[JC Jones]

On my thread about The Quarry, Patrick mentioned that it was possible (this is by no means an accusation) that Hurdzen/Fry did not spend any time on the property and just took the gig, as I inferred, essentially for the money, capitalizing on the work they had done across the street at Calusa Pines.

This begs the question, is the money worth it if it is going to negatively affect the reputation of the architect.  More people are going to see The Quarry than Calusa Pines simply because it is easier to get on.  Therefore, more people are going to walk away thinking that The Quarry is representative of their work.  Is it worth it?

Whatever the fee must have been, I'm sure it was enough to get them on board but what if it costs them reputation in the future?  Are present earnings more important that the growth in the reputation of the firm?

For the archies out there, would you take a project and "mail it in" just for the fee or do you care about the quality when you put your name on it?

I certainly expect the obligatory "Jack Nicklaus Signature" comments to come

[Mac Plumart]

My 2 cents, would be the following...

#1---I would never begrudge someone for wanting to generate revenue for their business.  They first and foremost must support themselves and their families.  And also generate enough revenue/profit to provide for their employees and their families.

#2--However, I believe that true genius, in any field or endeavor, will be rewarded over time.  So, if someone aspires to be recognized as truly great in their field they should not take any piece of work or job that comes along.  They should only take work/jobs that will lead them towards their end goal of being recognized as truly great...in a timeless and lasting way.

However...in all honesty, I would most likely take the job that pays the bills in order to support my family and employees.  This way I would have a happy and loyal staff when that ulitmate job came along.  I think Ross did it this way and some certainly don't like the sheer number of courses he did...but his gems are still recognized and regarded very highly.

[Bill_McBride]

Call me altruistic but I don't see why a true professional can't do both.  It is when you do your best work all the time that you are rewarded most in every way.

[Jud_T]

I think most architects are only concerned with their reputation inasmuch as it allows them to continue to get work...There is a small subset who care primarily about designing the best course possible and limiting the number of projects they take so as to allow for plenty of time on the ground to get the details right.  Phoning it in hasn't hurt, for example, Arnold Palmer's ability to get work.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC,

When I looked at the Quarry photos, I didn't get the impression that anyone mailed it in. 

Knowing that HF has many associates other than Mike and Dana, I presumed this course was given to one of them to  do simply to differentiate the style from across the street.  Just like Fazio, I see differences among associates in HF and their style, particularly in the bunker style.  Dana Fry is certainly the most extravgant bunker shaper in that crew.

And, as a public course, we don't know for sure that the Owner didn't ask for a simpler bunker style, et al for maintenance reasons.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Did the owner mail it in?

[JC Jones]

JC,

When I looked at the Quarry photos, I didn't get the impression that anyone mailed it in. 

Knowing that HF has many associates other than Mike and Dana, I presumed this course was given to one of them to  do simply to differentiate the style from across the street.  Just like Fazio, I see differences among associates in HF and their style, particularly in the bunker style.  Dana Fry is certainly the most extravgant bunker shaper in that crew.

And, as a public course, we don't know for sure that the Owner didn't ask for a simpler bunker style, et al for maintenance reasons.

Jeff,

It's not a public course, just a private course that is easily accessible.

Perhaps I didn't put forth the best pictures to establish what I was saying.  My main point was that although the course was "nice," it was terribly unoriginal and many of the holes blended together as they all carried the same basic features (i.e. water on either side of fairway, bunker on the front and water side of the green, large but extremely flat greens except some external perimeter movement).  Translation, it was typical higher end Florida course.  Not much originality and to me, that constitutes mailing it in.

[Tom_Doak]

Did the owner mail it in?

I can't comment on this particular golf course or the client.

But, in general, Mr. Nuzzo asked a very pertinent question.  For the past 20 years, perhaps 80% of the courses that were built were done by owners who didn't really care much about the finished product being "great" -- they just wanted it to be "good enough" to sell people on their development / resort.  And there have been plenty of architects only too happy to give them what they pay for.

