What is a "REAL ARCHITECT"?

[Patrick_Mucci]

rand,

I'm interested in what you have to say.

As someone cited, it's provocative, but interesting and informative as well.

Stay on board, and....... come out of the closet.

[rickslifka]

Rand, just took a few minutes to review all of your posts!  Sounds as though you've been involved (from an "Operations" perspective) in the building of private golf clubs. If so, which of the roles that you held were the most fulfilling,challening and/or engaging, and why?

Thanks

[rand]

Thanks Rick,
I particularly enjoy the promoting and marketing of golf. These are interesting discussions, but the folks here lose sight of the most important thing and that is the survival of the game.  The young architects especially do not realize how bad the business is and their chance in designing a new course becomes slimmer each day. Letting anyone call themselves an architect only widens the field and does not allow the truly gifted a chance.  You may want to check out my 10 reasons for the betterment of golf.  Some is cynical, but most is serious.

Rand, just took a few minutes to review all of your posts!  Sounds as though you've been involved (from an "Operations" perspective) in the building of private golf clubs. If so, which of the roles that you held were the most fulfilling,challening and/or engaging, and why?

Thanks

[golfarc]

Rand,

Alot of what you say is correct and not many on this DG want to hear that because they're busying snuggling up to one of the pretenders you are implicating.  

KSpence,

Do golf architects really carry napkins in the field?  Hmmmm...

[SL_Solow]

The semantic difference between an architect and a designer is of little interest to me, I am interested in the product.  Apparently so is Rand since he suggests that Pete Dye is the person most responsible for a creative rebirth in the field post RTJ and we all know that Pete does most of his work on site and has less use for detailed plans than most.  The stated disdain for older courses is puzzling.  Just as blanket criticism of modern courses is unfair as there are many fine courses being built, so the universal suggestion that almost all older tracks are outmoded and will be eliminated must be rejected.  In all fairness most of the really awful work of the past has been eliminated (along with some wonderful work) leaving us with a higher standard than previously existed.  But rather than making blanket criticisms of time periods or individuals we should be specific in our critiques. Perhaps there is some jealousy involved.  I have played Pacific Dunes and whether Tom Doak drew a blueprint or not, it is an outstanding achievement to be applauded.  The same can be said for Sand Hills.  H.S. Colt built plasticene models of greens; how do we rate him?  By the results of course.  Certainly we may have different tastes which give rise to different evaluations and we may assess the skill of the designer based in part upon the attractiveness of the site, the budget, the environmental restrictions, etc but in the end its the product and not the process which makes the difference.  Studying the process is interesting only as a means of understanding how a product is produced.  Great plans, good drainage coupled with uninteresting shot values and unattractive aesthetics will make for a bad golf course.  The technical skills are certainly useful but only in conjunction with creative vision.

[RC_Stanfield (Guest)]

I would have to agree with SL_Solow!  The design of a quality course can only be achieved if the designer has the vision and daring ability to place his ideas and innovations on the table for discussion and dissection.  Too many are worried about there peers and what and who is doing what to just remember that it doesn't matter what somebody else is doing.  If you as an architect are so quick to dog designs that are of the quality of Bandon etc. Then maybe thats the same reason you may have made fun of people in elementry school for doing something different or just not even caring what anyone else was doing outside the norm.

Plus has anyone reviewed Mike Youngs work?  Don't think so....I think its funny that SL_SOLOW brought up drainage plans.....maybe Mike should be asked if he puts drainage in when he specs in and draws the plans?  If you know what I mean?  That may be a low blow but if its the Mike Young from Georgia I would say he couldn't design his way out of a box, when it came to golf courses!  Sorry but the truth hurts.

[Tim_Weiman]

Golfarc:

Who are the "pretenders"?  Are you ("golfarc") one?

[TEPaul]

Rand:

Here's what you had to say in a recent post:

"Letting anyone call themselves an architect only widens the field and does not allow the truly gifted a chance."

I'm fairly certain you know I'm Tom Paul and I'm somewhat sure you know I know who you are. By the way, Pat, Rand isn't in the closet, he isn't really anonymously posting on here!

When I feel the need I will call a spade a spade! Do you feel today as you once stated and implied to me that Coore & Crenshaw are only "field" diluting "designers" who don't have the right to call themselves architects and are "widening the field" and not allowing a truly gifted architect like a Ron Fream a chance?

When you told me Coore and Crenshaw were simply designers, not architects, and implied that considering hiring them would likely result in mistakes, possibly or ultimately cost consequences and/or less than a desired product, I was taken aback!

