Best Value Architects

[Cliff Hamm]

Is the number of possible rankings infinite???

From Golf Inc.:

Golf Inc. names Best Value architects
March 2010
By Jack Crittenden

Golf Inc. has identified its first-ever list of the “Best Value” golf course architects, with Mungeam Cornish Golf Design at the top of the list. The Massachusetts-based firm charges only $235,000, an affordable rate compared to many firms that charge more than $500,000.

The magazine requested average fees and number of recent project from all active architects in the world. It received information from 120 architects, of which, 63 provided average fee data.

The magazine’s editors then rated each architect for value, based on fee price and quality of recent work. Architects who charged more than $500,000 were not considered.

“Future new development in the United States and other more mature markets will depend upon projects that pencil out,” said Jack Crittenden, Editor In Chief of Golf Inc. “A smart financial project starts with an affordable architect. We feel it is important to highlight the architects who can help developers build more affordable golf courses.”

The complete list:

1            Mungeam Cornish Golf Design            $235,000

2            Gary Panks Associates            $400,000

3            Schmidt Curley Design            $500,000

4            Jeffrey D. Brauer/GolfScapes            $300,000

5            Ron Garl GC Design            $500,000

6            Stephen Kay-Doug Smith            $150,000

7            John Fought Design            $500,000

8            Gaunt Golf Design            $250,000

9            Raymond Hearn GC Design            $250,000

10            Dasher Golf Design Inc.            $250,000

Golf Inc’s editors that worked on the project include Scott Kauffman, Trevor Ledger, Jim Keegan and Jack Crittenden. The list will appear in the Spring issue of Golf Inc., to be out on April 12th.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Cliff
This list has little value for me.
I'd like to see the list of fees for when it is an actual project - not what is presented in a survey.
Are you sure those aren't the fees for a bunker renovation? 

An architect that charges the same fee per golf course certainly doesn't charge based on the work involved.

There was a recent request for qualifications for a project in Laredo.
The total budget for the course is $6.0.
At least some on that list don't believe it can be done.

Happy Masters

[Tim Nugent]

I have to agree with Mike N.  I don't even respond to these inquiries because each job is different and not an apples to apples comparision.  Plus, clients really don't appreciate it when you publish otherwise private info.

What makes Mungeam Cornish a better value than Stephan Kay?  I've seen some pretty good stuff from Mr. Kay and I know he is very passonate about his work.  Same can be said for Mark Mungeam.  Depending on the project, their other commitments etc. who's to say?

At least 120 were able to provide a fee - I wonder if they all were actual jobs or if it was wishful thinking.

Mike - what ever became of that Larado RFP - it was for design/build no?

[Jud_T]

Why wouldn't they consider higher fees? What if a guy provided a much better course that sold a lot more memberships etc.? Does this calculus mean that a guy who built a pitch and putt for no fee has infinite value?

[Mike_Young]

Does anyone really understand what "Golf Inc" is....

[Jeff_Mingay]

I agree with Mike and Tim. Fees typically change from project to project depending on scope of work; or, at least they should.

I can't consider this article/survey completely factual. It's actually quite misleading; especially considering I've heard some interesting stories recently about some "big names" significantly cutting their fees to simply get work.

Knowing what I know to be fact, where are Rod Whitman and Bunker Hill on this list, to start?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Does anyone really understand what "Golf Inc" is....

Yes
Which is why I wrote what I did.
Not everyone else does.
They do get a lot of eyes / impressions.

Aren't you speaking at their conference next week?
I thought their new session title "Golf is no longer sustainable as we know it" meant you were the moderator.

[Tim Nugent]

Jud - EXACTLY, it cuts both ways.  If it didn't, Jack and company couldn't command the fees they get.  The developers aren't stupid.  They are getting value, even at those fee levels.  It depends on the type of project.  The reason there are Journeyman Architects out there is because they DON'T sell houses,  they design golf.  Add in other attributes ie Marketing Cashe' and spread a $1m fee over 500 houses and if you can 1)charge more than the same house down the road - lees the added GC Fee and 2) sell those houses faster than you would otherwise, then, I argue, they got value.

[Thomas McQuillan]

the name of this tread should be cheapest architects. Value is a completely different thing than price.

