Left Brain/Right Brain-Architects vs Owners

[Bill_Spellman]

Interesting show on the "History Channel"- Noted Architect Robert Stern discussing architects desire to put stamp on buildings (ego? style?) vs the need of the project owners.

there has been alot of discussion over the years as to developers not allowing architects a free hand due to real estate projects. I sense that the GCA contributors would not endorse this as do I, but I am looking for feedback to this question.

To the Architects out there: How do you resolve the issues arising from conflicts with developers, (political, financial, creative) with your own desire to create someting. Where do you draw the line?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Bill,

One suggestion: we still have a limited number of practicing architects who are willing to post their thoughts at GCA.  Thus, if you direct this topic to architects only, the response may be limited.

How about opening it up and also asking non industry folks to put on the hat of a developer?

Maybe that would create more of an exchange of ideas.

[Bill_Spellman]

Tim- Thanks for pointing that out-didn't intend to ask the question that way.

To everyone- what are your thoughts as to architechts creative needs vs owner/developers financial and or political needs

the floor is open

[Tim_Weiman]

Bill,

I think a developer should start by being open and honest with an architect about his overall vision for the project.  If an architect is going to take a job, he is entitled to know what it is all about and what the developer is hoping to accomplish.

Drilling down, I believe the developer should be open about matters such as budget, the kind of course he wants and how he expects to interact with the architect on specific matters of design.   On design matters, if you really have any strong preferences or aversions, then these should be stated up front before a contract is even signed.

Then, I would think there are specifics unique to each project that you better discuss from the very beginning.  If the project is really about selling real estate, you should probably be clear on what property will be available for the course and what will not (if you plan to impose restrictions).  If you are targeting a certain market segment of golfers (say older retirees who insist on carts), this should also be made clear.

Besides openly sharing his vision for the project, a developer should also take the time to acquaint himself with the architect's previous work and any expressions (i.e., books, writings, articles, etc.) of his design philosophy.  Some architects may be very talented, but just not a fit for the project in question.

Then, I would think there is the matter of creating a healthy work environment for the architect and his team.  Presumably, the architect has been hired because you believe he is the very best person for the project and you genuinely want him to flourish.  But, along the way issues will certainly arise and so it is important for the developer to create an atmosphere where the architect can feel comfortable expressing his concerns.

Finally, I think it best for the developer to focus on the "big picture" of the project and not try to micromanage the course design.  We all probably pay lip service to this idea and will never perfectly follow this advice, but I think you really need to do it rather than "playing architect".  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

I would be glad to try to reply, but it is a broad question, and the answer would be "every project is different".

First of all, everything Tim Weiman says is absolutely true, and would create an ideal working environment.  Usually, by the time an architect is hired, the owner has a good idea of what he may want to do, and why he wanted him/her in the first place.  Along the way, many little issues arise as you try to balance the design needs of the owner, future customers, views from surrounding housing, mainteance practicality, etc.

Any modern design school will teach the "zen" approach to design - first, strip yourself of all ego.  Of course, that doesn't really happen, but in reality, you should design for the end user, and for the owner's design program, but not yourself.  One on hand, many at GCA would vomit at that suggestion, feeling the architect should be completely free to express himself.  On the other hand, it sure is a good starting point as a method to keep yourself from "standard formula design," which we all hate as well.

I don't know how that applies to buildings, but in golf, I know if I am commissioned to do a muni, I go in with a more pliant attitude regarding the owner's wishes.  If he is conservative, I am conservative, in trying to stay within his design parameters for difficulty, ease of maintenance, etc.  

If I am asked to do a resort course with national/regional attraction attraction qualities, I may push more.  If the owner is afraid to get bold, I would (tactfully) make as many arguments in favor of my design ideas as I could.  The funny thing is, these types of owners usually let you have more free hand, and/or are more inclined to go with your suggestions.

Smaller projects, including remodels, are usually more closely scrutinized, if for no other reason that the existing owner/membership knows what the course used to look like!

In fact, its not just the owner who sets the tone for the project.  First, he is not usually an individual.  He is usually a government agency or corporation.  A project manager is appointed.  He relies on consultants of many kinds, some of whom have come together quite randomly.  He may have a superintendent and or pro, feasibility consultants, etc.  If all are conservative, it's hard to push a flashy idea by them.

That would call for some real slight of hand.  Of course, that would be the topic of another thread!