Both then and over time I have felt that was one of the more unethical and underhanded remarks I've heard from anyone in the business of golf course architecture! That is completely unprofessional but I don't know that you are, ever have been or ever will be a professional in the business of golf architecture.

I've been on this site from day one, almost three years ago and there are a ton of really good people on here--excellent people, who know a ton about both architecture and golf. I really don't think they need to hear what you think a professional, an architect or a designer is or isn't unless and until you call up Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw and apologize to them for making a remark like that to even me.

And after that you really should alter your modus operandi about what you say while practicing this business if that's what you're doing! I can handle that remark myself no problem but it still remains probably the most disappointing incident in what has otherwise been about five great years of concerning myself with golf course architecture daily!

The people on here probably don't need to hear what your ten point manifesto is for the salvation of architecture or golf  either if you still profess publicly the kind of sentiments you did with me about others in the profession that were evidenced by your Coore and Crenshaw remarks.

I never would have said a thing at all about that remark you made to me about Coore and Crenshaw but now that you're on this website that I'm very fond of apparently starting to imply the same things, I believe it's the time for me to say something!

As far as I'm concerned you can talk about architects, designers, whatever you want to call the people who run the companies that build golf courses and probably not 1% of them could shine Ben and Bill's shoes when it comes to producing a great final product golf course. The same goes for Doak too!

This website has the potential to be read by people all over the world and I have absolutely no compunction about saying what I'm saying to you!

"Letting anyone call themselves and architect only widens the field and does not allow the truly gifted a chance."

You probably didn't realize I felt this way and maybe I should have said something back then but I was just beginning to learn back then, I was looking for architects at that time--and today is a long time and a lot of knowledge later from that time.

Just so the Golfclubatlasers understand why I'm saying these things, the remarks Rand made to me about C&C were not just throw-away remarks, they were made in the course of direct golf architectural solicition--the solicitation of business!

So if you want to call yourself a professional and you want to get serious with some good people on here or even discuss architecture or golf with them, I think you have some explaining to do--not to me, but starting with some real professionals like Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw!

[MastaP]

one bad ass motherfckr.

just joking.

a real architect iz actually a bad ass jive turkey

[Brian Phillips]

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

I don't know...

I was just going to modify my statement in my last post but I will just clarify my point here.

I wrote the above statement as there are some on this site that do not agree with the ASGCA.  

I am not one of them, I believe in Associations, Societies or whatever you want to call them.

I have been asked to join the Scandinavian GCA as a student member and I will be applying next week.  I will also be applying to the European version as well.

I do not believe that ASGCA has changed the meaning of a golf course architect however they have created a an elite group of individuals who are golf course architects (according to them).  Elite meaning an elite group of people deemed to be qualified to be called a golf course architect.  

In Norway most clients want an architect who is qualified and whose name they can put directly on the planning application as solely responsible for the design work.  

I built a nine hole last year and and I am building an 18 hole course at the moment.  The 9 hole course was designed by Jeremy Turner who is a qualified Landscape Architect and has a full resume of golf courses.  His name went directly on the planning paper application...no problem.  

The 18 hole is being designed by a gifted man who has no drafting background, no law background, no anything just a very good player in his day.  We hit problems here..
He has designed more holes than Turner however he is not classified as an architect.  Luckily the company I work for is one of the largest construction firms in Scandinavia.  His design work now goes under our firm and we are responsible for his design work.  We have clearance all over Norway for Project Design and Development.

This is where a big difference can come with being a designer and an architect.  It can come down to who gets sued in the end.  I do not know whose name is on the application for responsibility at the course Geoff Shackleford is working on but I will be very surprised if his name is on any applications for resposibility at all.  I would have thought that it is Gill Hanse's firm that has the responsibility.

So in my eye Geoff cannot be classed as an architect or designer until his name is on the piece of paper that counts.  Many here will class him as a designer but he is not in the eyes of the law or the planning offices.  Not yet anyway...

Elite /noun/ a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or or category, especially because of their power, talent, or wealth

Elitism /noun / the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society.


Hope this clears up some of my thoughts..

[Tim_Weiman]

Brian Phillips:

I noticed your comparison of golf architecture to music.  That reminds me of a tour Russell Talley and I were given at Burnham & Berrow a few years ago.

B&B is a favorite of mine, in part because of some really neat green complexes, but more than that because it has several mood swings.  That's something I love on a golf course.

