GolfClubsByTomFazioGetRippedInThisAtlas.Com

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I recall you telling me you haven't seen Shadow Creek, but when did you say you haven't seen ANY of the courses Fazio built back East?

[John_McMillan]

Tim -

I'll have to read more Thorstein Veblen to get up to speed on all the details of conspicious consumption, but the tricky part about it is that no one is overtly in favor of it, though I suspect that everyone succombs to it, to at least some degree.  

[Tim_Weiman]

John,

I am not familiar with Veblen's work, so you may be right.

Still, I don't believe a desire to spend or be seen spending money had much to do with Sand Ridge.  A large number of the members belong to multiple clubs in the Cleveland area, places like The Country Club, Mayfield, Shaker Heights, etc.  These are clubs with fine Flynn and Ross courses, but they are also very social country clubs.

For many of those fortunate enough to belong to multiple clubs, Sand Ridge was envisioned as an escape from the social, country club scene.  When there is a significant amount of play you will see signs of "conspicious consumption", e.g., a parking lot full of some fine cars, but the place really is more of a retreat than a place to be seen.  The moneyed crowd gets plenty of that at their other clubs.

The club may have spent more money than was necessary to create an enjoyable golf experience, but Cleveland is still Cleveland.  Being too flashy usually doesn't impress anyone.  It's not a Donald Trump kind of town.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman, et.al.,

I don't ever recall any individual, no matter how wealthy, favoring the wasting of money.

This concept of spending money just so they can say they spent a lot of money is rooted more in myth than in fact.

I've seen very wealthy clubs where some of the Fortune 500 belong, scrutinize every penny on a golf course project, so let's get off this nonsensical position, it's not reality.

What has never been discussed with respect to each of Fazio's projects are the goals and mandates of the owners, and if Fazio followed those mandates, and achieved those goals.  If he did, isn't that a successful project, irrespective of your views on the outcome of the project.

I would take exception to ANY architects altering or disfiguring an existing classic golf course, but how come the Fazio bashers haven't taken up this cause when other architects do the altering or disfiguring ?

If you're going to be critical or praiseworthy, apply it universally, not selectively.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I don't completely agree with you, in part because I've lived and/or worked in different places throughout the US, including the Northest (where I grew up), the Mid West (where I currently live), the Southeast (where I worked and owned property) and both Northern and Southern California (where I both lived and worked).

Generally speaking, I found Southern California to be a place where people like to show they have and freely spend money.  It's just part of the LA scene.

Does that show up in Southern California golf?

Since I've been away from LA for about seven years, perhaps Tommy N might be better able to address the issue, but clearly the overall mindset there is different.

By the way, I don't see having money and wanting to be seen spending it as the same thing.  Even when I go home to Greenwich I don't see people flaunting money, but I did see that kind of thing quite often in LA.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat:

One other thing.  You will note I did address the Sand Ridge project goals above in comments directed to John McMillan.
Based on these, I can't see anyone claiming Fazio didn't do what he was asked to do.

But, your point is well taken.  A few weeks ago Tom MacWood expressed that Fazio didn't utilize the natural features of the Sand Ridge property, specifically mentioning the wetlands which cover almost a third of the property.

In reality, there was a very clear mandate given to Fazio on this topic by the club leadership, the Best Sand Company and the relevant authorites.  Protection of the wetlands was assigned as a major priority; Fazio proposals to route holes bringing the wetlands into play were rejected.  There was no way Fazio was going to change people's minds on the environmental issues.  Not a chance.

[Will E]

I guess what gets me ticked about Tom Fazio is the fact that we all know he can produce courses that we would all find worthy of praise.

Is he guilty of "selling out to the man"?  I think so.

Should we blame him for giving the people what they want? Yes.

Should we continue our "ripping" of what he's doing to the courses we love? Duh.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shooter,

Can you give us three examples where Fazio didn't build the best course he could just because he wanted to please the client?

Can you tell us what you would have done in his circumstances?

Is Fazio "selling out" or just running his business the way he wants to?

[Will E]

Tim,
Too easy of a question, I don't have to leave SW FL to answer.

Three examples of where he could have done better.

1. He could have told WCI that he wasn't going to touch what he had created at Pelican's Nest. If they made a change then they would have to take his name off of the project. Adding more holes pleased the client, but killed the course

2. Looking at what he had created under his name at the WWf courses at Bonita Bay vs. what he did at Mediterra proves that he can do better when pressed. I don't think that the budgets were much different.

3. If you don't think that Windstar could be improved then I could never convince you.

What I'd have done if I were TF
1. Told WCI to take a hike.
2. Spent time at BB WWF and created a World Woods type of experience rather than just throwing down 36 typical holes.
3. Gone back to fix Windstar and taken advantage of a great site.

