[Mike_Young]

After reading the post " a question for Mr. schack...; I see a great deal of argument over the word " architect".  Ego's and organizations have taken this word to new extremes in the last decade and now we probably have more people calling themselves or being called golf architects than at any other time.  In the overall scheme there is such a small demand for a "golf architect" that each must determine his own method of entry into the field.  There is not and never will be a curriculum for this field.
Some might think that fulltime defines one as "real" while others might even consider some of the name pros as "real" (and as much as many may disagree, I think there are some like JN that are real).  And I have seen cases with some of the big names where the construction company and the shaper are the "real architect" due to the fact that the architect knows that they know what he wants and he just basically delivers the job and goes to find the next one.

My personal opinion is that a "real architect" does all of the below:
1. finds the job
2. works with the engineers to solve the issues of the job
3. negotiates for his reasons
4. ROUTES the job
5. negotiates for his reasons
6. places the strategy in the holes
7. negotiates for his reasons
8. does the drainage plan
9  negotiates
10. talks to owner, shaper everyday
11. negotiates
12. is on site once a week at least
13. remembers which hole is which
14. gets a rental car stuck at least once a week
15. argues with owner over hiring good supt.
16. knows how to hold plans and point for a photo op
17. and only has time for about 2 projects at a time
18. does not get to play golf everyday as many think
19. COORDINATES...COORDINATES..
20. IS STILL LOVED BY OWNER AT END OF JOB

This might be a fulltime job or it might not be.  If one has the means to be proficient at this without considering it fulltime then so be it.  It has been done that way in the past.  But in 50 years, if the course is still around, people will not care if you were full time or not.  We certainly don't today.
Mike

[Mike O'Neill]

Mike,

Good question. It is sort of like my saying that I hooked up my new garbage disposal and now would like to be called an electrician or plumber. (Just take note sometime of the friction between electricians and electrical engineers or plumbers and their apprentices.) If there is no criteria for the job title, it has no value. Anyone can then hang out a shingle. I like a lot of the ones you listed. There are a great many so-called architects that cannot do a drainage plan. They understand that water runs downhill but have not been trained to put that on paper. In many cases, that works out just fine.

In the world of architecture, an architect has to be able to produce "construction documents". Many of our best men/women would not be caught dead stewing over such things. But stewing over such things is often what "architects" do. A golf course designer might handle many of the architectural aspects of the design and construction of a course, but that does not make him/her an "architect".

Luckily, golf course builders can build beautiful courses without giving themselves the job title "architect".

[rand]

I am new to this discussion but as a past CEO of an international golf course architectural company, I have more than a passing interest in the subject. Unless the person can create the following plans, that person in my estimation is not an "architect"
1. Routing plan
2. Grading plan
3. Drainage plan
4. Grassing plan
5. Irrigation plan
6. Landscape plan
 Fazio, Hurzdan, Cupp, Dale and Ramsey are golf course architects.  Having worked with Doak, I can tell you first hand that he could no longer put those plans together than fly to the moon. JN is not an architect, nor is AP or any other Pro except maybe TW. Coore and Crenshaw are not architects. This in no way indicates whether or not they can get the job done, because they have all done super work. The need for "architecture" will become more and more important as environmental concerns become more sensitive.

[George Pazin]

rand -

Strong post straight out of the box - I hope you share more of your feelings with us.

Can't say I agree with your assessment, however - to me, if you can get the final product done, you're an architect. The rest is just semantics. Did you go through the minutiae of every decision in your company as CEO? Are you thus qualified to refer to yourself as CEO?

I'm not really a believer in titles - sticks & stones is more my flavor - just seems like you're nitpicking.

[Mike O'Neill]

This stinks rand. Why do you have to be anonymous? So much anonymosity on this website! But I tend to agree for the most part with your post. You just lose credibility for addressing others in your profession/industry by name without telling us the address of your glass house. NO MORE ANONYMOSITY!

