The contractor driven architect-will it remain dominant?

[Mike_Young]

The last 30 years of the golf boom have brought about an evolution in the golf course contractor.  If any of us go back and look at the contractors working at the beginning of the golf boom vs. the contractors working near the end of the boom and now you would see a staggering difference.  Much of this was due to the initial contractors being taught what to do from the architects and  then when things really started to take off some contractors saw the need to become more creative and gather more expertise and talent and they began to teach the architect.  What that did was create a contractor driven architect.  It changed the scenario with the contractor becoming dominant in many instances.  For example the developer or club saw the contractor everyday and the architect once every two weeks or maybe once a week.  The contractor had the ear of the owner and could persuade the owner as needed.  It became a game of being a little better than the last course to open in the area.
But the basic of where I am going with this is that the guys growing up with this scenario developed a design style that was based on less site visits and more contractor dependence and because of this there were many architects that could tell you what they wanted but could not tell you how to get it.  They could design ten courses and spend less time in the field that one architect working under the design/build scenario who was on site each week for a few days or maybe even full time.   
This one thing changed the golf design business more than any other in my opinion.  It was the leading factor in projects becoming cost prohibitive and it made a lot of people a lot of money. 
A few developers and clubs will unknowingly continue with this method but IMHO the savvy builders will begin to offer architectural services and the architects will begin to offer build services.  Right or wrong?   WARNING: I am in no way saying all architects that use contractors are guilty of the above, just saying there are enough to make it an issue.

[Adam Lawrence]

Mike, a lot of this is already happening. Contractors like McDonalds advertise design services; many others do the same. In China there's a number of groups who push a one stop shop service.

It is a huge issue for GCAs in the 'non-signature' market in my opinion. If the architect isn't the client's principal consultant then what is he? Essentially a subcontractor. And there are a lot of hungry architects out there right now who'd be happy to draw up plans as a subbie to a contractor. Architects have really got to understand how they (individually not as a breed) add value for a client. If design is viewed as the production of plans and briefing a contractor, the profession is in a lot of trouble.

(I've touched on this subject in an article in the forthcoming issue of Links).

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
This is a view from outside your profession, but I've read many articles about pre-war architects which state that they drew some plans and placed the main burden of building it in the hands of selected, and many times, local contractors. Someone or some group from the respective club was tasked as the overseers, and the architects made a few return visits,  but it doesn't sound much different than what you just wrote.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I think you are right that the business changed dramatically with the rise of Landscapes Unlimited specifically and the Golf Course Builders Association more generally.  But I'm not sure you are being clear about who was driving whom or how it will go from here.

Many architects were pleased to see these contractors on the scene because it allowed them to take on more projects in more places.  You are right that they did not see that one day the contractors might also make the same architects obsolete.

But I'm not sure you have the history right.  Most of the famous architects over the ages have had their own fallback contracting firm that they liked to work with ... trained by them and sometimes owned by them, too.  Donald Ross and Dr. MacKenzie didn't make many more site visits in their day than Jack Nicklaus does now [although the timing was different due to different modes of travel].  But they controlled those guys and never had to worry about the contractor offering a cut-rate design deal to a future client.  Landscapes has made themselves into the primary point of contact, and that's bad news for all architects except those at the very top of the pyramid.


Adam:

It's a tough time for non-signature architects, period.  If the contractors don't cut them off at the knees, they'll just do it to each other, bidding down jobs until they don't make any money, and sticking their necks out in places they can easily get in trouble, as in China.  [This is happening to the signature architects, too; the only difference is they can afford it.]  You are 100% correct that any architect has to figure out where they add value to the deal, and that is exactly what Mike is saying, too.

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

But I'm not sure you have the history right.  Most of the famous architects over the ages have had their own fallback contracting firm that they liked to work with ... trained by them and sometimes owned by them, too.  Donald Ross and Dr. MacKenzie didn't make many more site visits in their day than Jack Nicklaus does now [although the timing was different due to different modes of travel].  But they controlled those guys and never had to worry about the contractor offering a cut-rate design deal to a future client.  Landscapes has made themselves into the primary point of contact, and that's bad news for all architects except those at the very top of the pyramid.