[Mike_Young]

As Mike N, Tim N and Jeff M indicate above....this list means nothing....now I have no issues with the guys that are listed ....any issues I might have is with such magazines or conferences....
Just check out the latest conference for Golf Inc that should be at Amelia Island in April....anyone wish to bet there are more speakers than attendees....and how many of these same speakers have spoken at most of their events....there is a lot of back scratching with many of the awards from this type of magazine/conference.....from my experience...if you wish to speak...buy an ad....
But it will not be much longer for these types of conferences.....
And probably right now..the best value architect is one that has his bulldozer paid for...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does the list mean anything? Does any list mean anything?  It wasn't but a few hours ago that Mike Young was railing about how our business model can't survive its high cost. Now comes a list of gca's who provide in someone's opinion a solid course for a reasonable fee and you jump all over it!  If it promotes a more affordable business model in any way, whats the big whup? At least its an attempt to promote something other than the "Big Name is all we need" syndrome, and for that we should be greatful.

Am I glad I'm on the list?  Kinda. I would rather be on the list of guys who make the biggest gobs of money, but I'll take it!

Will I put it in as part of my marketing package? You betcha!

Are the other guys just sore they didn't make it? Not sure.....but I will say this - every guy from the million dollar fee on down probably STRONGLY believes (with some good cause) that the provide the owner the very best value. You can't be in business for long if you don't believe that.  And you can't be in business very long if you don't provide SOME percieved value to some part of the market.

For what it is worth, if you read the methodology they combine fee with quality of work, which I presume is magazine recognition, mostly theirs.  A few of my courses have won and placed in their contests, and I have NEVER taken an ad with them.  But, overall, about half of my last 20 projects ahve gotten some kind of recognition on Best New Lists of some kind.  So, their evaluation is probably along the lines of "Would an owner in today's market like to get a golf course with a 60% chance of recognition in the best new lists for a fee that is in the lower 60% of the industry?

If that is value, then maybe I deserve a spot on that list.  At least, like the others, I like to think so!

I can just see the gca.com version of this list....

1. Tom Doak
1a Bill Coore
2 Gil Hanse
3 Mike Nuzzo
4 Mike Young
5 Kelly Blake Moran
6 Tony Ristola
...........
1,000,000,000.....Jeff Brauer

Amazingly all your faves will be at the top of the quality, value, whatever list.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Come on..I never said you didn't belong on that list...and of course you should use it in advertising....my point with the comments I have made on this topic have zero to do with anyone on the list and all to do with the Golf Inc...
Their conferences amaze me....always more speakers and industry than legitimate prospects....BUT I NEVER SAID YOU were an issue within this
AND I don't think I would be on any list for this site as you have projected....remember I am not a big fan of all the Old Dead guys.....and that keeps me in a bunch of junk around here....  Actually I never thought DR was gay until I found out all these guys that slept with him....

[Bill_McBride]

Does the list mean anything? Does any list mean anything?  It wasn't but a few hours ago that Mike Young was railing about how our business model can't survive its high cost. Now comes a list of gca's who provide in someone's opinion a solid course for a reasonable fee and you jump all over it!  If it promotes a more affordable business model in any way, whats the big whup? At least its an attempt to promote something other than the "Big Name is all we need" syndrome, and for that we should be greatful.

Am I glad I'm on the list?  Kinda. I would rather be on the list of guys who make the biggest gobs of money, but I'll take it!

Will I put it in as part of my marketing package? You betcha!

Are the other guys just sore they didn't make it? Not sure.....but I will say this - every guy from the million dollar fee on down probably STRONGLY believes (with some good cause) that the provide the owner the very best value. You can't be in business for long if you don't believe that.  And you can't be in business very long if you don't provide SOME percieved value to some part of the market.

For what it is worth, if you read the methodology they combine fee with quality of work, which I presume is magazine recognition, mostly theirs.  A few of my courses have won and placed in their contests, and I have NEVER taken an ad with them.  But, overall, about half of my last 20 projects ahve gotten some kind of recognition on Best New Lists of some kind.  So, their evaluation is probably along the lines of "Would an owner in today's market like to get a golf course with a 60% chance of recognition in the best new lists for a fee that is in the lower 60% of the industry?

If that is value, then maybe I deserve a spot on that list.  At least, like the others, I like to think so!

I can just see the gca.com version of this list....