And George, you're correct. This thread is about semantics I believe. But why is it so important to call, let's say, Ben Crenshaw an architect? I don't recall him calling himself that in any of the couple dozen construction meetings during which both he and I were present. Why not call anything other than a lanscape architect a "designer" or "golf course builder" and not confuse the issue? And by the way, understand my belief that just because one is a landscape architect doesn't mean that that individual is going to build a better course than a "designer". Just different job titles. Plus, and I have said this here in the past, there are a lot of landscape architects who seem to know very little about plants and horticulture. So when it comes to turf issues, the course super tends  to be the most qualified despite the lack of the word "architect" in his/her title.

[rand]

Hi George,
I was originally responding to the question. This subject is a real "bee in my bonnet" as it were. In many ways your so-called golf course architects are similar to professional wrestlers. As a matter of fact, Doak is trying to be either Hulk Hogan or The Rock   . The golf business is in turmoil. Donald Ross needed to justify his existence by creating the ASGCA.  As I have often said, "Anybody who plays golf is a golf course designer."  It is part of the game.  The real professionals know how to get it down on paper and then make modifications in the field. With housing and environmental issues, the technical side is becoming more important and costly. In the Soviet Socialist Republic of New Jersey it is almost impossible to get timely approvals and entitlements.  The savvy architect knows how to work with other professionals such as environmentalists and civil engineers to work through the process. Golf course designers are helpless. Just as "stamps" are required for building architecture, the day is not far away when certification will be required.  Thank goodness for "grandfather" exemptions.

[George Pazin]

I always liked the way Pete Dye calls himself a golf course designer, but, alas, usually it's labels others make up that one has to live with...

[rand]

The golf Taliban is everywhere. Just kidding, I am anonymous only to you

This stinks rand. Why do you have to be anonymous? So much anonymosity on this website! But I tend to agree for the most part with your post. You just lose credibility for addressing others in your profession/industry by name without telling us the address of your glass house. NO MORE ANONYMOSITY!

And George, you're correct. This thread is about semantics I believe. But why is it so important to call, let's say, Ben Crenshaw an architect? I don't recall him calling himself that in any of the couple dozen construction meetings during which both he and I were present. Why not call anything other than a lanscape architect a "designer" or "golf course builder" and not confuse the issue? And by the way, understand my belief that just because one is a landscape architect doesn't mean that that individual is going to build a better course than a "designer". Just different job titles. Plus, and I have said this here in the past, there are a lot of landscape architects who seem to know very little about plants and horticulture. So when it comes to turf issues, the course super tends  to be the most qualified despite the lack of the word "architect" in his/her title.

[Mike O'Neill]

rand,

Help me out. Who are you?

Thanks,
Mike

[rand]

Osama Bin Golfin

rand,

Help me out. Who are you?

Thanks,
Mike

[Don_Mahaffey]

Rand,
Are you telling me that the guys you mention are doing their own irrigation plans? They may have a CID on the payroll or under contract, but I doubt they are doing their own. In fact, I tried to get a project off the ground with one of those you name (it never flew, at least not yet), and although irrigation design was included, it was farmed out. Landscape plans should, IMHO, be done by locals with local knowledge of native species and their use. I kind of doubt an architect based in Michigan will have the knowledge to do a landscape plan in FL, AZ, CA, HI, Europe, Asia, .....What is important is coordinating the project and hiring good professionals to handle their specialties. I would be very wary of someone calling themselves a Golf Course Architect who claimed to be an expert in all the areas you mention, worldwide.  

[rand]

The world of golf course design architecture is a big place. Irrigation is often the most expensive line item in a construction budget. It just costs the client more when you farm it out and then add a 15% or 20% override. If the architect does not know plant material in a particular region, he or she is useless.  The golf course architect does not have to be an expert on all things, but his team does.  The golf course architect needs to manage the team and have the vision and scope to pull it off.  Golf is evolving with every thing else and architects need to be accountable. The conversation over at the "Merion streile" proves that everyone is a designer.  Golf is meant to be fun.  The golf Taliban headed by Doak, Crenshaw and others want to take the game backwards.  The minimalists are just like Osama in his cave.  They have their book and everyone else is wrong to think things have changed since some sheep farmer began hitting rocks at sand dunes.  Pete Dye is the only one taking chances and is responsible for getting us out of the RTJ dark ages.  Just because you are a golf course architect does not make you good.

