Who is responsible for bad, or good architecture

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who is responsible, and to what degree for bad, or good architecture ?

Is it the architect ?  Or is it the project developer ?
Or, is it the current tastes of the golfing Masses ?
If you think it's two, or all three, to what degree do you credit or debit their involvement ?

[Paul Richards]

the answer is ----


YES.


In some ways, it's all three.

But, the developer has the purse-strings, and that will
really dictate how the architect will build to fulfill the dictates
of the golfing masses.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Isn't that why archies team up with tour players?

To appease the masses, and if they can provide a sound, or better design, the team can meet an owners requirements.  Whose requirements would be fiscal and hopefully with a desire to have a great course.

I think the architects of the 60's + we're very good, but a lot of their work doesn't hold up to the treehouse due to the prevailing masses thought that difficulty was key and not strategy.

mike

[ian andrew (Guest)]

The architect!

I have seen very sound golf courses on dull land, with little budget. It may be plain to look at, but its still strategic. Bad architecture is always bad, no matter what the budget or restrictions; and if the restrictions are too difficult, the architect can always pass on the project.

[George Pazin]

I think it's up to the architect to maximize whatever he's given to work with, whether that be the land, the owner and/or the budget. Obviously, it's generally some combination of all three. In any business, it's dealing with the unknowns that makes things interesting & difficult. For creative businesses where the outcome is largely subjective, this is surely doubly so.

The real problem, then, is, how do you determine if the architect got the most out of what he was given?

There has certainly been volumes & volumes written on this site both chastising architects for things that were beyond their control, as well as defending architects who maybe didn't get the best out of a given opportunity.

Ultimately, somebody votes with his wallet - the public if it's daily fee, the membership if it's private - & really only the architect & the others involved in construction know how things might have turned out better or worse.

Tough question - almost as tough as my "When is it okay to tinker" question which most everyone ducked!

[Robert_Walker]

There are many things that can make a project bad. Bad Designers. Bad Clients. Bad Governemnt.

The question is best answered by what makes a project great.

The CLIENT with vision and great management skills is the most important key to success. Now, that is not to put the designer down, it means, however that the designer needs a great client to be able to be great himself.

[Tony Ristola]

Almost always the architect.

There are millions of excuses.  

Though there are developers who get their fingers in the pie, but usually this is due to the architect not spending the time on-site.

[JEarle]

How about the construction team or process ? For some reason we seem to forget about the people who are doing the construction and how important they are. Isn't this the reason that Winged Foot, Merion, the Old Course etc. are so well "crafted".

How about the maintenance team or process ? This includes the Super's, owners, and members.

Architecture is MORE then the strategy behind any given course.

[Tony Ristola]

JEARLE:  Everyone talks about how unique their golf course will be, how:

"you will have a course of exceptional beauty if you select the architect who will take advantage of your unique site to create such a course"
(a quote from Driving the Green.)

Key word...architect.  If the course is going to be unique it's up to the architect to educate the construction team about what he wants.  They're not the architects; in general they've never studied architecture.  Who's going to lead the effort to get that course of "exceptional" whatever?

The plans?  I've never seen an architect provide perfect plans for a 150 or so acre canvas...and even if he did, would the constructors interpret those plans perfectly...no?  They need help, assistance, communication, clarification, motivation...someone has to show they really give a damn and are willing to "Spend the weeks and sometimes months" (Herbert Warren Wind) on-site making the alterations and seeking out opportunity to better the project.  With the 0 to 6% the modern architects spend on-site...it ain't gonna happen.  

There are some companies that could do a great job without the architect...but how many crews are there out there today?  These crews get split up as well... as new companies form.  For eg., I know of one company that had 52 employees gutted...and they were responsible for a top 100 course...the next company went belly up.  Where are they today?  Who knows.  It's not the guys without architecture knowledge can't get the job done, they can, they just need some leadership...communication and that comes from the architect.

[George Pazin]

Blaming the construction guys for final results is like blaming the infantry for a bad command decision. Day to day screwups would be expected on occasion & should be corrected by the architect - if the final result is bad, it's not construction's fault. The buck has to stop somewhere.

[JEarle]

George,
 Isn't aliitle nieve to think that the contractors shouldn't share the blame with the architects, owners or supers! This is the problem with 90% of developments failures, architecturally. Everyone is self centered, all parties are only concerned with their involvement in the project and how much it is going to cost them. If the groups involved would only spend as much time communicating and cooperating as they do trying to figure out what to change, then the project would be successful. It is a major problem with all development, nobody wants to be accountable for the decisions. Everybody wants to be praised for the success but is quick to pointout someone elses faults when a problem arises.