Tom,
I was trying to say the same thing you describe above.  My father-in-law ran Florida Golf for RTJ Sr. for a long time doing just as you describe.  The control issue is where I see the difference today.  Even though some of those guys weren't on site anymore than JN, the guys they had on site were their guys and not working for 5 other design firms ( in most cases).  When I first started I decided to build my own projects because i felt it was the only way to compete price wise.  The one thing I missed was that immediately the contractors will not recommend you for projects and will go out of their way to slam your work because they know you will not be sending anything their way.  Early on when seeking ASGCA the fact that I built my own stuff was heavily frowned upon and condemned as being a "conflict of interest" yet two of the officers had their own firms building theirs. 

We can't blame Landscapes.  They did a hell of a job of seizing the "concept" that the RE market wanted.  They were the first of the "signature" builders and took full advantage of it.  But we both know that in several instances they would win a bid to do a job for an architect that was just not good and the next thing you know he was winning a "best new" award.  And it was obvious that they basically told the guy: " sit back and we'll take care of this". 

Anyway, for the majority of the golf courses in America, I think we have reached a point where the contractor will be doing most of the renovation with no architect involved. 

[Tom_Doak]

Anyway, for the majority of the golf courses in America, I think we have reached a point where the contractor will be doing most of the renovation with no architect involved. 

Indeed.  Just yesterday I spoke with a long-time client of ours who informed me that they want to do some more renovation work but not with the associate who has been helping them the past few years ... they didn't think they needed an associate to marshal the project.  They were elated, though, when I said I would spend a day with them trying to sort out what they needed and how to get it done right.

I did not mean to "blame" Landscapes.  Bill Kubly had designs on being a designer himself as a young man but realized there was far more money to be made by enabling others, and hats off to him for that; you and I certainly didn't want to take those risks or go that direction.  I don't exactly agree with your characterization of how they worked, though ... it seems to me they pressured the younger architects to just sit back and watch so they (Landscapes) could build the course as profitably as possible ... if any of those projects won "Best New" awards, I am not sure whether it was the initial plan or the quality of construction that won it.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,

I agree as to Landscapes.  Bill Kubly did a hell of a job with it.  I didn't exactly say  "... it seems to me they pressured the younger architects to just sit back and watch so they (Landscapes) could build the course as profitably as possible ...    I think there were instances where guys that had been in the business for a while were glad to have Landscapes win a bid because they had never been able to work with that type of builder before.  It was equivalent to a Hyde Park chef showing a Waffle House cook how to do a hamburger.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My take is that there has always been design bid and design build, along with design/construction management. I'm not sure any one of them is dominant, although I agree that the LU design build is taking some hold thru their marketing.  I have signed a few of those contracts with them, however, and  gca responsibilities do go down a bit as a practical matter, since they effectively pick materials, often based on cost, which had been the realm of the gca, presumably picking on closest to USGA specs, or whatever. 

That said, the DB agreements assign pretty much the same responsibilities to the gca for design that works, meets laws, etc.  And there is still value to all in figuring out where the basic things go - routing, earthmoving, etc. on paper before getting in the field.

At the same time, given the financial meltdown of 2008, I also see a counter trend of design bid, with the architect being the extra set of eyes watching the money. You can see why at least some financial institutions funding these things would want more outside control/overseeing of the big contract $$ rather than less provided by the design build method.

And, with cities going broke and struggling, they can never do a project and assure citizens of the lowest possible cost without a bid process, apples to apples and all that sort of thing.

[Adam Lawrence]

Jeff - I don't know the details of the contracts you describe, of course. But if, hypothetically, that means it's a contractor job rather than a Brauer job, doesn't that leave you as just a paid-by-the-hour subbie? And if so, what's your competitive advantage over every other architect, other than price?

That's why I think the contractor-led project is something architects should be scared of.

[Tom_Doak]

And, with cities going broke and struggling, they can never do a project and assure citizens of the lowest possible cost without a bid process, apples to apples and all that sort of thing.

The design bid process has NEVER assured a client of delivering a result at the lowest possible cost.  It only assures them of delivering the lowest cost pursuant to all of the restrictions and feints of the bid process.  The "qualified designer" and "qualified builder" rules assure a successful outcome for those two parties, but not necessarily for the client. 

There has not been a city project built anywhere in the last 20 years that was built for as little as, say, Wild Horse.  And there has not been one that delivered as good a golf course.