Selling out is they way it appears he want to run his business. It seems to be working for him. His clients are happy and so are most of the golf players (not golfers) who play his courses.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shooter,

I don't know anything about the three courses you mentioned.

Could you select three from Bill Wright's original list and offer the same feedback?

[John_McMillan]

Pat M -

I guess you've never been to a mafia funeral.

Veblen's theory of conspicious consumption was not about "wasting money," but a theory of what creates perceptions of value.  While I think the theory has been much overquoted by politicians who want to justify separating people of means from theiry money (since they'd only waste it anyway), I also think there are times when it has been improperly discarded.  Do you think there has been NO ostentation in golf construction in the last couple decades?  Have all construction budgets been pared to their minimal levels?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Shooter,
Your ending statement, "Selling out is they way it appears he want to run his business. It seems to be working for him. His clients are happy and so are most of the golf players (not golfers) who play his courses " may be my favorite of all time.

Great work!

[Tim_Weiman]

Shooter,

Tommy encouraged me to think of a couple more questions:

What is "selling out"?  

Did Fazio sell out at Shadow Creek, World Woods or Forest Creek?

What is the difference between a "golf player" and a "golfer"?

Does a "golfer" have some higher status?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

John McMillan,

For generations, my family has been responsible for mafia funerals, prefering not to be on the participant's side.
Is there some work you need done ?  Or were you carelessly thinking about your future ?  Consult with Tommy Naccarato and you'll find it's a no no to connect the mafia with anyone who's name ends in a vowel.  Some people take great offense to it.

A golf construction budget can contain non-golf or non-architectual items.  NGLA's gates, Shadow Creeks waterfull,
Trump's ___________ (fill in the blanks).  I would guess that residential community golf courses are more likely, and  probably have marketing features that would drive budgets up.
But, when I look at pure golf courses, not affiliated with any other activities, I don't see the excesses or lavish spending that you allude to.  Perhaps, I just haven't seen enough new clubs, but that's been my experience in Florida and the Northeast.

[Will E]

Tim,
I think you are getting it. My beef with the Faz is that he is able to create courses that we would all find worth of praise.

Sorry I don't have time to explain to you the difference between a golf player and a golfer, that could make for an interesting thread though.

[John_McMillan]

Pat M -

I don't see how I've connected the Mafia to anyone - including those whose name ends in a vowel.  The reference was meant to be an example of conspicious consumption - where extravagent expenditures don't have a functionality in themselves, but are meant to signal to others something about the status of the spender.

As another example, have you never heard the term "expense account" restaurant?  The term does not refer to a restaurant known for its frugality or good value for goods delivered.

A final example (and I hope the people of St. Louis don't take offense) might be the St. Louis arch.  There is no functionality to the construction.  It is more a "Mount Everest" engineering feat - Mount Everest was climbed "because it was there," the St. Louis arch was constructed, "because engineers could."  The construction of the arch demonstrated to others that the people of St. Louis were pretty darn clever.  

Have you never seen an "expense account" golf course?  Have you never seen an architectural feature of a golf course which served no functionality, but was built because the designer could?

[Tim_Weiman]

Shooter,

This notion that Fazio “sells out” still strikes me as interesting:

At SHADOW CREEK Fazio was asked to create “an oasis in the dessert” as a playground for some rich guy and his friends.  It seems he did just that, pretty darn well.

At WILD DUNES Fazio was asked to build a course that would sell a lot of real estate.  Can one argue it wasn’t “mission accomplished”?

At WORLD WOODS Fazio was asked to build a magnet that would attract people to a remote area.  I’ve not been back for several years, but it seems to me hard to argue WW Pine Barrens hasn’t done that.

Not far away at BLACK DIAMOND, Fazio was asked to transform a property, again for the purpose of real estate sales.  Again, mission accomplished.

At VICTORIA NATIONAL the developer wanted Fazio to build a very challenging course, one capable of challenging the finest players.  Having not seen VN, perhaps I shouldn’t comment, but by all accounts, it appears Fazio did what he was asked to do.

At SAND RIDGE Fazio was asked to create a pleasurable retreat for members and guests and do so without disturbing the primary natural feature of the property (the wetlands).  I think most of my fellow members would say Fazio got the job done.

Now, I can already hear the protest “what does any of this have to do with golf architecture?’.  To which I reply, what does the concept of “selling out” have to do with the subject either?  In each of the cases cited above, the project sponsor began with a clear objective and engaged the Fazio organization to help accomplish the mission.