Tony,

I'm sure the beauty of the site at Ironhorse was taken advantage of in the design. Isn't the course located next to refuge center?
The point that I'm making is that there is more to architecture then drawing plans from an office 100s of miles from the site. It's absurd that an owner can expect an architect to study every possble landform and design element on 150+ acres. And then take the beauty of 3 dimensional elements and rely them onto a 2 dimensional plan. And then expect to create good architecture. If your looking for "craftmenship" or a classical design. You need to find a firm that relies on site presence / architecture. Isn't the site presence the genius behind all great arhitecture from Crump at Pine Valley to Frank Lloyd Wright at Fallingwater. There are firms who specialize in site architecture were they create architecture based on the landforms. These landforms are studied on a daily basis for months at a time. Then they are built in keeping with the strategy of the individual hole and course. Why would an owner get to a point were they hire a contractor, who interprets architecture plans based on maximum productivity.  Then the superintendent tries to force their "likes and experiences" on a design that is opposite of thier vision. This is why there is much more to architecture then the strategy behind the holes. No matter how you look at it: good architecture is a team effort.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JEarle,

I would hold the construction crew harmless since they are or should be under the direct surpervision of the architect or project manager or developer.  Every move they make has to be signed off on, by the architect, project manager or developer, so if there is an error commited by the construction people, neglect on the part of supervisory personell has to take place in order for the mistake to live on.

Construction crews rarely make architectual mistakes, but
They are susceptible to construction mistakes.

I tend to agree with Robert Walker, especially over the last forty years.  I feel the trend may be shifting back to the architect as the key player in recent years.

[Ed_Baker]

Ultimately the architect.

A master architect must be the master orchestra conductor as well,the "maestro" if you will. He must coordinate the efforts of each faction of the process to bring his conception to reality on the ground.There can be no, "he said,she said," scenarios and finger pointing. After all,good or bad,the architects name is on that project forever.

Ross may be the greatest example of the golden age as being the best "conductor", he did manage to retain the services of the very talented Mssr.'s Hatch and Mcgovern for years as they labored away in obscurity without branching out on their own. We have established on this site that he produced some very fine "mail in" golf courses. His ability to produce consistently good product at that volume,given the travel and construction constraints of the era in which he worked is testimony to his "conducting" ability as much as his architectural genius. A modern example would be Pete Dye and his family.

So, most definitely the architect is responsible.

[JEarle]

 True, that the actual construction crew doesn't make architectual errors. As they are supervised by a construction foremen, who is given field direction by who? The architect who visits 3-4 times during the project. Or is it the firms representative who visits 3 days every other week. May be it is the project manager who used to work for the construction co. Don't you see that times have changed since Ross. The whole point of my post is that we need to get back the architectual genius of Ross and his predecessors. When craftsmenship and pride were the driving force behind the outcome of the project. And yes it took serious committement
from all groups involved. This is why the architecture of these courses is so good. Architecture is more then the strategy of the holes and how the are played. The construction, maintenance and ownership must be together on the architects vision. If you guys think that on these brief site visits that the architect sees and signs off on all aspects of the golf course, your crazy! If you don't believe that the project manager is pushing the contractor to finish or that the contractor is trying to be the "maestro of the orchestra", then you don't understand any construction work. Architecture is about control and control cannot be obtained on a limited basis. So yes the contractor, owners and maintenance are responsible for architecture. To say that the architect is the only name on the course is unfair. If contractors, owners, supers etc. are working on the course, then they are absolutely responsible for architecture.

[Richard_Goodale]

OK, just for this once, I'll be iconoclastic.

It's the OWNER!!!!

Regardless of what is presented to the ownership (be it individual, mutual or corporate) on day one by the archie, his crew, etc., the greateness (or lack thereof) of any course depends on how it develops over time.  This is the responsibility of the owner(s).  The truly great courses had both great creators and great stewards.  IMHO.

Rich

[George Pazin]

Rich -

Excellent point with regard to the evolution of a course.