[JEarle]

Mike and Rand,

What about the ability to create ? This is the only REAL meaning of the word ARCHITECT.

 Anybody can create plans (engineer, draftsmen, home depot worker) and almost anybody can negotiate their reasons ( 5 year old child to a 80 year old used car salesmen ) that doesn't mean they are architects.  

[Ed_Baker]

Osama bin golfin',

 You can't argue with the product of Pac Dunes,or Applebrook. What "titles" would you put on the people responsible for those courses and who are they?

Donald Ross is going to greet you with a baffie upside the head when you stand before Allah . You will also be forced to debate golf architecture for eternity with Ted Robinson and Damien Pacuzzo in arabic, while Mssrs. Hatch and McGovern pull your fingernails out with a mule and scraping team.

[Mike O'Neill]

JEarle,

Forget for the sake of this argument whether a given designer is good or bad. Yes, the best we can hope for is someone who is astute at creating.

However, in this technical discussion of the definition of "architect", we are distinguishing job titles based on, for example, the typical standards and practices of the landscape architecture profession. Whether or not a given designer is the best golf course designer out there is a different discussion than whether or not that individual ought to have a couple extra initials after his/her name.

rand,

Is it not cowardly to hide your identity and yet still throw stones (maybe they are pebbles, but they still might sting)? For all we know, you are slighting other designers because you are in competition with them. You could say everything you have said here without being anonymous and add to your credibility. I don't know about the slander laws you might be breaking. Otherwise, what are you hiding for? You might have great insight for us here. But they would be more courageous with your real name attached. You say that I am the only one who does not know who you are. Can anyone else tell me who rand is? Is he/she currently involved in golf work or is he/she an alsorand?

Thanks in advance,
Mike

[rand]

Ed,
Fescue in the land of bent.  Certain death in Willistown. Nice greens Donny boy.  Robinson, Robinson, Robinson, Robinson.  The 18th hole at the Bridges As for the rest of the minimalists, I will let Allah or should I say McKenzie have his way with them in the great beyond.  Come on Ed, the game we love is getting clobbered because these guys went to Scotland and thought that was the end all be all.  I am all in favor of standardizing the golf ball because of the lack of land available.  Most old courses need to be plowed under and in the next 100 years will be plowed under if Malthus was half right.  If great design means high grass then we will lose more participants.

[JEarle]

Mike O'Neil

 Even from a technical standpoint creativity is the #1 character that defines "architect". An "architect" can create a bad golf course easier then a good one.

  As for the technical standpoint relating to the Landscape Architectural profession. The most important function of landscape architecture is to CREATE and preserve beauty of nature.

[Richard_Goodale]

rand

For the time being I neither know nor care who you are.  Some of your ideas are provocative, and I would really far prefer to have people who can speak to these ideas with more authority and knowledge than can I reply to them rather than bash them blindly, just becuase you choose, for the moment, to post anonymously.  It reminds me of what those unwilling to engage in ideas did to Swift, or even to BarneyF, not so long ago......

Rich

[George Pazin]

Couldn't care less about your anonymity, rand, but I must say, anyone can make broad generalizations without offering any rationale to back it up.

Makes me think you're just funnin' with us (to quote Robert Walker).

[Ed_Baker]

Rich,

I'm all for ideas,but lets not forget that Hitler had a few ideas in his day too!

rand,

History has proven Malthus to be nothing more than a proponent of coitus interuptus.

Which courses on Golfweeks Top 100 classical list shall we start with? Pine Valley? Ngla?
I say shite sir, just shite!