1. Tom Doak
1a Bill Coore
2 Gil Hanse
3 Mike Nuzzo
4 Mike Young
5 Kelly Blake Moran
6 Tony Ristola
...........
1,000,000,000.....Jeff Brauer

Amazingly all your faves will be at the top of the quality, value, whatever list.

"Don't sell yourself short, Judge, you're a tremendous slouch!"    or Caddyshack words that effect!

I'm with whoever called this list apples and oranges.  What else could it be, every project is different.  But I suspect that the model where you divide the signature design fee by the number of houses and shrug is probably gone with the wind, for a while anyway.

"Lean and mean" will be the watchword in a lot of industries in this decade, and I suspect golf design, construction and maintenance are going to be three of them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I didn't sense you had any problem with me. And I debated your place on my own mock list. I figured you are much closer to mainstream than the others, and considered putting you lower on the list, but you have a dozen or so fans on this site, giving you about a dozen more than I do!  So, you are only 999,990 above me on the gca.com list of value architects....not 999,996.

Mike Nuzzo,

If you price your jobs by the hour, or any time based measure of "work" you reall aren't creating any value in the minds of the client and you are devaluing your own self.  Laborers get paid for their backs by the hour, and getting paid by the hour for your brain isn't a lot better.  Getting paid for the added value you bring should raise your fees, if you can take a page from the big boys and figure out how to market that.....

[Adrian_Stiff]

Me - Every course I have designed has been profitable and none ever entered liquidation. Everything has always been delivered ontime and on budget, my courses are cheap to construct, cheap to maintain and are available in 3D. :O)

btw I am about £100,000

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adrian,

I think I have a better record of courses staying in business than most, but I have had a few sold off for real estate.

But, your post remindes me that I also got a copy of the new Crittenden Golf Letter, which I used to subscribe to, but don't anymore.

In the news section, there was a blurb about RTJII courses providing the most real estate value. According to that report, RTJ gets about $64M in extra real estate valued.

The next blurb was about an RTJII course that was going on the bankruptcy auction block.  Quite the coicindental pairing of news articles.  I hadn't laughed so hard since last month, when Obama had a morning news conference to proclaim he was committed to deficit reduction, and an afternoon conference to proclaim that we are going to spend our way out of the recession, and MSN printed them one over another on their website.....

[Sean_A]

If there is such a thing as a best value archie it has to be a guy who delivers what it says on the tin he sold to the owners.  Cost has nothing to do with it.  Whether or not courses close has nothing to do with it. 

Ciao

[Tim Nugent]

Possibly there is value, but I don't think fees are the issue here. The real issue is construction costs and future maintenance costs. You can justify the high fee based on a per house cost, but can you justify the construction costs, and for the entity left with paying maintenance costs can you justify the maintenance cost.

Kelly, the article was about fees.  But like fees, I submit that construction and maintenance costs are also project specific and like fees, hard to quantify just what is in them.  Can you tell me what the maintenance costs at yoour last 10 courses have been for the past 5 yrs? And did they all include the exact same line items? Probably not.  A time back, one would want as much "stuff" in his budget, to make it as big as possible (and justify a higher salary), now they want as much out and in someone elses, to highlight their value.  So, those budgets probably don't even correlate.  And are those budgets based on what is needed, wanted, or simply an arbritrary amount granted by the Board.
And as to construction costs, aside from being site specific, and what the client wants, how exactly is everyone all of a sudden creating "cheaper" courses than the next guy?  Relaxing specifications?, cutting corners?  Putting in less irrigiaton, drainage? Omitting cart path, landscaping?  Smaller greens, tees, bunkers?  The only sure-fire way without limiting the scope or specs is to limit the amount of earthmoving and Mr. Doak found a way to selll less is more a long time ago.

[Ron Kern]

The magazine requested average fees and number of recent project from all active architects in the world.

^This is not true - that being said, I cannot imagine that I would ever answer such an inquiry.

And, obviously I, nor my father, have never charged enough.

[Tim Nugent]

Perhaps they just should pay us $2/rnd instead, Then if  it is  a fun course that people like, we'd do better.  If it cost too much to maintain(higher greens fee) for the perceived value then there would be less golffers and hence lower income for the architect.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff
Thanks for ranking me 4th on your list.
I'm going to use that in my materials.
And congratulations for being listed - I think it is a good thing for the architect.