[Mike_Young]

At the same time, given the financial meltdown of 2008, I also see a counter trend of design bid, with the architect being the extra set of eyes watching the money. You can see why at least some financial institutions funding these things would want more outside control/overseeing of the big contract $$ rather than less provided by the design build method.

Happy New Year Jeff.
I think you have one flaw in the above statement.  There are no financial institutions funding golf courses.  It became obvious that no matter who was watching the money they were still spending to much to make most of them viable projects?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Regarding public work, in my short time trying to build a business I've been involved in a few public jobs and I have not seen the design bid process result in lower costs for the public entity. In fact I'm not so sure that getting the best price is even the priority most of the time. It seems to be a whole lot more about appeasement of one group or another and being sure that every civil servant who is even remotely close to involved has some say on how the process unfolds.  It can be very frustrating some times.

At the same time, given the financial meltdown of 2008, I also see a counter trend of design bid, with the architect being the extra set of eyes watching the money. You can see why at least some financial institutions funding these things would want more outside control/overseeing of the big contract $$ rather than less provided by the design build method.

Happy New Year Jeff.
I think you have one flaw in the above statement.  There are no financial institutions funding golf courses.  It became obvious that no matter who was watching the money they were still spending to much to make most of them viable projects?

Mike, you beat me to it.

Its naive to think you can't have oversight with the design build model. In fact, you can easily have more as the decision making is centralized and you don't have all the different subs point fingers when there are issues. We'll see more design build work in the public sector in the future. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

There is little doubt that DB devalues design, leaving just the signature architects in a good position, because their signature is what separates them most.  For most of the rest of us, selling has always been hard, and its even harder now.  The idea of technical superiority is somewhat lost, but every so often, I can prove it.  On one China job, another gca proposed a 5M CM of earth, and I showed the owner how to do it for 1.7M CM, so he was a believer.

Mike,

I dunno.  I have two and maybe three projects right now being funded through bond houses.  And they have taken a stricter look at the business plans, etc., as well as costs.

Don,

Yes, there can be lower costs from contractors who work "off the hood of their car" so to speak.  But, many value the "restrictions and feints" of usng fnancially strong contractors, bidding apples and apples, having strong contracts, etc.  No doubt, these build in some costs, but the theory is that by restricting certain things, it may save a bigger cost and headache down the road when the small, cheap, unbondable contractor goes bankrupt, gets sick, etc and cannot finish the job.  And, believe me, that does happen.  (Well, it has happened to me on my projects)

I have even pitched two of my recent public projects to be built as "professional construction management services" mode rather than design-bid.  Even explaining all the benefits of each method, while initially interested, the clients backed down.  They are more comfy in the design bid arena, based on their experiences. 

While I grant you that its possible to have the contractor self monitor and report honestly (LU does a great job of this, one of their keys to success), usually, the idea of the boutique contractor conjures up negative images in many.  Like the one man show who wanted some of my work, and told the client he bids a lot cheaper when he doesn't have "those fancy pants architects" telling him what to do.  That was sort of my best sales pitch to stay involved, because they figured he would cut every corner in the book.

So, it goes all ways.  You and Mike have a bias one way, I have another, despite having probably proposed to do projects in every way imaginable over the years, perhaps more than most gca's.  And, as to construction quality, that goes all ways, too.  That is more true than ever since the big downsizing.  While the LU and Wadsworth types probably had the best people at one time (because they paid more) there were always good people all over the business, and its probably even more true now.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
Whenever this subject comes up you start making all sorts of assumptions. Working off the hood of a car? WTF?
I simply shared what I've experienced, that the public design bid process can drive up costs. i didn't say anything about actual construction costs or cutting corners.
And what the hell is a boutique contractor? Seriously, can you describe that for me?
This ideal that you have to be huge and expensive to do high quality work is bull and you know it.

The simple fact is this. Some of the best (did not say all) golf courses built in the last 10 years have been built using the design build model, and they have been built for less then if the design bid model had been used. That is a fact.

Is it for everyone? Obviously not, and if clients wish to use the design bid model, more power to them. But lets not distort the truth. Each model can be successful and like most everything in this world it usually comes down to the people not the model.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Glad you have some projects with bond funding.  Are they municipal?  I just don't see any banks getting into that arena for a while.

I am biased toward my method of doing things BUT that doesn't mean I begrudge you your way.  I'm just more comfortable with my way for myself and I don't care to have to bid work anymore because the odds aren't there.  If my client can't accept my method then we probably aren't meant to do it anyway. 

