Architects vs. Production Houses

[Jeff_Brauer]

I suspect that its entirely possible that competition to please the boss (or client) among talented associates in a big firm might result in a BETTER project than if one guy takes all the reins.  2 - or 10 - heads are better than one.

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, are there any "BIG" firms still around?  or is 2 the new def of Big Firm?

Actually, isn't it also possible that the opposite is true - associates, wanting keep the boss happy, just crank out more of the same tried and true "safe" designs? Of course it all depends on the flexibility of the Boss.  Afterall, the "look" is the brand and they must protect the brand.

I think the Brand is a double edged sword for architects and exponentally so as staff expands.  The bigger the payroll, the more jobs you need to feed the beast, the safer one becomes.  Unfortunately, safe=repetition.  I think this is why partnerships are a better model.  They lend the freedom to "do your own thing" but allow for the collaboration that keeps one from getting stale.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

I agree with your second paragraph, based on a couple of big firms I have been around.

But, I don't think the "look" of an architect's courses HAS TO BE the brand ... I just think a lot of architects have LET it be their brand.

[Mike_Young]

Tim and Tom,

Do you think it is fair to say the "Brand" has had as much to do with maintenance level as it has with good design?  The large signature shops have always been able to insure and demand a high maintenance level that the average person associates with a "good design" even when it might not be a good design.  And since 90% of the people don't know golf architecture , they relate high maintenance levels and clubhouse to good designs . 

Also, to each his own,  but I do not enjoy what I do if I have to let someone else build it...we all have seen signature courses where you could tell which shaper shaped specific features.  I think it is often the case that you can tell which contractor built which course for some of the big names and I know in my area it is possible to tell which contractor built the renovations for the same architect...
 For those of us that have always built our own courses, we could never do the quantity of the production shops.  And that may have held us back from getting more work but I sense that many of the golf courses we see built in the ext ten years will be built in such a way and if the architects are not doing it then there will be golf course builders doing it on their own.  It's already happening.....

[Tim Nugent]

Tom: 

I agree,they LET it. Sorry, it was a pretty general statement. I was looking at it from a potential clients point of view.  You pretty much know what what the end product will probably look like if you get a Nicklaus, Dye, Fazio, Jones (pick one) for there is .  If they are putting down a lot of $$$ on a product, they want a sense of comfort that it's not going to be something out of say...Desmond Murhead.  These are usually owners more concerned with marketing than the nuences of golf design.  The more into golf the owners are, the more apt they are to get someone who can develop a course that will stand on it's own merit.  With this freedom, the architect doesn't have to have the next one be like the last one.  These designers evolve along with their designs.

I guess if the production houses let their associates all "do there own thing", the gig would be up and the world may finally learn what we already know - who really is doing the designing.  I wonder, will it still be Palmer Course Design after Arnie?  Aren't Skidmore, Oweings, & Merrill long since gone?

Mike:
To continue, it will be interesting to see what the fallout of this recession is.  Perhaps those of us who read the tea leaves and downsized into hands-on design/build got it right.  I know there are contractors/shapers out there who will tell owners "you don't need an architect, we can do that and save you money".  But I think the opposite is also true - only there aren't that many architects that can hop on a dozer.

As for conditioning, you are correct.  A good super can make an average design look great, just as an average one can make a great design appear average.  It's a vicious cycle: Big budget jobs get Big budget names who get the benefit of Big budget marketing campaigns which promise the sun, the moon, the stars and hence a Big budget maintenance program to deliver it.  While most of us can look through the maintenance level to get to the true design, a majority can't but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion.

PS. Mr. Thad Bell was my last employee, name ring a bell?

[Tony Ristola]

Yes the result matters, and when the architect leads... it's usually far better.

If the associate takes the reigns... as Tim notes, then it opens a whole other can of worms.

Fazio's assembly line of trophy courses eventually turned into a blur. Each layout began looking like the previous one...

 Victoria's secret was that Fazio didn't just toss a topo map to an assistant and fly on to the next job. His firm was juggling so many projects at the time that no single assistant was available. So Fazio ramrodded the project himself...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_1999_Dec/ai_57650513/

[Mac Plumart]

I am finding this thread VERY interesting.  And as I am reading it, a few questions have popped up in my mind.

The production house label seems to be taking on a bit of a negative connotation, which may or may not be fair.  Donald Ross (as has been mentioned) was without question a production house type of architect and yet he is regarded as one of the best architects ever.  So, I don’t think we can simply write off Fazio and Nicklaus because they do a lot of work.