I suspect  people claiming “sell out” either don’t approve of such mission statements or find them, well, unexciting.   Or perhaps they think an architect should limit himself to other missions, i.e., projects like Friar’s Head, Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes.  On the latter point, I’m sympathetic.  At this stage, I’d rather travel around the world to see what Greg Ramsay does in Tasmania than visit another Florida real estate project.  But, I don’t see that means architects involved with real estate oriented projects have “sold out”.

I’m wondering, also, if we have become a bit too romantic in our views about golf projects, almost as if we think the business side of the project does not exist or should not intrude.

So, I come back to the question of what “selling out” means?  Does it mean building “playable courses”?  Does it mean avoiding quirky things on the golf course?  Does it mean high green fees?  Does it mean moving dirt?  Does it mean cart paths?  Does it mean aesthetics over strategy?  Does it mean that the course fails to achieve 8 or higher on the Doak scale?  Does it mean the architect accepted direction from the people paying the bills?  Does it mean that the architect accepted a big budget project or one intended to spur economic development?  Does it mean the business objective took priority over creating another Sistine Chapel?  Does it mean the project was handled by a large firm?  Does it mean building a course that will be private? Does it mean that only courses which meet your or my definition of great architecture should be built?

Sorry if this is overkill, but the political science student in me can’t help thinking we throw a lot of terms around without really being clear what we mean……a sound bite approach to discussing our favorite art form.

[A_Clay_Man]

Who knows how many courses TF has under his belt??

And,

Which of his offices does Tim work in?

 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
Off all people, you know the difference between a Golfer and a Golf Player. Quit being so politically correct, innocent of all charges and let loose!

John,
Pelican Hill while not in the frugal price range, IS a Expense Account Golf Course. Most of the clentele is there on someone elses dime.

I have a very good friend, for anonmoity purposes lets call him, "Mike Padilla." who frequents Pelican Hill all of the time.

He is a young and energetic investment banker who likes all of the name brands in life and the majority of his friends are all work friends who live and believe in the same things. They all of have the same goals which of course are pretty impressive if you are into material items.

Mike owns a beautiful home above a private golf course,of course which he is a member; has a Saab Turbo, Mercedes sedan, and a brand new Chervolet Tahoe SUV. The house is configured with Bang Olefson stereo equimpment, Mistsubishi televisions with DVD players, VCRS' and even the Bose Surround Sound Theater systems. Sub Zero Refridgerator, Kohler fixtures and Sealy Posturepedic.

Mike has it all, and so does his friends (with the exception of me)

Recently, I told Mike, "come on, lets go to the desert and go play some golf!" which he couldn't because he had a all expenses paid trip to play Pelican, and "No one in the business turns that down!"

I guess one of the reasons is that it is good to be seen AT Pelican Hill. in the same way it is good to be seen at the Ivy Restaurant in Beverly Hills, if you are in the movie business. It's all about survival, and being there is what is most important to that survival. It is the statement "I'm here and not at some two bit-little flea bag muni that was built in 1920 by Billy Bell and has architetural features not seen at Pelican Hill, albeit it in a somewhat eroding state."

Ask Mike and his friends if they have ever played Pine Valley, and they'll say "Where's that?" Ask them if they know the name Donald Ross and they'll say, "Yeah, I did his portfolio!" Tell them they have to walk and take caddies and they'll say, "No thanks!" Try telling them that they are going to have to remove the headset from their ear and turn the phone off, while on a certain course and they'll look at you like you are crazy. (Mind you that one beautiful Sunday I received a call from Mike and his friends standing in the middle of the 9th fairway of Fazio's Oak Creek, wanting an explaination of the simplest of rules regarding a ball crossing the line of the water hazard. Thank God they had the cell phone for that one! They might stilll be out there arguing over it. Even sadder, the professional on duty in the clubhouse didn't know the rule either.)

It might seem like I have a disdain for my friend Mike, but I don't, he is a very good friend outside of golf. It's just he can't hang with my true "Golfer" friends. It isn't fashionable enough for him, and it is only so tolerable for me. I can try to change him, but it would like trying to get Robert Downey Jr. off of crack and on to Prozac and Lythium.

Simply put Mike and his friends, despite the frequent expense account rounds at Pelican Hill; the membership at the country club and all of the name brand equimpment-Callaway, Taylor Made, Ping and Nokia, are GOLF PLAYERS simply because if it came down to wooden-shafted clubs and rubber golf balls, they wouldn't play because it would mean that they would more then likely have to walk and the stuff wasn't fashionable enough. where on earth are they going to set down there cell phones and Heniken's?