Anyway, the club official who showed Russell and I around mentioned that the club was thinking about toughening up some of the less dramatic holes.

Where did my mind go?

Right to music.  All I could think of was an orchestra raising and lowering the volume during a lengthy piece.

Then, I snapped out of it.

"Don't change a thing", I urged the man at Burrnham & Berrow, "you'll ruin what is so cool about the place".

Russell smiled and said "Tim, your exactly right".

I don't know if B&B ever made any changes, but if not, maybe that moment of being transported to the world of music helped me convince the B&B man to just leave well enough alone.

And, I'm not even a "real architect"!

[Mike_Young]

R C Stanfield,
Yep, it is the Mike Young from GA.  and yes I do drainage plans.  Thanks for the comments.

Mike

[David Wigler]

R.C. Stanfield,

Out of curiosity, how many Mike Young courses have you seen?  I have played Mike's courses and I could not disagree with you more.  Titles are irrelevant so I do not know what Mike should be but he can flat out design a golf course.  Mike's strength is that he designs subtle features that challenge the mind.  I do not believe Mike would ever put a faux falls on one of his courses.  He also produces courses under budget that can make a profit and be easily maintained.  

Five miles apart in Costa Rica, there is a Mike Young and an RTJ Jr.  They are as different as night and day.  Mike's course is a thought provoking adventure while Jones is a work of art with faux water features, flashed bunkers, etc.  Mikes cost a lot less to build and a ton less to maintain.  Anyone who likes movies more than books will prefer RTJ Jr's.  People who like books more than movies will probably like Mike's.  I played it 4 times and I still cannot figure out the best way to play #10.  I do not know what axe it is that you have to grind with Mike, but to make such a broad based criticism of all of someone’s work is simply silly and makes you look like a fool.

[Mike_Young]

David Wigler,

Thanks for responding to Mr. Stanfield.

He writes:  

"Plus has anyone reviewed Mike Youngs work?  Don't think so....I think its funny that SL_SOLOW brought up drainage plans.....maybe Mike should be asked if he puts drainage in when he specs in and draws the plans?  If you know what I mean?  That may be a low blow but if its the Mike Young from Georgia I would say he couldn't design his way out of a box, when it came to golf courses!  Sorry but the truth hurts. "

I don't think I know this guy but obviously he doesn't like my work.  No problem.  And I really don't understand his gist regarding drainage plans.
The course that you saw in Costa Rica, Hacienda Pinilla had a basic drainage plan that was modified in the field.  It receives as much as 30" of rain per weekend during the rainy season and you can play it the next morning.  I don't know if it matters what I am called or how we arrived at our drainage plan.  But the course works and the owner is happy.

But after reviewing this post for a couple of days as for why some of us call ourselves Golf architects....  I don't care what someone calls me as long as I get to do my courses.  I only call myself "architect" for the simple reason that it allows me to be found in the yellow pages.  When I weighed it all out that was the only good reason I had.

Come back to Ga. and play Cateechee sometime.

Mike

[Will E]

Mike,
It's obvious that Mr.Stanfield doesn't know who you are, much less your work. From what I've witnessed your technical knowledge is unquestionable. The FACT that HP is playable after a downpoor may illustrate your ability to install drainage.

I also know; after watching you in action with the turtle hugging hippies,that he isn't smart to pick a fight with you.

As for a title.....I'd rather have a raise

[RC_Stanfield (Guest)]

First of all, after reading my comments about Mike Young, I must apologize to the entire GCA for making the comment that Mike Young cannot design his way out of a box.

The comment was to harsh and unjust.  He is a golf course architect designing courses across the southeast and abroad and I made a quick and brash comment that was unfair.

Mr. Young I apologize for the comment and I am sure that you do fine work with detailed plans and timely site visits.  So I apologize for the immature comment expressed earlier.

The course that I remember and that I based my comments on(immaturely)was the Oak Grove Island Golf Club in Brunswick Georgia.  After playing the course I found it to be a bit disapointing and I will have to visit a few of your other designs...most notably the course Cateechee.  Is that course in north GA near Dawsonville, GA?

If so, I think I drove by the course during construction.  As far as looking at it from the road it looked interesting.  Like I said I must apologize and refrain from shooting off about designs in that were not experienced prior and during construction.  Because I am sure that even and Oak Grove had its problems during construction that may have caused the original ideas to change, like many projects unless you have the owners pin number to his atm.

Sorry for the harsh words and I will refrain from choosing words that come off very personal and slanderous.