JEarle -

Let me try this again. If you, as architect, choose to only visit a site 3-4 times & instead delegate all day to day decisions, you are still ultimately 100% responsible for how the course turns out. You are the big guy - you make the call - you get the big bucks - you get the praise - and you cetainly get the blame if things don't turn out well, I don't think too many owners would accept, "Don't blame me, I wasn't there," as a vaild excuse. The person at the top is always responsible for what goes on under him. The only possible exception to this is if the owner chooses to get involved when the architect is not around & signs off on all decisions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George -

I won't argue that the architect is not responsible for the architecture, although I will restate that many things can interfere with the final product, including stubborn owners and contractors.  There is usually a big push from the contractor to "discredit" the architect with the Owner, so he can get his way (Let me show you how this should REALLY be done.....).  Of course, what he means is, how it can be done lots cheaper, with the money going in his pocket.  (Sorry to discredit the entire contracting profession, but this does happen once in a while)

I will also dispute that the architect "makes the big bucks" on a project.  Design Fees, except for those named Nicklaus and Fazio are typically 5-10% of the project, or $200-300K.  If I take home 10% of that, it's $20,000.  If the contractor takes home 10% (and it's not unusual to make more) of a $4M project, that is $400K - not bad for eight months of work.

In fact, most successful contractors learned long ago that they shut up and take no praise, but make more money.  Architects are the kind who would struggle with a decision often found in the corporate world - "You can have a title or a raise"  Despite the obvious advantages to the latter, you can always count on many to take the former!

[JEarle]

George

The main point that I'm trying to convey is that there is more to architecture then a bunch of plans drawn in an office. Most architectural fans think that one person in a office conceptualizes the course down to every square inch. A golf course isn't an office building, this is the beauty of any form of landscape architecture. The construction co. is very much part of the architecture on any golf course. A good construction co. will aid the architects with ideas that they have seen or developed over years of experience. Yes the architects will approve the ideas. But the construction team with there specialized craftsmen will greatly influence and develop architecture. If they add a small hummock adjacent to a green,(which may go undetected by the architects) then they have helped create architecture. Therefore they too are responsible for the architecture. The same goes for the maintenance team. If this isn't understood please read some of Frank Lloyd Wrights writings when he discusses his fellowships and organic architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JEarle,

How do you reconcile Donald Ross's golf courses in the context of your post, and your contention that the architect needs to be intimately involved in the day to day details ?

Ed Baker,

But if the architect deviates from the owner/developers vision, he won't be the architect for long.

Rich Goodale,

I would agree that in the past the architect and the owner/developer were mostly on the same page, and that both had a connection to Golf courses as they manifested themselves through Scotland and England.

Today, I liken it to the singing of the "Star Spangled Banner",
everyone wants to put forth their version, their unique interpretation, ignoring instead the history, tradition and actual notes that compose the song.

Today, If one were to look at Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes, I think you can see the harmony between the owner/developer and the architects.  It will be interesting to see what follows on the Oregon coast.

[Richard_Goodale]

Patrick

Bandon/Pacific is a great example.  As Chou en-lai said when asked his opinion of the French Revolution, "It's too early to tell."

[George Pazin]

Jeff -

I would say that a contractor going to the owner & circumventing the architect is exactly what I said in my last sentence, at least in sentiment if not actual words. I don't doubt this happens, but this is owner involvement, which is precisely why my first post posed the question, how do you determine if the architect got the most out of his situation?

As far as my "making the big bucks" comment goes, I was using an expression to imply "ownership" of the responsiblity factor. I can guarantee you that, being a business owner myself, I more than understand what you're saying. Sorry for the poor choice of words - the one time I leave off a smiley face, someone reads in malicious intent. So much for dry humor - back to smileys.

JEarle -

I would be stunned beyond words if most of the members of this site thought that a course was designed by someone sitting at a drafting table & then sending the plans to the contractor. This is exactly what most here rail against. On site involvement is constantly stressed and, in fact, it's up to the experts on the old dead guys like Tom Doak & Brad Klein to remind the rest of us that many in the old days did work with few or no site visits. An architect that is not there enough to notice a small hummock added to a greensite deserves to be blamed for any problems that arise from said hummock.

[George Pazin]

Just to clarify my last post, Tom Doak & Brad Klein are experts on old dead guys - I certainly didn't mean that there were experts on old dead guys like Tom Doak & Brad Klein.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

No need for smileys on your post.  I'm sorry if I came off as offended.  I had the same trouble picking words as you did - I always seem to get the meaning of the words "dispute" and "agree with" mixed up!

given the nature of the medium, I think we all would be wise to follow the dictum of the late, great Mayor Daley, who said to reporters -"Write what I mean, not what I say".  Here, I think we can insert "read" into most posts.

Or have Mr. Klein and Doak really departed us for that early tee time in heaven?

I will say that I know some architects, and particularly famous consultants, who are not on site enough to know what hole they are on, much less if a hummock was added!