You are correct it is nice to see them promote someone other than a big gun who can help sell conference seats who has put many a small developer out of business.
But this list is hardly scientific.
I think it was probably done poorly.

I liked all the guys at the conferences - some I consider friends - we've had a lot of beers together.
I've been to and have been a sponsor of several.
I've met a good percentage of the industry.
I got to meet Bill Coore and Tom Doak at conferences.
They are currently in my opinion of little value to me for the next year.

Happy Masters

[David_Elvins]

Intersting list.  Another reason why the Golden age architects were better than modern day architects.  You could have got Alister MacKenzie for 1/1000th of the cost of Jeff Brauer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

If I am on it, of course its poorly done.

Of course its not scientific. Golf Inc. never intended it to be anything other than a tool to generate interest in their magazines and newsletters, like every other list, which are inherenty flawed and imperfect.  It was five guys in a room sort of comparing the generalized fees quoted, and how many of each of our courses they had heard of, which likely means it drew from their own awards list. 

But, don't we critique the GD list as being "too" scientific?"

I have attended a few of the Golf Inc. conferences.  As MY says, its a lot of industry guys, and overall, not a cost effective way to stay in touch with them, and there haven't been real prospects there for half a decade or more.  But, I don't fault them. Like you and me, they are small fish in a big sea and just trying to eke out a living in the "glamorous" world of golf......frown

[Adrian_Stiff]

If there is such a thing as a best value archie it has to be a guy who delivers what it says on the tin he sold to the owners.  Cost has nothing to do with it.  Whether or not courses close has nothing to do with it. 

Ciao

Have another think about this Sean.

A lot of golf course constructions go over budget and that can hurt the client so not delivering what it says on the tin.
A sucssessfull golf course is a popular one, people like it, like = good value.
The posts question was more about "value" than who does the best work. So Cost must come into it.
I can assure you nobody in the UK has been cheaper in the UK building golf courses to the quality I have over the last 20 years.
In the UK we are bare bones because we dont do the real estate thing, I am very limited what I can spend and typically I get it all done for about £1,000,000 (2010 price) a lof of my 90s projects were coming in at £600,000. With the right site and landfill I can probably build a golf course for minus £1,000,000.

[Sean_A]

If there is such a thing as a best value archie it has to be a guy who delivers what it says on the tin he sold to the owners.  Cost has nothing to do with it.  Whether or not courses close has nothing to do with it.  

Ciao

Have another think about this Sean.

A lot of golf course constructions go over budget and that can hurt the client so not delivering what it says on the tin.
A sucssessfull golf course is a popular one, people like it, like = good value.
The posts question was more about "value" than who does the best work. So Cost must come into it.
I can assure you nobody in the UK has been cheaper in the UK building golf courses to the quality I have over the last 20 years.
In the UK we are bare bones because we dont do the real estate thing, I am very limited what I can spend and typically I get it all done for about £1,000,000 (2010 price) a lof of my 90s projects were coming in at £600,000. With the right site and landfill I can probably build a golf course for minus £1,000,000.

Adrian

A successful, money making course, may have little to do with the design.  Much of this has to do with the management of the course and other factors.  

Any competent archie can build very expensively or very cheaply.  Doing either is no great skill.  The skill is in the finished product as outlined on the tin. Other than the usual suspects of on budget, on time and meeting the brief, one of the most important questions is did the archie make the right choices on where he should cut corners due to the budget?  Are the holes compelling?  Does the course drain well?  What does it cost to maintain the course?  All archies say they will deliver a great course for the money, but we all know there are only great courses and the rest.  That doesn't mean there isn't worthwhile golf to be played that isn't great, but the punter doesn't care about budgets, legal issues etc.etc.  The punter cares about the course he will play and what it costs to play.  If the owner thinks cheap and cheerful will sell and thats what you give him - you are a high value archie because you met the brief.  To say its a great skill to build a course for a miilion when the budget calls for a million is an odd thing to boast about.  Now if you can come in under budget and show how saving that money hasn't hurt the quality of the course or raised maintenance costs - excellent - you are even a better value archie.  Like the golfer can believe that both expensive and costly golf can be great value, so too is it true about archies.  

Ciao