Also, it seems that you guys are saying that Fazio just puts out one design after another and they all look the same.  Thus far I’ve played 5 Tom Fazio courses… World Woods Pine Barrens, Capital City Crabapple, Black Diamond Ranch Quarry, St. Ives, Sea Island Seaside (renovation of a Colt/Alison).  I consider each one of these courses very distinct and individual.  Pine Barrens compared to BDR Quarry isn’t even close to the same.  Crabapple when compared to St. Ives is totally different.  So on and so forth.  Maybe I haven’t played enough of his courses to know for sure, but thus far these courses are very different.

Now does he have distinct characteristics?  I see some for sure.  Most notably his greens are all very similar.  But I also think Ross has distinct greens, at least the Ross courses I’ve played (Inverness, Augusta CC, CC of Columbus, and East Lake).  So, isn’t it acceptable that each of these designers has characteristics of his designs that could become their “brand”?  And this isn’t a bad thing, is it?

Along these lines, Nicklaus seems to have distinct bunkers…and just for good measure here are the Nicklaus courses I’ve played so you can know what I’ve seen; Southshore, Achasta, Great Waters, Bear’s Best Atlanta and Vegas.

Furthermore on the producers turning the designs and supervision of those designs over to associates, is this a bad thing?  First off, I would certainly think the Nicklaus’, Fazio’s, and Dye’s of the world have to have full faith in their associates to turn a project over to them.  In fact, wasn’t Tom Doak an associate for Pete Dye?  Wasn’t Mackenzie an associate for HS Colt?  I could go on and on about non-name partners/associates who are members of this site that I am sure are very good at what they do…so why is this practice a bad thing?

And finally to make a distinction between an architect and a production house, shouldn’t the standard include a greater degree of variation?  For instance, Doak and C&C are listed as architects, but haven’t they done quite a few courses lately?  Wouldn’t someone like Crump be an architect in the sense we are trying to framing that term in this thread?  Maybe MacDonald was another architect, but not Raynor? 

 Anyway, like I mentioned I find this thread fascinating and I am interested in hearing all of your opinions.

[Tony Ristola]

The production house label seems to be taking on a bit of a negative connotation, which may or may not be fair.  Donald Ross (as has been mentioned) was without question a production house type of architect and yet he is regarded as one of the best architects ever.  So, I don’t think we can simply write off Fazio and Nicklaus because they do a lot of work.

Ross is always used as a defense for the staus-quo. At the end of his career Donald Ross stated if he had to do it again, he would have done things very differently. His best courses were close to his homes... where he could spend time.

The greatest collection of Donald Ross golf courses is right here (in Pinehurst)… That’s because (Donald Ross) was here.

When my dad once asked him what he might do differently if he were starting over, Ross told him, ‘I would only build as many courses as I could be at the site.’

He lived here (in Pinehurst) and spent time here, and obviously courses are going to be more true to the designs when the architect is there.

Interview with Dan Maples
Pilot.com

So, isn’t it acceptable that each of these designers has characteristics of his designs that could become their “brand”?  And this isn’t a bad thing, is it?

Repetition for the sake of branding or fashion is hollow. It’s a creative ball and chain; self induced poison.

I see it as a false sense of security. Ideally, and when you are given large budgets and are paid handsome sums... shouldn't the goal be to avoid something that smacks of repetition?

Furthermore on the producers turning the designs and supervision of those designs over to associates, is this a bad thing?

 I guess if you want a Home Depot built, you can take an individual, expose him to your style by looking at a few courses or photos and educate him, or just turn it over to a builder and say... same as last time but different... see ya later, thank you please. This way, when shooting for the Home Depot you know you won't get the Guggenheim. There is that safety aspect... but is it safe?  

First off, I would certainly think the Nicklaus’, Fazio’s, and Dye’s of the world have to have full faith in their associates to turn a project over to them.

Dye perhaps, because he doesn't take on 12 to 100 projects in a go. Those taking on scores... how do they educate the staffers; continuously? They can't. I love this quote from Warren Buffet, and it applies equally well to golf architecture:

Buffett doubted that they could intelligently select so many securities any more than a sheik could get to “know” a harem of one-hundred girls.

I could go on and on about non-name partners/associates who are members of this site that I am sure are very good at what they do…so why is this practice a bad thing?

Depends on the level of dilution and free reign, ... which leads to another can of worms.

Spreading yourself thin leads to repetition for safety's sake. If you like predictability, then I guess it's ok.  I wonder how many developers would like a mulligan?