These probably weren't the sort of clients that a young architect who wants to be considered "great" would want to have; yet most such young architects will waste a great deal of time pursuing them anyway, just because they need work wherever they can find it.

[Mark_Fine]

JC Jones,
Almost every architect (ALL the favorites here included) NEED work right now.  Forget new course construction, when a restoration/renovation project comes up these days, you would not believe all the names of architects that get their names on the list of candidates and are pursuing/taking jobs they would never have taken when new courses were being built.  Even though most don't like this kind of work (very few want to restore some dead guys design and do all that research and member educating when they can just go do their own thing).  At the same time I believe very few architects will "risk their reputation" taking on a project but at the same time, many have large staffs and lots of mouths to feed.
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC,

So what you are saying is absolutely every course by every gca must be his absolute best?  All rankings would have every course tied for first?  Hey, golf courses are different, and I suspect that the reason lies more within my post than in yours.

I agree with TD that a few big names have been accused of mailing it in on at least some courses although I would never peg the number at 80%.  I guess its the old argument of whether a real estate course needs to be a world beater or just a course you could enjoy playing every day.  Either way,  I have never known HF to be that kind of gca, but I suspect they ask the client what they want and try to give it to them, rather than force a top 100 course on one who doesn't really want it..

As to your general question, there are a lot of factors that determine how much time a gca puts in, from how busy they are, to how well they mesh with the owner (sometimes it seems good, but ends up otherwise and people being people, we avoid the difficult situations a bit more) and even how much and how quickly you are getting paid.

[Lester George]

JC,

Never had the luxury of just "mailing it in" unless you count the "ghost" designs I have done. 

In any event, I have had courses where owners did not want to pay my highest fee range which is the one where I make a tremendous amount of visits and I manage the project from soup to nuts.

Some owners don't want to pay for your time, but they all want your best effort.  If I can't get my highest fee, I still give them more (or at least in my mind) than they ever expected because of personal pride and enthusiam for taking the job in the first place. 

Lester 

[JC Jones]

JC,

So what you are saying is absolutely every course by every gca must be his absolute best?  All rankings would have every course tied for first?  Hey, golf courses are different, and I suspect that the reason lies more within my post than in yours.

I agree with TD that a few big names have been accused of mailing it in on at least some courses although I would never peg the number at 80%.  I guess its the old argument of whether a real estate course needs to be a world beater or just a course you could enjoy playing every day.  Either way,  I have never known HF to be that kind of gca, but I suspect they ask the client what they want and try to give it to them, rather than force a top 100 course on one who doesn't really want it..

As to your general question, there are a lot of factors that determine how much time a gca puts in, from how busy they are, to how well they mesh with the owner (sometimes it seems good, but ends up otherwise and people being people, we avoid the difficult situations a bit more) and even how much and how quickly you are getting paid.

Jeff,

No, I dont think every course a GCA does must be his absolute best.  In fact, that is impossible.  What I am questioning is whether a GCA would put in less than his best effort even though his name was going to be associated with the project.  Lester George put it very well.  He goes above and beyond, even though he might not be getting his highest fee. 

[Mike_Young]

The basketball coach John Wooden once said "“Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”

There are only so many courses that can attain "great status" and then there are the rest.  You can have a good reputation for building golf courses that actually make money for the owner and there will be someone out there that slams it as not being great etc....if you are giving your client a good product that works for what he wanted then you wil make money at that.....if it required a different approach and not as many visits and thus less fee so be it....I am 100% confident hat if Dana or Mike H took the guys money he got his money's worth....
the ODG Ross built 400 courses and I guarantee you he never saw half of them for more than a day....was it ok for him to mail them in or did it affect his reputation.

cheers

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I did not mean to say (and don't think I did say) that there were architects who "mailed in" 80% of their designs.  What I said was that there were that many CLIENTS who wouldn't have cared one way or the other, as long as the course opened on time and on budget and they got to put Designer X's name on the scorecard.  Now, what percentage of those jobs were mailed in would vary depending on who was involved ... but if the client was really happy with the result, then I'm not sure it is up to anyone here to criticize the amount of time spent.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

So true - When very few really know what good design is anyway, how can we ask a client to care.  And Lord knows, even among those who care, there is no consensus.

Lester is right. Not many of us have the luxury of even trying to mail one in.  For most of us, our best sales tool is our last job.......and even that isn't enough sometimes.

I have had exactly two jobs where the circumstances more or less dictated mailing it in - working for a development company that absolutely didn't want me to do more than route the course and get green plans to about the right size so they could build them the way they wanted, or nearly so.  I tried my best, but even if I had showed up a milllion times, in those cases, it wouldn't have mattered because I didn't have the personal or contractual power to over rule anyone.

It's interesting to analyze why jobs don't come out as well as they obviously could have.  I mentioned a few above, but the site or a gca's own limited approach to design can also be factors, no matter how hard he tried.  Think Bell and Torrey Pines - almost everyone thinks that might have come out better, but I doubt Bell "mailed it in" with a high profile ocean front site.  He just did what he normally did and it doesn't look right next to the ocean.

I haven't seen the Quarry mentioned in the OP, so its hard to comment.  I suspect however, that HF gave the project to a different associate and tried to do everything possible to make it different than across the street.  So, if CP had green contours, waste bunkers, etc. that all looked pretty neat, the other wasn't going to get it.  Think Fazio at World Woods and his two different styles at Rolling Oaks and Pine Barrens, etc.

And sometimes schedule does play a part.  If a course is on a fast track, there is little time to tweak the details if grassing dates must be met.

I guess I don't like, or agree with, the idea that gca's "mail it in" if you don't care for a particular style.  Most of us are thrilled to get any new course to design and I just don't recall anyone in the biz say "Yeah, I am going to give them a load of crap!"

[Joe Hancock]

Kelly,

Thanks for that nice account. I would love the road trip/ reading with you as navigator/ narrator. But, I would insist on something by Lewis Grizzard instead.

Joe

[JC Jones]

Firstly, although The Quarry was the impetus to the thread, I am not commenting on it specifically but rather, to the mindset of an architect when accepting a job.

Tom,

My questions were not geared towards whether the client was happy or not and I apologize if that was how my questions were inferred.  I am seeking response more on whether the archie should TAKE the job if they know that the expectations and demands are such from the client that the archie will not be putting their best effort on the ground.  Obviously that isnt going to necessarily translate into their best course as there can, presumably, only be one. 

In other words, if a potential client approached you and said "give me a standard Florida course with water on every hole and medium sized flat greens," would you take it knowing how it might negatively affect your reputation?

Jeff,

I think your point about World Woods is spot on and could potentially be very insightful into the owner's demands that the course NOT be Calusa Pines across the street.  I dont think that answer's my question though, see my reformulated question to Tom above.

Kelly,

Thanks for your response, very insightful.  For what it is worth, I've heard great things about The Hideout down here and I am looking forward to seeing it.

Thanks to all of you archies who've responded on this thread, the input from you guys is priceless.

[Mike_Young]

Firstly, although The Quarry was the impetus to the thread, I am not commenting on it specifically but rather, to the mindset of an architect when accepting a job.

Tom,

My questions were not geared towards whether the client was happy or not and I apologize if that was how my questions were inferred.  I am seeking response more on whether the archie should TAKE the job if they know that the expectations and demands are such from the client that the archie will not be putting their best effort on the ground.  Obviously that isnt going to necessarily translate into their best course as there can, presumably, only be one. 

In other words, if a potential client approached you and said "give me a standard Florida course with water on every hole and medium sized flat greens," would you take it knowing how it might negatively affect your reputation?

JC Would you agree that Toyota has a great reputation yet has different models for different buyers and situations?  And just as with the automobile industry....if the golf business changes and the "big reputations" see the market is for the "less is best" type of projects..watch how fast they market their "reputation" to get there.....
As I read KBM post I can sympathize with where he comes from....the industry probably has 1 out of 10 projects that have an advertising budget and construction budget to "let them be known to the masses"....the rest of us are just building good golf course in a regional setting...reputation should not be tied to larger and larger budgets....