[BCowan]

I would like to see more focus on owners as the ones ruining Golf courses by trying to recreate the status quo vs Archies getting blamed.  Archies have been handicapped IMHO.  Associations don't make things better, owners aka leaders make it right or wrong.  When you read stories of groups of men with modest means pooling their money together to bring a course to light, what happened?  Where are those leaders??   Great things happen from the bottom up, not the other way around.  

what do others think?

[BHoover]

Not sure I understand the question. If the owner has the money and is able to get members and/or visitors to pay to play the course, how can he do anything wrong?

[BCowan]

nothing is wrong, just think that there is a lack of leadership by owners to try and create a good product.  I don't understand people who are blaming organizations for restorations/renovations of private property, it seems unjust to me   

[Adrian_Stiff]

I can't really understand this thread but.

The owner is the KING.

The architect is paid to supply idea.

The king say's yes or no or say's do this do that.

The architect says yes or walks away.

As an architect 50% of the time I walk away.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Interesting show on the "History Channel"- Noted Architect Robert Stern discussing architects desire to put stamp on buildings (ego? style?) vs the need of the project owners.

there has been alot of discussion over the years as to developers not allowing architects a free hand due to real estate projects. I sense that the GCA contributors would not endorse this as do I, but I am looking for feedback to this question.

I endorse it
What kind of moron would invest millions and give the architect a free hand ?

Would you ?

To the Architects out there: How do you resolve the issues arising from conflicts with developers, (political, financial, creative) with your own desire to create someting. Where do you draw the line?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's look at a few recent developers.

Ken Bakst
Mike Keiser
Roger Hansen
Mike Pascucci
Dick Youngscap
Donald Trump

Does anyone believe that their sole involvement was writing checks ?

[Tom_Doak]

I can't really understand this thread but.

The owner is the KING.

The architect is paid to supply idea.

The king say's yes or no or say's do this do that.

The architect says yes or walks away.

As an architect 50% of the time I walk away.

Adrian:

The relationship is not always as you say.  Sometimes the architect has more power in the relationship than you imagine, because the owner really desires his name for marketing, etc.  And sometimes the king doesn't care much about the details of the course.  Not all are micro-managers ... though certainly some are.

The key factor, as you say, is under what circumstances the architect is willing to walk away.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I can't really understand this thread but.

The owner is the KING.

The architect is paid to supply idea.

The king say's yes or no or say's do this do that.

The architect says yes or walks away.

As an architect 50% of the time I walk away.

Adrian:

The relationship is not always as you say.  Sometimes the architect has more power in the relationship than you imagine, because the owner really desires his name for marketing, etc.  And sometimes the king doesn't care much about the details of the course.  Not all are micro-managers ... though certainly some are.

The key factor, as you say, is under what circumstances the architect is willing to walk away.

Tom, though I understand what you are saying and accept that sometimes the KING has already decided to step back. My scenario just says the KING has the last call. I can see the grey areas of compromise...that to me is the'do this-do that' and that's where you or I have to choose if we can work with the compromise or feel the compromise with tarnish our name. Both parties are likely to have some flexibility, though some situations snap.

[SL_Solow]

When we needed to do some renovation at our club after a major storm, which gave us an opportunity to undo some work which had undermined the original architectural merit, we gave the architect wide latitude.  But even after the plans were approved, some influential members of our committee, under pressure from other members, sought changes.  Finally our architect, Mark Mungeam, told the committee members that he had exercised his best judgment and that the proposed changes were entirely out of character with the proposed plan.  He suggested that if those types of changes were what the club wanted, we could do the job with some one else.  He gained a lot of respect from me and others that day.  Understand, he didn't come of as arrogant; rather he showed integrity after having met with us and having worked out an apprpriate plan.  Moreover, changes in the field that fit were always in play.  But even though the members were the "King", he stuck to his vision.  Needless to say he finished the job and remains our consulting architect.

[BCowan]

Cheers to Mark Mungeam.  I have heard two similar stories at two Michigan courses where the Archie has stuck to his guns as well.  Great to hear that some have integrity.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Let's look at a few recent developers.

Ken Bakst
Mike Keiser
Roger Hansen
Mike Pascucci
Dick Youngscap
Donald Trump

Does anyone believe that their sole involvement was writing checks ?