Some might find this article interesting:

there's an oversupply of 7,200-yard "championship" courses by superstar designers like Pete Dye, Nick Faldo, Tom Fazio, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer and Gary Player. "If you go back now and look at the developments going bankrupt, I think you'll see that the big-name designer is part of all those... Those guys got a big fee, spent money like it was water, and left golf courses that are expensive to maintain. They were doomed to fail."

http://www.golf.com/golf/courses_travel/article/0,28136,1952529,00.html#ixzz0dKPlJIiL

.

[Mac Plumart]

Tony, interesting stuff.

Just curious...do you happen to know how many courses Fazio did in the last decade, same for Nicklaus, and Tom Doak?

If you or someone doesn't know, that is fine...I can look it up (I think)...just curious.

Also, on the "branding" maybe I see it differently (or wrongly) but it certainly appears to me that most (if not all) architects have a distinctive style.  Given my limited exposure to the game and the study of architecture, I am already at the point where I can simply see a picture of a golf course and make a real educated guess as to who the designer was (of course not in all cases, but in a lot of them)...

For instance,  Ross' openness and greens, Fazio's greens, Nicklaus bunkers, and C&C's "look".

Anyway, don't mistake my comments as argumentative...simply trying to understand.  Particularly the point about repition and "brand".  As I've mentioned in my previous post, I've played a handful of Fazio's and the courses are quite distinct in their own right.

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:  I don't know how many courses Jack Nicklaus and Tom Fazio did.

We started Pacific Dunes in 2000 -- that was our 13th course.  I've now done 29, so mark me down for 17 courses in the last decade.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

Are Fazio and Nicklaus way above that number?  Excuse the ignorance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't know how many courses each gca has done.

I would like to see how many by % of courses by gca are going out of business now.  In the big 1987 S and L recession, I did an informal study and the big name designer courses were affected at least as much as others and the designer label didn't save them all from problems.  At the same time, I couldn't conclude that their designs or their costs were the root of the problems either.  In some sense, the high end stuff may hang on better in recessions because the high end isn't always affected.  And, they can always downscale a bit.

Just like we only talk about the biggest names here, we only talk about the biggest course busts here (not speaking of cart girls here!)  There are a lot of struggling mid level housing courses out there, too. 

When courses are tied to real estate, there are so many factors beyond the golf that apply.  Obviously, there are more mid level customers to shoot at than wealthy ones, so lower end courses might be better positioned.  That said, I am sure there are areas of FL and AZ where one too many retirement golf communities have been built making all struggle.  Its basic supply and demand, not gca.

Not sure what I am trying to say here, other than its not design, signature design, or whatever that will drive golf course bankruptcies.  When in developments that go broke, they usually tended to over spend on everything, but even so, the real problem was probably a business study by a respected firm that believed it would never end, much like the developer himself.  If you think gca's have conflicts of interest, try doing feasibility studies.  It is rare  developer hires someone to tell him no!

[Tim Liddy]

Big time real estate developer:
The basic decision is “who do I want to hang with for two years, Tim Liddy or Arnold Palmer?  I think I know the answer to that question.

Big time golf course aficionado / developer:
Basic decision is “who will give me the best golf course? Will Ben Crenshaw answer my phone calls?”

Small time developer / golf aficionado:
“Who else is available because I do not want to spend too much?”

[Mac Plumart]

Ok...

I started to run some numbers, but I don't think I have to in order to grasp the situation.  Simply looking at the course list of Fazio and compare that to the 17 that Tom Doak qouted clearly shows that Fazio did a lot more designs.  Also, looking at the % of courses ranked of these two designers certainly points toward the "architect" being more likely than the "producer" to design an award winning course.

But I think Ed Oden made a great point in the second post (I think it was)...this doesn't mean that the "producers" can't make a great design.  

Also, Jeff Brauer gave a great ratio of "qualified associates/designers" to golf courses.  Which would support the comment I made that the founders of the firms aren't going to give design control/supervision over to unqualified people.

Interesting thoughts and insights into various business models and architect ideals.


Tim just posted while I was typing...great points!!

[Tim Nugent]

Don't slight the Associates,  most great architects mentored under someone.  I have always felt that GCA was still a Master/apprentice relationship.  Most senior associates could very well be principals if they wanted to.  But not everyone is willing to give up the security (and plum projects) of a big name firm just to "do their own thing". And some only do it because the travel puts to much stress on the other parts of their life.  In fact once could easily argue that those senior associates are perhaps better than the "name".  Ever wonder why Jack started with Desond and Pete before "acquiring" Jay Morish and Bob Cupp from Jones? And with Jack on the road playing, who do you think mentored the jr associates? Exactly!