All humor aside, it is the architects responsibility for design, even if the process really requires a lot of teamwork and owner, contractor, management company and superitendent are all considered equal professionals with valid input to the design.  It is not a "master artist" type situation, and as someone mentioned, never really was, a la FLW.  So, an architect's final product really derives from his sales, people, and project mangagement skills, as much as his pure design skills, whatever that is.

As to how do you know if an architect got the most out of a situation?  Truly, you would have to build a separate course in the same situation, but  with a different architect or owner, in a parallel universe to know.  

One reason I hesitate to criticise architects is that I know the things involved.  The other is, I know that if we did build courses in the parallel universe, they would be different, but not necessarily with one being better - just different, as the parallel owner/architect/contractor team would almost certainly emphasize different design attributes.  Even in the original project, you may be amazed at the agonies an architect goes through in selecting a routing.  There is seldom on "perfect" routing, or hole design concept, but one seems to evolve that solves the most problems and gives the best results.  But, it's not perfect.  Typically, we leave out one great hole per course to acheive more pretty good ones than we may have otherwise.

Well, it's off to work now, and I don't even have time to review this before posting.  I guess I'll just add a   or two, in hopes that will clear up any confusion as to what I am really trying to say here.
 

[JEarle]

George

  If Ross wasn't able to phsyically be on site for a majority of his work and the courses are considered to be architectually sound. Then who created the architecture ?

A) Ross himself

B) Ross' on-site associates

C) The contractor or construction team

  I also think that a majority of the gca members believe that the construction teams add tremendous value to the architecture, good or bad. Take the teams of C&C, Doak, Hanse ( not to mention Joe Valentine ) approach to architecture.

[SL_Solow]

This is one of the more interesting threads in some time.  Clearly there are a variety of individuals and factors that ultimately determine the success or failure of a project and depending on the relative strengths of the parties involved, any of them can be most determinative.  But if I were to pick the factor which has the greatest influence on a regular basis I would choose the architect.  Factors to consider?  Start with the land.  Certainly a great site, e.g. Pacific Dunes, can be a tremendous factor in helping to create a great course.  But we all know of good sites which did not achieve there potential.  Conversely, unpromising sites such as Talking Stick and Shadow Creek can be developed with the help of great vision.  Note the difference in style between these two.  Money is an important factor.  Absent Steve Wynn's cash, Fazio could not have built a Shadow Creek.  But an outstanding minimalist can do tremendous things on a much smaller budget.  The owner is an important factor.  A sympathetic and knowledgeable owner brings much more to the table than dollars.  We have all heard about Mike Keiser's contributions to Bandon and Pacific.  An even better example is his first course, the Dunes Club, a 9 hole wonder in southwest Michigan.  There he found real duneland and used Dick Nugent to design the course.  The work is very different from anything Dick has done before or since.  Some of that is attibuteable to the site but I am certain that more than a little can be attributed to Mike's involvement.  Stories about bad owners are abundant and need not be repeated here.  But ultimately an architect has to decide how far he is willing to go to please an owner before he jeopardizes his reputation  and, more importantly, his integrity.  In a remodelling/restoration job at my club, Mark Mungeam was pressured by certain members of our committee to make changes to meet anticipated objections by certain of our members.  Mark told us, in no uncertain terms, that while he would work with us he would not jeopardize the overall plan to please a few members.  He believed in the concepts presented and would walk away if we made significant changes.  He prevailed and won our respect but he also risked the job.  The construction crew is important.  In Shackleford's Masters of The Links he devotes a section to "the boys'; the shapers who help Crenshaw and Coore put their ideas on the ground.  Pete Dye does some of his own shaping as does Tom Doak.  Clearly a great crew can add to an architects success just as a bad crew can hurt a project.  But if the architect pays close attention he can correct errors before they ar in the ground permanently.  It just costs money.  The superintendent is important more for maintaining the features in a manner consistent with the design than in maintaining pristine playing conditions.  Tom Watson has suggested that any course that depends on immaculate conditioning to be worth playing is not well designed.  But maintenance of the shape of greens and tees, appropriate green speeds, firmness in approaches and fairways  etc all can add or detract from the design concept.  Finally the green committee has a long term effect which has been decryed at least since the day of "the good doctor."  Ill conceived tree plantings, removal of bunkers, additions of water hazards and the like all can destroy an architects work.  Thus there is no single controlling factor which is why it is a wonder that we get as many fine courses as we do and even more suprising that so many survive.  In any individual case any of the factors can dominate.  But until the grow in is complete the architect has the greatest ability to influence eveyone else.  Please excuse the length of this post but I think this is a complex topic which I will continue to consider.