Pat - sure, let's agree that the involvement of these developers went beyond, even far beyond, simply writing checks. And let's assume that in every case that involvement significantly impacted the final design/course/product. And let's even accept that all the courses these developers financed and influenced/helped shape turned out to be good, or very good, or even award winning designs, and that they also proved to be popular and profitable golf courses/clubs. Now, I'd be the last one to denigrate that kind of achievement - i.e. producing a design that's successful both architecturally and financially is a wonderful thing. BUT, even all that won't tell us, CAN'T tell us, what the course MIGHT'VE BEEN if those developers had given the architects a free hand/free reign. Granted, said courses might not have been as good and might not have proved as profitable; but then again, then might've turned out even MORE special and great and truly unique. In short, the question is moot, it seems to me -- for once the developer decides to have input and the architect agrees, the "what might've beens" vanish into thin air, and become instead "that which will never be". And when it comes to gifted and committed architects, the romantic in me finds poignancy in their unrealized dreams.

Peter    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's look at a few recent developers.

Ken Bakst
Mike Keiser
Roger Hansen
Mike Pascucci
Dick Youngscap
Donald Trump

Does anyone believe that their sole involvement was writing checks ?

Pat - sure, let's agree that the involvement of these developers went beyond, even far beyond, simply writing checks. And let's assume that in every case that involvement significantly impacted the final design/course/product. And let's even accept that all the courses these developers financed and influenced/helped shape turned out to be good, or very good, or even award winning designs, and that they also proved to be popular and profitable golf courses/clubs. Now, I'd be the last one to denigrate that kind of achievement - i.e. producing a design that's successful both architecturally and financially is a wonderful thing.

BUT, even all that won't tell us, CAN'T tell us, what the course MIGHT'VE BEEN if those developers had given the architects a free hand/free reign.


That's true, but, it's not just a one sided answer, the course could have been worse, not better.

One of the things I like about Sebonack is the finishing hole, a manageable par 5 in a magnificent setting/terrain.

As a par 4, which is what Doak and Nicklaus wanted, it would have been a brutal finishing hole, no matter how spectacular the setting/terrain.

So, in that case, the developer's intercession served the course well, IMO.

But, let's back up a second.

What moron would spend millions and give an architect carte blanche in terms of the design of the course ?

Would you ?

I sure as hell wouldn't.
I won't let doctors and nurses stick a needle in my arm unless they first explain what they're doing and the reason they're doing it.
Oversight is a critical factor, prior to and during any process.
And, in many, if not most instances, I have to believe that the architect is going to indicate his intentions, be they in the form of renderings or precise plans, prior to obtaining approval from the developer

I'm not interested in micro managing an architect as you can always fine tune the work, even though that could be very costly.
But, the notion that you give the architect complete artistic license absent an iota of oversight is patently insane, financially and artistically.

Granted, said courses might not have been as good and might not have proved as profitable; but then again, then might've turned out even MORE special and great and truly unique.

That's PURE conjecture on your part, and as Remo said, "Why take a chance ?".

I'm in the "Trust but verify" camp on this one.

In short, the question is moot, it seems to me -- for once the developer decides to have input and the architect agrees, the "what might've beens" vanish into thin air, and become instead "that which will never be". And when it comes to gifted and committed architects, the romantic in me finds poignancy in their unrealized dreams.

Horseshit or baloney, depending upon your tastes 

Architects design mediocre and bad holes along with good and great holes and the notion that you would blindly trust the artistic talents of a third party that you just met indicates that you haven't done much in the way of contracting or outsourcing business with independent vendors, especially with a discretionary product.

Would you hire an interior designer and tell them to just "decorate" your house ?
Without you and your wife first reviewing plans, suggestions and samples ?
Are you willing to take that risk financially and aesthetically ?

People who don't know what they want usually end up getting what they didn't want, especially when there's no oversight.
   

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Of all the developers you listed, Dick Youngscap has the best perspective on it -- he is an architect by trade and he's seen his own share of clients who try to micro-manage the design.  And, therefore, he probably had the least input of your group on the design of his great project, other than setting the parameters for Bill and Ben.

Your stock "example" of Mr. Pascucci's participation at Sebonack is conveniently chosen to serve your purpose ... there are other examples that might not have served the course so well.  Indeed, I could probably come up with counter-examples for most of those guys.  Being the owner gives you a say in the finished product, but it doesn't necessarily make your choices correct.