[JC Jones]

Mike Young,

Toyota also protects their brand(s) by selling cars under different names (i.e. Lexus, Toyota, Scion).  Is the Camry nicer than the Corolla?  Absolutely.  I think we already have that system in place in GCA with Jack Nicklaus "designed" and Jack Nicklaus "Signature."  People know that even though Jack Nicklaus's brand is on both, one is "nicer" than the other.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC Jones,

About 99% of the golf design business is a process. About 1% is clients giving the gca a free hand.  Most designers have a  broad spectrum of projects under one name - remodels, renos and new courses in different categories.

Designers (of all types) typically ask the client about his goals, budgets, etc. and are very adept and proud to design that kind of course for them.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with designing a Florida course that is a bit easier than a gca might want to make it, since it might be perfectly aimed at the senior market.

You could probably argue that the designer who does that is doing his job better than one who gives a client with a senior aimed real estate development a top 100 tournament course.  And, doing well there would enhance a gca's reputation among other clients with the same type of situation.

In fact, you could argue (I often have) that Fazio got as successful as he did by offering a "kinder, gentler" signature course for high end developers.  And he did it by giving developers just what they wanted - a scenic course that wasn't too hard.  (I know his portfolio is broader than that, but it seems to be the bulk of it)

Among gca's I can think of only Messrs Doak, Coore and Crenshaw who haven't taken on too many housing and public projects.  But, they aren't typical.  More power to them, but even TD has recently dipped into the moderate public market with Common Ground. I doubt it will downgrade his repuation one iota.

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young,

Toyota also protects their brand(s) by selling cars under different names (i.e. Lexus, Toyota, Scion).  Is the Camry nicer than the Corolla?  Absolutely.  I think we already have that system in place in GCA with Jack Nicklaus "designed" and Jack Nicklaus "Signature."  People know that even though Jack Nicklaus's brand is on both, one is "nicer" than the other.

JC,
You are right Toyota does protect their brand...so let's use a mac laptop as an example.....
I might have to disagree a little here....I don't think most people know the difference in a JN signature and JN design or a even some of the other brands he sells....
Another example is the Audubon Sanctuary....you can pay $100 or 40,000 and no one know the difference and most never realize it has nothing to do with the Audubon society that is the "bird" group....

cheers

[Joe Hancock]

 More power to them, but even TD has recently dipped into the moderate public market with Common Ground. I doubt it will downgrade his repuation one iota.

Wouldn't you say that's exactly where Tom started when he did High Pointe?

No shame in that....

Joe

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
As to reputations....and what they are worth....I was told yesterday one top signature had made a deal with one country in Asia whereby they would pay him 1 million per year for an exclusive in the particular country......you got any of those going on???

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Jeff,

I think your point about World Woods is spot on and could potentially be very insightful into the owner's demands that the course NOT be Calusa Pines across the street.  I dont think that answer's my question though, see my reformulated question to Tom above.

I think this is only relevant in that CP would not allow anything close to it (which I believe was a concern when H/F were approached for the Quarry job) across the street and not vice-versa where the Quarry would not want another CP.

Jason, Hideout is a close second to CP in my mind down here and very underrated. It won't blow you away (although it blows all the regular FL golf down here away other than CP and Naples National) but it's one of those courses I'd never get sick of playing everyday. KBM did a great job of using the land and it's quite shocking that there aren't more courses down here that are built in that mold. It's a great comparison to CP as I believe very little earth was moved there where as a ton was moved at CP. Let me know if you are able to get on. I may have a few avenues if you can't.

[Lester George]

JC,

In this environment I'm not sure there is a qualified architect who wouldn't build "a standard Florida course".  

Having said that,  owners that don't demand the best by providing the best site or circumstances for the architect are self-limiting their product.  Qualified professional architects should always exceed the expectations and requirements of their owners for no other reason than personal pride.  If the site or requirements are less than extraordinary, you will not have that architects best course.  

IT DOESN'T MEAN the architect is mailing it in or doesn't care, it just means it isn't his best course.

We all want to date the prom queen, but sometimes you get the princess.

Lester

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()