They also don't know the rules nor have any intent of learning them. Despite this, they all shoot 85 frequently while counting the out of bounds shots that are played as stroke and distance. Match play? They want no part of that, because total score doesn't figure into the final talley (Remember that these are men responsible for managing numbers)

Now, they probably look at me just as I look at them with the same disdain because my financial affairs are somewhat like their Pelican Hill fantasy's of greatness, and I couldn't blame them one bit for I know I'm not a FINANCIAL PLAYER. I would like to think of myself more as a golfer, a very humble one that could live and accept every score and enjoyed the fact I was either teeing it up at the Old Course in St. Andrews or the Old Course in Santa Ana (The 1920's Billy Bell design)

For me, that is me being a Golfer.

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

I'd be far happier if the Fazio organization would appoint someone to speak directly for them, but apparently that is not very likely.  

Better yet, I wish far more architectural firms would participate.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I had lunch a couple times at The Ivy, but unfortunately I didn't meet any movie stars, so I guess I'd prefer the expense account round at Pelican Hill.

I'm beginning to understand you better.  You have a Southern California view of the world and, dare I say, of Tom Fazio.  On the former, I'm quite sympathetic.  I remember moving from Cleveland to Seal Beach ordering a pizza and some kid shows up in an M-3 BMW!  Then, I go to Mr. Hefner's house for a party and people are throwing fur coats around to the best looking girl that they just paid $25,000 for in an auction.

So, LA is LA.

My biggest objection to your Fazio bashing is not what I call commentary on social or economic isses, i.e., the high cost of many of his projects.  Rather, I'm wondering if the volume and tone of your criticism makes sense in light of the fact that you've never seen any of the work that Fazio really built his practice on.

Suppose for instance, a new person were to come on the discussion group and start bashing Alister Mackenzie.  And he went on for months and years on the same point.

Then, we discovered that this person grew up in San Francisco and occasionally played golf at Sharp Park or maybe Haggin Oaks, but he never saw the Valley Club or Pasatiempo or Cypress Point or Cyrstal Downs or anything Mackenzie did outside of the US.

What would we think?  Weren't we question the fairness of going on forever about an architect whose most notable work the person hasn't even seen?

Tommy, I remember working with a very proper Brit who joined my team in LA from BP France.  He was an "expert" on wine and quickly assured us that California had no wine, that we shouldn't even use the word!

Well, he didn't leave California after two years with the same opinion.

I'm guessing Fazio's role in history has already been written.  Shadow Creek will be remembered fifty years from now.  Whether you like it or not, it was a breakout, something not really done before.  Fazio will probably also be remembered for running a very successful business, working well with clients, building many very good courses, etc.

Will he be remembered for building a handfull of real classics?  So far, I'd say probably not.....or that he was more work cut out, if that is his goal.

Nonetheless, when it comes to purely architectural matters I don't see where he is deserving of constant harping.  That just makes it easy for friends of mine like John Zimmers to suggest it adds up to nothing more than jealousy.

On the issue of spending tons of money and/or messing with classic courses I'm with you one hundred percent.  But, when it comes to ranting about an architect's original work when you really haven't seen it, I can't see how that is fair or makes any sense.  I could go a few miles down the road to a local Tillinghast course (Lakewood Country Club) and come back with the observation that Tillie didn't do anything special, but what would you think if I dismissed all his notable work?

[SPDB]

I have a friend, who will remain nameless, who works for Fazio, and at times I have thought of encouraging him to come on here and weigh in. However, when I think more closely about it makes no sense for me to do so.

Immediately, he would be in the position of likely having to defend some of his and his employer's work, against what is a mountain of criticism - some good, some poor, some personal.

I have even spoken to Ran about it, and he agrees that there would probably not be much in it for him if he were to come on this site and take some lumps and bruises in a very public way.

[Tim_Weiman]

SPDB:

It is pretty tough for people in the business to participate.

After leaving big oil, I did some independent consulting work on some regulatory issues.  I remember being approached after one meeting with EPA by an oil industry rep who said "Tim, you are really lucky.....there were so many times I wanted to speak up, but management won't let us".

Mostly, I'd just like to change the perception that we can't have a fair and balanced discussion, that we are just a bunch of narrow minded, biased folks who really know nothing about how the golf architecture business really works.

I'm certainly not getting paid to represent Fazio or anyone else!

[Tim Jackson]

Tommy

Great point Tommy.  I forgot how your avowed favorites Riviera and LA North certainly do not posses any of the 'financial' golfer aspects attributed to Pelican.  Hopefully they can remain deviod of celebrity members, Playboy mansions, and exclusive membership policies.  It would be a shame if that were ever to come...... hmmm

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim Jackson:

You are being unfair to Tommy and Riviera.  Just because the two times I played Riviera it was in a group behind Peter Falk, doesn't mean "golfers" don't play there.

And, I sure didn't see any Playboy bunnies........