Imagine - A thought on the Macro and Micro aspects of design

[Peter Pallotta]

Based on Scott Macpherson's thread, I started thinking that perhaps we could usefully look at design on two levels, the macro and the micro (for lack of better terms, and those aren't very good terms for what I'm trying to say).  

But: Imagine that Ben Hogan came back to life and joined forces with Donald Ross (also come back to life).  Let's say that Ross really needed a job, the economy and new course construction being really slow, and so had agreed to co-design a course with Hogan, whose agent had gotten him a big fee just for lending his name to the project.  And imagine that Hogan showed up on site just one time, and took only a quick walk around before turning to Ross and saying (in that imperious way of his):  

"Okay, do whatever the hell you want -- BUT just make damn sure that any of those bastards who hook the ball get penalized badly, at least one stroke, every single time they make a mistake to the left side.  And give me some room to work the ball off the tee, to get into the best spots to attack the greens, and you'd better reward me if I can pull it off; I don't want any of those lazy sumbitches who show up hung-over on the first tee to get away with not thinking their way around a course as well as I can.  But don't give me any of those bullsh-t crowned/upside down bowl greens of yours; you can use all the bunkers and water you want, but make sure I can get the ball to the pins every single time, either coming in low and skipping it to the back or flying it high and stopping it right on the front. And make it a really really long golf course -- none of these slobs can hit a 1 iron like I can, and I want them having to hit that damn club into the greens at least 5 times a round! And fill this course with sidehill lies as much as you can, but don't give me any big walks uphill or downhill, my busted legs can't take those any more."  

Now imagine that Ross took that all in and agreed to all of it and did the best Hogan-described course he possible could, using all his skills and imagination to route the course the best way possible -- in keeping with Hogan's directions -- and finding green sites in the most interesting possible places -- again, so they were in keeping with Hogan's wishes, and making sure the course was very very long (and hardly suitable for the average golfer, whose games Hogan either understood nor respected) and that most of the (very penal) trouble was on the left side, and finally using all his experience to make sure the course flowed well and drained well.  And imagine that the result was a challenging test for the best golfers in the world (more challenging to some than to others) and that it was even quite a beautiful and interesting golf course. Imagine all that, and then let's discuss WHO designed the golf course.

Might it not be said that the macro (Hogan's input) had at least as much (and maybe more) to do with what the golf course was and turned out to be and what it embodied than did the micro (Ross' input) -- even though Hogan would have spent 6 hours on site while Ross ended up spending six months?

Not sure I agree even with myself, but thought it was worth suggesting.

Peter  

[Dan Kelly]

Analogous to:

It's the voters' fault that our politicians are such bums.

We keep demanding bums, and then rewarding bums, and then we're bummed that we bummed ourselves.

Right?

I presume that, in the example given, Hogan is merely a stand-in for the client -- as ridiculous as that idea is!

[Mike Nuzzo]

To me those are constraints - which have a large impact on the design.
Ross did all the "design" work.

Don once suggested that many people/superintendents/professionals he runs across think an architect is used for pointing and picking the direction of a dog leg.
That is hardly where we spend much of our time.

Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan - I must've not made myself very clear, even with all those words.  No: Hogan stands for Hogan, a great golfer who is paid to 'co-design' a golf course. And Ross stands for Ross, an experienced and talented architect with a business to run and mouths to feed.

Mike - perhaps.  But I tried to create a scenario that I thought both plausible and more indicative of 'direction' than 'constraints'.  In this case, Mr. Hogan has, consciously or not, provided the fundamental framework and ethos for the course, has he not?

Peter

[Dan Kelly]

Dan - I must've not made myself very clear, even with all those words.  No: Hogan stands for Hogan, a great golfer who is paid to 'co-design' a golf course. And Ross stands for Ross, an experienced and talented architect with a business to run and mouths to feed.

Peter --

You made yourself quite clear!

It just seemed to me that in the real world, as I've seen it described, the role you've assigned to Mr. Hogan is more usually played by the client than by the famous-pro "co-designer" -- likely not making Mr. Hogan's particular demands, but demands perhaps just as constraining.

But I didn't mean to sidetrack your thread, if that's what I've done.

Carry on!

Dan

[JMEvensky]

Peter,I think Mike Nuzzo is right on the constraints.In your scenario,Hogan hasn't told Ross what he could design--he's told Ross what he couldn't design.

But,I agree with you that, if this was their agreed upon arrangement,Hogan's input would be at least equal.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - again, I'm mainly trying to challenge my own thinking and conventional wisdom on this. And in that context, I'd argue that many a golf professional turned architect/advisor had done more to set the tone and the framework and the underlying ethos of/for a design than we recognize or acknowledge.  As a writer by temperament, I'd side with writers (not film directors) as the true 'auteurs'  -- and I can be tempted to see 'producers' (clients) as the enemy/constrainers -- so naturally I'd side with Mike and you and Dan on this topic.  But I think there is a case to be made for those who set the table/scene in a "macro" sense.  I wanted to explore that.

Peter 

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,

Any current or former associate will answer Ross
Any designer who has been in a similar situation will say Ross

Any golf professional will say Hogan
A marketer on the project will insist it's Hogan
The future member will say Hogan

and the incredibly astute will say both ... because while Ross would be the creator and builder, he will have incorporated a very specific vision drawn up by Hogan

that's my2c

[Peter Pallotta]

Gee, thanks a lot, Ian! Way to kill a thread stone dead with the truth!

Please ignore any thread I start in the future!
 

Peter

[Ian Andrew]

Gee, thanks a lot, Ian! Way to kill a thread stone dead with the truth!

Please ignore any thread I start in the future!
 

Peter

Oh I doubt that ... I expect to be taken to task on part of that ...

[Peter Pallotta]

Let the conventionalists attack all they want, friend - you stick with the truth!

The truth being -- for the sake of argument -- that in one very real sense the golf course is actually an IDEA, a construct based on a PHILOSOPHY; and that the particulars of a given course - e.g. hole lengths and shapes, green contours, the placement of hazards -- are simply the SURFACE expression of this underlying ethos -- the icing on the cake, as it were.

If a golfer like Hogan can articulate that philosophy and ethos -- even without knowing that he's doing so -- he is essentially expressing that golf course's ESSENTIAL idea and identity.  And he should thus be given credit for it.  To beat a dead horse, his is the "macro" contribution.

Peter