fazio, Nicklaus, or Jones.  The client and the prospective lot/ membership buyers aren't interested in the design associate who really does the work.  While stylishly entertaining friends and business associates in your luxury box at the ball game, casually announcing the purchase of a $150,000 membership to the newest Harvey Schwartz ultra-exclusive course just doesn't generate much admiration (or envy).

Some on gca.com believe that there is a direct correlation between the amount of time spent at the site and the quality of the outcome.  Holding everything else equal, this may be true, but design ability is hardly evenly distributed.  Ross appears to have had considerably more success without much time at a site than many practitioners who literally live on the course.  BTW, ask the members at Crooked Stick what they think when they see Pete Dye at the club (grab your wallet; be prepared for the dozers to roll-in).

With private jets and satellite offices, I don't believe that there are many topos being mailed-in today without seeing the site.  The name architect may not know how to get to a course (does Nicklaus ever drive himself?), or where the holes are from memory, but I would wager that the drawings/plans have been reviewed with some specificity, and reflect the architect's design intent and style.

I've played a number of Jeff Brauer's courses, and know a little bit about his design process.  Jeff is thoughtful and detail oriented.  His courses have scale, variety, and are highly playable.  I suspect that while a vast majority of golfers enjoy his courses tremendously, less than 10% know or care to know the names of the architect, contractor, or superintendent.

The unsung heroes in the industry must take comfort that there is a group of enthusisats, albeit a very small one, which cares passionately for their work.  This website is doing a service to the industry in identifying and encouraging them.    

[Tom Doak]

To answer the question, I think it depends on the nature of the land.  If the land is undulating and a lot of the course's interest comes out of that, then whoever did the routing should get at least some of the credit for the finished product.  If, on the other hand, it's dull ground, then the routing doesn't mean nearly as much as who designed & built the features of play.

Tom P:  As you wonder, Ross probably did do the routing for Gulph Mills before he ever set foot there.  I usually do a routing [or at least a partial one] before I get to a site.  Sometimes we only use a few holes from that original routing (Pacific Dunes = 4 holes), other times many more (I think Black Forest has 14 holes from the pre-visit routing).

As to design credits, I don't know what's fair.  I do know that sharing credit for some courses and not others is counter-productive and misleading.  And I don't know how the hell you'd go back and credit every older course fairly.  There's a story like Bethpage for almost every golf course -- in fact, there are probably 2-3 conflicting stories on a lot of them!