[Brian Phillips]

1. Routing plan
2. Grading plan
3. Drainage plan
4. Grassing plan
5. Irrigation plan
6. Landscape plan
 Fazio, Hurzdan, Cupp, Dale and Ramsey are golf course architects.  Having worked with Doak, I can tell you first hand that he could no longer put those plans together than fly to the moon. JN is not an architect, nor is AP or any other Pro except maybe TW. Coore and Crenshaw are not architects. This in no way indicates whether or not they can get the job done, because they have all done super work. The need for "architecture" will become more and more important as environmental concerns become more sensitive.

I agree with what Rand has to say.  I don't think you can call yourself an architect unless you have the papers saying that you are an architect.

There is nothing wrong with being a golf course designer either just as he mentions.  They have all done good work.  However having the piece of paper that says you are an architect does NOT mean you are a good golf course architect.

According to Golf Course Design by Graves and Cornish it was C.B. MacDonald that first coined the term "golf architect".

Now to just twist the arguement:

How many of the following did the great 'architects' ever do:

1. Routing plan
2. Grading plan
3. Drainage plan
4. Grassing plan
5. Irrigation plan
6. Landscape plan

No 1. probably....

all the rest was probably done by thier engineers on site...

So....has the term 'golf course architect' been changed by ASGCA to create 'elitism'...

I don't know...

I will studying a M.Sc. in Golf Course Architecture from October this year in Edinburgh...

does that make me a 'golf course architect' at the end of it......no.  

And even if it does, if I was the client and had a choice between me and Tom or C&C, I would choose them before me because of experience and what they have produced before.

I am designing now, I even re-designed a hole today on a course near my home town today.  I have designed a nine hole course which is getting built as we discuss this.  I am NOT an architect...I am a designer.

Brian.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rand,

After seeing Pacific Dunes, I hope Tom Doak never decides to become a "golf architect".

I have no idea where you are coming from, but I hope you will mature to the point where you give up the drive by criticism thing.  Your comments are typical of the Fazio bashing mentality we often see.  If you have been following this site, you should be aware we are trying to get past all that nonsense.

Your comments are a perfect example of the problem with anonymous posts.

[ian]

Rand,

The notion that someone who can't produce drawings is NOT an architect is stupid. There are architects who pride themselves on accurate drawings, and there are architects that produce by feel in the field. Both are ways to produce great works of architecture. If it doesn't fit into your narrow view of the world, tough luck. I produce all the drawings you talk about, but I also know nothing is more important than field supervision. You statement is ARROGANT.

Mike,

I'll conceede your point, but I won't agree with your conclusion.

[Kris Spence]

rand

Some of the people you listed as real architects do projects without plan one.  I personally walked down the first fairway with the principle of one of these companies and he told   the shapers to their face to f -ing wing it from hear on out.  He never as much as looked in the green cavity before approving them.  The only plan I ever saw was a quick sketch on a napkin with his best guess as to elevation.  He was lucky.  The shapers and construction company did 90% of the design work and this course you will be hearing about in the next year in the rankings.

Just goes to show you, "real archies" dont always do plans.

[Mike O'Neill]

Ian,

At this point, I am not sure what point you are conceding. I just hope it's a footer for par, so to speak.

This thread is about the definition of the term "architect". As I have said, there is no legal definition of the term "golf course architect". We can all have whatever definition we want and call whomever we want a "golf course architect". I am just trying to explain that in other fields where "architecture" is in play, there are standards and practices. Golf does not have that. I once worked for a guy who ran a golf management company. He was very inexperienced at design in general, let alone golf course design. He had full power to act as "architect" over the courses we managed. He once told me to make sure that every bunker we renovated was put in a place where it would act as a drain for surface runoff--the dumbest thing I have ever heard of regarding bunkers. For this guy to call himself an architect is really sad. But without standards, he can do that very thing. Anyone can put out a shingle in the golf architecture business. But that just confuses the issue.

In the end, I think Brian put it very well. And please remember-- I am not advocating the notion that landscape architects are more qualified to build great golf courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()