Tim Liddy:  Do you think those who "want to hang out with Arnie" know that they could spend more time if they bought a $5k Pro-Am? And save a bunch of money in the process? (I did get to spend every minute that Arnie was on a job in his heyday - amounted to about 2 days if you add it all up).
To what degree do you think Management Companies are to blame?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I'll hang with you!

Mac,

I think many posters here just love to find a way to justify their love of the favorites here.  They presume that JN and TF just don't care about their courses, which I know isn't the case.

If CC and Doak have a higher level of awards, its because they have been more selective.  JN and TF and AP know their names sell real estate, not a factor when designing Sand Hills.  So, TF in particular has made a career of designing clubs you could play/enjoy every day.  He does that quite well, even if by nature that type of course is less likely to win awards.  In fact, his marketing was always the "beautiful but playable signature course" which he sought in direct competition with the JN and Pete Dye signature courses that were simply too difficult to enjoy for a quick nine out your back door.

So, in a way, your mention of "award winning" courses isn't necessarily the right measure.  In fact, isn't trying to win awards rather than design enjoyable cousres part of the cost over run problem?  And part of the reason courses are too long and too tough?  

Not to say that the big names didn't paricipate in and cause that trend, but TF in particular has lots of courses that were never meant to win anything other than the hearts and minds of an aging Palm Springs or Palm Beach golf population.

[Brian Phillips]

I started to run some numbers, but I don't think I have to in order to grasp the situation.  Simply looking at the course list of Fazio and compare that to the 17 that Tom Doak qouted clearly shows that Fazio did a lot more designs.  Also, looking at the % of courses ranked of these two designers certainly points toward the "architect" being more likely than the "producer" to design an award winning course.

One thing you have to be careful of Mac is the comparison of sites.  How many of say Tom Doak's Top 100 courses are inland or on not great sites?

How many great sites have the "producers" been given over the past decade? Dismal River and Sebonack are a couple Nicklaus projects (one joint with Tom) that are on great sites but I personally do not know of others.  That doesn't mean they haven't been given them, I just don't know.

Do any of the top "Architects" have courses that are inland or on poor sites that are ranked on the Top 100?  How many top "Architects" have real estate surrounding their work?

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff, Brian, Tim...

Perhaps I have worded things incorrectly, but if you go back to my original post and bear with my streaming (perhaps hard to follow) thoughts, I think we are all on the same page.

I tried to make the point that associates have to be good or the name guys wouldn't turn projects over to them.  And I tried to mention some easy examples of great associates.  In fact, Jeff's ratio awhile back that related courses to qualified designers was great.  So, I am not overlooking associates at all.  In fact, I think if you are going to have a "producer" business model you need very high quality associates.  But that is just speculation on my part...however, I believe it is has to be correct.

Brian...I think your points are spot on target.  I think it is a business model decision from both the architect and the developer.  If you employ a bunch of people you have to take jobs.  If you are smaller you can be more selective.  Also, the developers of real estate have to take big names to move product...which has been mentioned.  In fact, I've asked a bunch of people/avid golfers over the last few weeks if they've heard of Tom Doak and/or Tom Fazio.  100% knew Fazio. 0% Doak...but I did get a few, yeah I think I've heard that name.  So, my point is that if you are going to sell real estate fast...Doak is not the guy, Fazio/Nicklaus are.  Right?  Which is fine with all of them, I assume.

Jeff...your point about people trying to prop up their favorite designers.  I think you are correct 100%.  Which is why originally I tried to point out the Fazio has some very good and diverse courses, while trying not to knock C&C or Doak.

Another point of interest for me is the other architects that don't get the love that Fazio or Doak get.  I've seen you in the Top 100 lists, Lester George, and some others on this site.  But had I not been on this site, I wouldn't have known your guys names.  But obviously, you are doing good work. Funny how marketing and perception works.

Great thread!!

[Ian Andrew]

Does it matter if it is Architects or Production Houses? Isn't the result the only thing that matters?

Richard,

I could not have said it better.

[Mac Plumart]

Kelly...

Irrelevant because the real estate model is dead?

I think that is what you mean, right?

If so, agreed 100% in the US.  However, could that model be applied overseas?  If so, would the big names get those jobs as well?

Or are the overseas people going to learn from our mistakes?

[Brian Phillips]

Kelly...

Irrelevant because the real estate model is dead?

I think that is what you mean, right?

If so, agreed 100% in the US.  However, could that model be applied overseas?  If so, would the big names get those jobs as well?

Or are the overseas people going to learn from our mistakes?

Not in China, not in Dubai.  They are all still paying mega bucks for the name.  I think the Indians will be ones to watch on how they develop their resort or middle to high class real estate courses as they are very thrifty.

Polaris World is now on the verge of collapse, is that all down to the financial downturn or because the model is not sustainable?  Same in Dubai who have just been bailed out by Abu Dhabi.

I don't think the collapse of courses around the world is down to Production Architects getting paid well (to be honest compared to the housing prices they are not getting paid that much) or just the Financial meltdown.  It is down to poor models that are unsustainable and all the market has done is found them out quicker rather than later.  I think it is too easy to blame Production Architects for project failures because of maintenance issues. Although maintenance is a large part of any project it will not be the area that kills it.  It is the management not reacting quickly enough with cut backs on staff and ways of reducing the maintenance of the course.  I don't care how difficult an Architect designs a course when it comes to maintenance there is always a way of cutting this down for periods where it is needed.  Using on 3 tees, triple mowing the greens if possible, cut less rough, use less water and fertiliser but Management need to react soon enough.

It is the models (too high spec construction) that are wrong not the cost of design.  The design fee is peanuts compared everything else on most projects.  Where the big production companies go wrong are the ridiculous specs they have to build a course.  The JN signature spec is out of this world on some projects.  That puts a long term loan on the project that does not make it sustainable unless the model is water tight.

That is the HUGE difference between the Big Production companies and the smaller more "normal" architects.  We would not even dream of suggesting some of the stuff they "demand" on their Signature courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will add that I am emotionally tied to the small, single artist type model, since that is what I (and Ian, Kelly, Lester and Brian, etc. all are)  I understand the angst about "corporate" architecture like the big houses (formerly) and esp. the PGA Tour and IMG in house design staffs. 

I don't disagree that the business first perspective of those places can have an impact on "pure" design, but I think its a matter of degrees and someone else setting the overall style.  As much as many here like the rugged Sand Hills style, the PGA Tour and the homebuying customers around their courses, or the people TF designs for still have the green is good mentality.  I know a Pete Dye housing course that was once pretty rugged around the edges got cleaned up at the request of the homeowners after a poisonous snake incident at one of the houses.  People still like sanitized green belt behind their houses.

But, the folks manning the associate positions there are also passionate about gca and happen to have landed a job that gets them projects with higher profiles and better resources, and they have to spend less time marketing, so they can spend more time designing.

[Richard Choi]

Thanks to a very nice Jack Nicklaus Design website (and some elbow grease), I've been able to rundown some numbers on Jack's courses.

Here is how one of the most prominent "Production Houses" break down.

Total Number of courses (currently open): 346
Breakdown by Decade: 1960's - 1, 1970's - 13, 1980's - 57, 1990's - 138, 2000's - 137
Total Number of courses personally supervised by Jack Nicklaus: 58
Breakdown by Decade: 1960's - 1, 1970's - 11, 1980's - 9, 1990's - 16, 2000's - 21
Total Number of courses attributed to Jack Nicklaus (Signature - where Jack is supposed to spend a lot of time): 215
Breakdown by Decade: 1960's - 0, 1970's - 2, 1980's - 47, 1990's - 98, 2000's - 68

Not sure what the numbers say, but certainly interesting...

[Tim Nugent]

Richard, one thing the #' say is that the # of Signature" courses went down in 2000's but the # of personally supervised went up.  Perhaps the shine wasoff the Signature Brand.
By-the-way, I thought the extra $$$ you paid for the Signature Course meant Jack Personally supervised it. Or are the various levels of Signature

Mac, don't be so sure of the Indians, I just saw Planet Jack last night on the Golf Channel that India was one of his stoops as he flew around the world visiting projects in 12-days.  Talk about on-site involvement.

I've often wonder what would happen if he just said "screw-it, I'm doing one a year."  I wonder what the outcome would be if he was on-site the whole time? Better?, Worse?, or pretty much the same?

[Mike_Young]

It is the models (too high spec construction) that are wrong not the cost of design.  The design fee is peanuts compared everything else on most projects.  Where the big production companies go wrong are the ridiculous specs they have to build a course.  The JN signature spec is out of this world on some projects.  That puts a long term loan on the project that does not make it sustainable unless the model is water tight.

That is the HUGE difference between the Big Production companies and the smaller more "normal" architects.  We would not even dream of suggesting some of the stuff they "demand" on their Signature courses.

Brian,
What you say above is right on target.....and it is used against many guys that suggest differently.....I think it is the one thing that has made golf unsustainable for many....for example..a million dollars worht of cartpath to allow guys to play on three or four days a year where they otherwise could not play....or greens constrcution to allow for a lower height of cut one extra month per year....
BUT now these same guys are preaching how to cut these same cost they helped to put in place.....at least we will not have to worry about subair ion fairways for awhile....