[Tom Doak]

Rand would be Rand Middleton, the project manager at Stonewall ten years ago, who thinks HE's an architect.

Rand, FYI, we prepare all those plans for nearly every course we do nowadays.  We didn't for Stonewall, because we had inherited Mr. Fazio's stuff, we didn't have time, the contractor wasn't going to read them, and Gil and I were shaping the holes anyway.  [We didn't prepare them all for Pacific Dunes, because we were building it, too.]  Don Placek does the final drawings, after I do them on tracing paper -- he's just neater than I am.

I didn't think that was what made me an architect, though.  I didn't think walking instead of using a rental car disqualified me, either.  

P.S.  If you guys think Rand is frustrating to listen to on the internet, you should try working with him for a year!

[RJ_Daley]

Was Rand ever BY in another life?  The MO and lingo sound like the same, and from the same position or level of involvement in the golf course construction hierarchy.

It is the same old thing across many professions.  Everyone wants to be the Chief and no one wants to be the Indian.  So alot of arrows get slung at the honchos sitting around the counsul fires from the woods by young bucks.  The real future leaders step forward out of the concealment of darkness and cover and make their challenge up-close and personal.  I do appreciate Mr Stanfield's restatement.  We all make mistakes when we get passionate.  Good guys will own up and correct themselves.  

[David Wigler]

RC,

I respect the heck out of your last post.  If you have time, please do the tree house two favors:

1. Stick around.  Passion is a good thing and I suspect you have something valuable to contribute.
2. Go play Cateechee and review it for the group.  It sounds like you are in the area and it would be very interesting to see what you opinion of Mike's work is after seeing what most regard as his best effort in Georgia.  Look for all of the subtle strategy and decisions he forces you to make.  Try to view it as a cerebral as well as visual challenge.  I'll bet you are impressed but if you aren't tell us.

[Mike_Young]

RC,
Thanks for the apolgy.  

 Oakgrove Island was a golf course that had a budget of under 2 million dollars in the early ninties.  The elevation above sea level was 6 feet.  My golf drainage plan was developed to tie in with the engineers plan for the surrounding subdivision that was not built until later.  This was a deal where the subdivision developer gave the land to the golf developer and then got into trouble, changed his subdivision plan and never followed his engineers drainage plan.

As for us, well the owner had a little problem with the banking laws; served a few years for his problems.  This happened half way thru the project.  That is one of those times when you do not want to be known as the architect.  Because you have lost all control.

The course was later bought out of bankruptcy and today I think it is in good shape and draining.

As for Cateechee, it is in Hartwell Ga.  www.cateechee.com   It is a good golf course but again as much as the owner can be a problem in one case the owner can also be an asset.  The owner of Cateechee is an asset that has hired the best people and emphasizes maintenance.  Check it out.  The course in Dawsonville is called Gold Creek and should be in good shape also.

Mike

[golfarc]

Tim,

I'll not tell you.  But I will say that is is interesting to read what many people think an architect is.  Somewhere between a disciplined professional with years experience and a green-behind-the-ears author of books.  One thing is for sure, it will not be definitively written or agreed upon here.

Out here.

[Jim_Kennedy]

golfarc,
I'm not too sure that those on this site wouldn't agree with the following from the ASGCA website:

"The American Society of Golf Course Architects is a non-profit organization comprised of leading golf course designers in the United States and Canada. Each member is actively involved in the design of new courses and the renovation of older courses."

Now I know this is more of a description of what the society is but they label their members as designers. This will suffice for me as I could not offer a better definition than that of such an esteemed organization, founded by the designers who were at the head of their profession at the time.

[jg7236]

A Designer is someone who doesn't have the credentials to be called a Architect, he or she was grandfathered in to the business through hard work and experience.  An Architect(Landscape Architect) has graduated with a Bachelors or Masters Degree from an acredited University and is licensed to practice.

[ian]

The name of "golf architect" is not legally controlled by any organizational body. Anyone can use it (and many do who do not deserve the title).
It is a combination of experience, an qualification exam and a degree that makes you an Architect or Landscape Architect.
You may be suprised to know that most of the ASGCA are registered Landscape Architects.

Golf is too much feel, and has little that defines it to hard and fast rules. Architect or Designer, plans or no plans, who cares. If the work is good, that is all that matters.

RC, that impressed the hell out of me.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ian,
The thrust of what I was trying to say was this: Even the ASGCA chooses to call its members designers and ascribes actively pursuing the building of new and the renovation of old courses as its main criterion for wearing the mantle of "architect".