To each his own.
Will catch you in Dallas one day this year.

Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don and Mike,

Well, I don't think I made any assumptions, nor do I think I spouted any bull, but we are all saying about the same thing. 

I agree it takes good people, most of all, and as I said, those can and do come from anywhere.  And, good courses can be built any which way, contracting wise, again, depending on the people.  Its just that some entities prefer one method or the other for its advantages.

As to the phrase "hood of the trunk" it is a common phrase I have heard for years from the Wadsworth and LUI types, describing small, less sophisticated business folks.  I actually even saw a guy writing checks out on the hood of his truck one day, and had to burst out laughing at the accuracy of the phrase I had heard for so many years.

Thinking about the good courses built with the architect in house method over the years, I see the possible correlation of a single entity, risking his own money to build a dream, being more likely to choose a less formal method.  That, or they tend to choose architects who like that method to presumably allow more tinkering with the final design.  But, if a project is fianced by a city, company with a CEO, etc. and bank funding, I can see them being more comfortable with a more complex structure and bigger designer and larger construction construction company. 

I recall JN early in his career, thinking he could control construction.  Eventually, many owners required him to bid projects, bring in multiple contractors, etc.  That influenced my thinking a bit - if Jack couldn't do it his way every time, what chance did I have? I also recall building a resort course side by side with a famous architect who did the shaping work in house, and comparing the contract price of ours (that was competitively bid) to theirs.  Let's just say I didn't see any savings in the pricing from the architect.  Nor did I think their crews finish work was anything superior to what our contractor brought.

Lastly, I did a few DB projects early.  I noticed that as committed as I was, those 10 foot mounds started looking pretty good at 5 feet high at the end of a long day.  It is human nature to look for the easiest way - which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but sometimes does conflicte with design goals.  I felt I didn't ever want the owner to even consider the fact that I was doing anything but designing to the best of my ability, and that impression is often given by those in DB.

I also see the value in checks and balances of there distinct viewpoints on a project - the owner owns, the designer designs, and the builder builds.  As each protects their own interests, the whole project moves forward with some efficiency, attention to design, and a look at the business aspects of the golf course.  Again, possibly less important on "personal" projects that often become great.

I guess I haven't really researched the various construction methods over the years, and how they came to be.  It might be an interesting study to compare historic trends, rather than compare our own personal experiences.

You guys are always welcome to come visit when in Big D!

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Speaking of the Big D.  Sorry it has taken me so long to offer condolences regarding JR

[Mike McGuire]

Crazy for me to get involved in this discusion, given the stature of the contributors so far, but here goes anyway.

Not sure how far this scales but for smaller renos/restores and my money I want my architect on the machine. We do our own irrigation, drainage, finish work etc. Not that hard.

Worked for us a couple times perfectly already. Extreme bang for the buck, and the open canvass style is likely to yield very good results with an artisan, who understands the technical side as well as the look, sculpting the dirt.

[Bill Kubly]

Design-build to LU means that we manage the construction process for the client.  We are NEVER provide design services in- house, like some of our competitors are now offering, but normally use the GCA that was hired or selected by the owner of the project.  In this way we control the cost WITH the architect as we must have an understanding going in before we start so the costs do not run away.  We have worked this way successfully for many years with architects like Jeff Brauer, John Colligan, Lester, RTJ-2, Coore-Crenshaw, and many others.  In some cases the Architect is paid by us, but we still do what they want us to do with the design, but we both need to understand the scope and budget.

The client uses this method to save money, control costs, guarantee quality, shorten the schedule, and to work with a TEAM that they totally trust.  Low Bid does not always get you the best job.  I believe that the  GSA's that we work with in this delivery method like the way is works and the final product.  Probably the biggest key is that the owner must trust his contractor. 

[Mike_Young]

Bill,
Thanks for taking the time to post.  I understand where you are coming from and can appreciate  it.  As you mention there are competitors who may be offering the entire package without an architect and if they do so they run the risk of being shunned for projects where an architect may be involved.  That's probably just natural.  I respect the business you guys have developed and even though you can't say it , I can say that I am confident you and crew could design a very good golf course without any architect involvement.   I envision a day in the future when builder and architect will meet in the middle and  it will be one industry.  The free market will have made it evolve to such.  RE Development created the inflated GCA market not golf.  JMO

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: