Do modern day architects really learn anything

[Frank Pont]

We kind of touched on this subject earlier when we discussed the idea of a "jam session" design. I have always felt in any of the businesses I have worked in that you get the best results if you work with a group of very ambitious and talented people. You can do that as employees like TD does, or in a looser format. Key is not to be uncertain about your image etc. I would love to find ways to work more with my contempories like Jeff Mingay, Jonathan Davison, Mike Nuzzo and Tony Ristola, problem is more to find the time to visit as Jeff and I found out during the construction of Swinkelsche. TD is right that much knowledge gets transferred through shapers, one of the reasons I have worked with people like Conor Walsh and am working with Jeff Stein now, and why some of my colleagues in Holland have used shapers that I have taught the ropes.

In terms of feedback, I always say what I think of a golf course I visit, and expect the same from anyone visiting my golf courses. The ONLY way you learn is through honest feedback.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank,

Your post gives me a perhaps ill formed thought - you like to hang with your contemporaries?  Traditionally, I liked to hang with the old guys myself.

And, instead of hanging with guys who thought the same way (sounds like you want to get out and hang with co-minimalists from that post) I always figured I would learn more hanging with someone in a different school of thought.  In other words, I have been in groups of "traditional-modern" guys who spent the evening poo pooing newer trends in architecture, merely reconfirming that they are "right".  I have no doubt a group of minimalists might very well fall into the same trap, as would a group of survivalists (guys always doing low budget projects, etc.)

As always, learning requires an open mind, first and foremost.  Not all gca's have that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Frank, Jeff, Tim, Ian & Tom,

Thanks for your input.

But how much flow of information occurs on site that's site specific  ?

It seems as though most of the on site conceptual exchanges are vertical, from associates/employees.

But how much flow of information occurs horizontally, between peer architects, on site ?

Understanding that Crump might not be the best example due to his being a novice, but Crump got stumped in trying to route Pine Valley.
While I don't see modern day architects getting "stumped" in the same way, they may get stumped in the sense that they haven't discovered the optimum routing, that which would produce a better golf course.

Two courses come to mind.

Friars Head and Sebonack

At Friars Head Fazio provided an early routing.
At Sebonack Nicklaus/Lipe provided an early routing.

Neither routing survived as the final routing.

Both routings succumbed to competing routings although the circumstances were different at each course.

How different was Fazio's routing from C&C's ?

How different was the Nicklaus/Lipe routing from the Doak routing ?
My understanding was that there was some similarities/overlap/duplication.

How amenable would Fazio have been to suggestions by C&C ?

How amenable would Nicklaus/Lipe have been to suggestions by Doak ?

How amenable would either design team be to suggestions by other architects ?

And, under any circumstances, would they solicit opinions ?

Streamsong would seem to present a different set of circumstances where the exchange of ideas between peer architects may have occurred.

It would be interesting to hear if Tom Doak had any ideas or influence on the Red Course and if C&C had any ideas or influence over the Blue course.

Was Streamsong a modern day Pine Valley in terms of sharing of ideas ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I know you are driving that point home, but besides Crump, wouldn't the reason for more exchange of ideas back in the day among the Philly school be because they were ALL sort of finding their way on how to adapt an old game to a new country and conditions?  As with Wilson, weren't most of their questions techincal? i.e., grasses, soils, total acreage, etc.? 

With that stuff more or less figured out a century later, I am just not sure too many projects really need more than one chef in the kitchen.

Of course, I can't tell you if Streamsong was a sharing of ideas, TD will have to do that.  I did have a fun time at LaCosta, working side by side with Damian Pascuzzo in what was a true collaboration.  There were eye opening moments on a few occaisions when we realized how differently we conceptualized certain things.  So, it still happens on rare occaisions, even today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I'd agree that the ODG's had a common interest in sharing ideas in the formative stages of GCA in America as they groped with their journey into new territory.

Over a decade ago I suggested that any club and especially a classic club considering a "renovation" should hire another independent architect to evaluate the proposed changes.

Conceptually, I think it's an idea with merit, a safeguard if you will.

In practice, it might get messy.

One of the interesting studies is the CC of York where both Donald Ross and William Flynn submitted independent routings/plans..

It would have been interesting if, like Nicklaus and Doak, they were thrust together and told to come up with a course, instead of Ross being awarded the commission.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,

Like Jeff Brauer suggests, the early days in Philadelphia may have been a special case. After all, golf architectural firms are competitors. Their livelihoods - maybe even their very existence - depends on winning and maintaining the confidence of clients. So, I doubt you will find many examples of architects inviting their peers (competitors) in during the design process.

Honestly, I doubt this is very different than any other profession. Actually, I recently became involved in a crude oil transportation project that had been through the normal months and months of design debate and permitting approval process. However, when I came on board, it quickly became apparent to me that nearly everyone involved in the project missed a very important part of the design.

So last week I got a call from the CEO of the firm funding the project. I was amazed how little he had to say as I explained what I thought the project team missed.

Sure enough the follow up with his people was a little tense.

My point is that , yes, we as consumers of golf/golf architecture would like to see the very best work with each site. However, human nature being what it is, in most cases this will involve one firm doing the work and making all the design decisions.

[Frank Pont]

Frank,

Your post gives me a perhaps ill formed thought - you like to hang with your contemporaries?  Traditionally, I liked to hang with the old guys myself.

And, instead of hanging with guys who thought the same way (sounds like you want to get out and hang with co-minimalists from that post) I always figured I would learn more hanging with someone in a different school of thought.  In other words, I have been in groups of "traditional-modern" guys who spent the evening poo pooing newer trends in architecture, merely reconfirming that they are "right".  I have no doubt a group of minimalists might very well fall into the same trap, as would a group of survivalists (guys always doing low budget projects, etc.)

As always, learning requires an open mind, first and foremost.  Not all gca's have that!

Jeff, you raise good points.

In my other jobs, in offshore, strategy consulting, I banking and private equity I have always looked for mentors and tried to learn as much as possible from them. In gca I learned a lot from David Kidd a rather short period, and did not feel the need to become an apprentice with a "name" after that. It made more sense to go out and build up experience, in the end, compared to some of the other things I have done, gca is not that difficult conceptually (as I often say, its not nuclear physics).

In terms of the guys that I mention, they are just among the best architects I can access, period, no matter what their style is. I would love to do something with Brian Schneider some day, but he is with TD and is way ahead of me in experience, and probably also in terms of talent. Most of the mainstream gca in Europe is pretty mediocre in any case. I would have loved to have spent a week with someone like Desmond Muirhead, not sure that I would have agreed with much, but its always great to spend time with crazy geniuses.... I also would have really liked to have spent some time to understand some of the weirdest thoughts of Tom Simpson...

On your last point, I strongly feel that to be a great gca requires an academic mind. Most of the best architects had/have serious university degrees.

[Tom_Doak]

Frank, Jeff, Tim, Ian & Tom,

Thanks for your input.

But how much flow of information occurs on site that's site specific  ?

It seems as though most of the on site conceptual exchanges are vertical, from associates/employees.

But how much flow of information occurs horizontally, between peer architects, on site ?

Understanding that Crump might not be the best example due to his being a novice, but Crump got stumped in trying to route Pine Valley.
While I don't see modern day architects getting "stumped" in the same way, they may get stumped in the sense that they haven't discovered the optimum routing, that which would produce a better golf course.

Two courses come to mind.

Friars Head and Sebonack

At Friars Head Fazio provided an early routing.
At Sebonack Nicklaus/Lipe provided an early routing.

Neither routing survived as the final routing.

Both routings succumbed to competing routings although the circumstances were different at each course.

How different was Fazio's routing from C&C's ?

How different was the Nicklaus/Lipe routing from the Doak routing ?
My understanding was that there was some similarities/overlap/duplication.

How amenable would Fazio have been to suggestions by C&C ?

How amenable would Nicklaus/Lipe have been to suggestions by Doak ?

How amenable would either design team be to suggestions by other architects ?

And, under any circumstances, would they solicit opinions ?

Streamsong would seem to present a different set of circumstances where the exchange of ideas between peer architects may have occurred.

It would be interesting to hear if Tom Doak had any ideas or influence on the Red Course and if C&C had any ideas or influence over the Blue course.

Was Streamsong a modern day Pine Valley in terms of sharing of ideas ?

Patrick:

You really should do a little more reading and a little less writing.  I've already shared the process of design for Streamsong and the details of my collaboration with Bill Coore on the routing several times on this forum.  We worked together on the routing; Bill suggested holes, I suggested holes, we changed each other's holes, etc.  But, once we figured out which holes belonged to each of us, we worked separately with our own teams from there.  I expected we might walk around with each other a bit more and make comments about what we saw the other guys doing, but in the end, we both respect the other's team of guys, and neither of us wanted to meddle in that dynamic.  

When we did share with Bill's guys that we liked a particular feature we'd seen, they were not sure if we were serious, or pulling their legs.  We were serious -- but the reaction was so funny that we were encouraged to do it more.

As to routings -- in general, I don't like to see other architects' routings for a property before I start working on my own.  If I see an idea or two that I like, it's hard to get it out of my head and look at different alternatives.  I don't mind looking at other routing ideas later in the process, but not at the beginning.  That's why, even though I try to get my associates more involved in the routing process, it's hard to do, because I don't want their ideas to distract me from coming up with some of my own ... and by the time I get my ideas refined a little bit, there's not a lot of room for them to change it around.

As for Sebonack, I was only given a blank topo to start with, and I did my routing -- which was pretty much the final routing -- on that blank topo, without even walking the ground first.  It's rare that it turns out that way.  Anyway, the client liked the routing, so that was the routing.  I never did see the routing(s) that Jack had done previously, or a routing that Tom Fazio did, either.  I think Jim Urbina looked at those at some point, but I never bothered, because I was confident I'd come up with a really good solution.

P.S.  I wonder how many days Tillinghast or Thomas actually spent out on site at Pine Valley with George Crump.  Do you have any idea?  I think Bill Coore and I spent five or six days together in Florida during the routing phase, though at least half the time on those days we were each out looking on our own.

[Tom_Doak]

On your last point, I strongly feel that to be a great gca requires an academic mind. Most of the best architects had/have serious university degrees.

Well, university degrees tend to impress potential clients, so there's a bit of survival bias there.

I agree that being a great golf course architect requires a fair amount of brain power for problem-solving.  However, I've had a lot of really smart guys that I've worked with that didn't have an "impressive" college degree, and one of the very best only went to college for a semester before getting into golf construction.

[Frank Pont]

On your last point, I strongly feel that to be a great gca requires an academic mind. Most of the best architects had/have serious university degrees.

Well, university degrees tend to impress potential clients, so there's a bit of survival bias there.

I agree that being a great golf course architect requires a fair amount of brain power for problem-solving.  However, I've had a lot of really smart guys that I've worked with that didn't have an "impressive" college degree, and one of the very best only went to college for a semester before getting into golf construction.

Maybe I should turn it around, in Europe there are quite some gca's that were good golfers who were not smart enough to go to university, and instead went into gca. The area where this is most obvIous is in their routings, they are often appallingly poor. Smart people are just better at doing good routings than less smart people. It is less the case for detailing, probably because that often is driven by creativity.

[Carl Nichols]

Garland didn't say anything about ongoing projects, did he?

Sam,
Read reply # 6 and try to place it within the context of the jist of this thread

Pat:

Not exactly sure why I'm jumping in to to defend Garland, but Garland's entire reply # 6 was:

* * * *

PM,

I thought you would be aware that they don't just sit in rooms. That their meetings are typically associated with a golf course or two since there have been mentions of playing golf at these meetings.

* * * *

Garland made no mention of the architects reviewing ongoing projects (let alone that the annual meetings are "held to review ongoing projects," as you attempted to frame it earlier).  Moreover, we now know, as confirmed by Jeff Blume, that at the annual meetings both (A) the architects get together and play courses together and (B) at least sometimes (as in the case of Chambers Bay) the architects of the "modern day" course are there to discuss (and do discuss) their work.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland didn't say anything about ongoing projects, did he?

Sam,
Read reply # 6 and try to place it within the context of the jist of this thread

Pat:

Not exactly sure why I'm jumping in to to defend Garland, but Garland's entire reply # 6 was:

* * * *

PM,

I thought you would be aware that they don't just sit in rooms. That their meetings are typically associated with a golf course or two since there have been mentions of playing golf at these meetings.

* * * *

Garland made no mention of the architects reviewing ongoing projects (let alone that the annual meetings are "held to review ongoing projects," as you attempted to frame it earlier).  Moreover, we now know, as confirmed by Jeff Blume, that at the annual meetings both (A) the architects get together and play courses together and (B) at least sometimes (as in the case of Chambers Bay) the architects of the "modern day" course are there to discuss (and do discuss) their work.  

Carl,

If you and Sam would go back and read the opening post, then my reply # 2 in might provide some context and enlighten you regarding Garland's reply #. 6

Do you look at a single frame in a movie or do you view the entire movie in trying to gain context ?

It's clear that so far, neither of you get it., without it being spelled out for you.

[Carl Nichols]

Garland didn't say anything about ongoing projects, did he?

Sam,
Read reply # 6 and try to place it within the context of the jist of this thread

Pat:

Not exactly sure why I'm jumping in to to defend Garland, but Garland's entire reply # 6 was:

* * * *

PM,

I thought you would be aware that they don't just sit in rooms. That their meetings are typically associated with a golf course or two since there have been mentions of playing golf at these meetings.

* * * *

Garland made no mention of the architects reviewing ongoing projects (let alone that the annual meetings are "held to review ongoing projects," as you attempted to frame it earlier).  Moreover, we now know, as confirmed by Jeff Blume, that at the annual meetings both (A) the architects get together and play courses together and (B) at least sometimes (as in the case of Chambers Bay) the architects of the "modern day" course are there to discuss (and do discuss) their work.  

Carl,

If you and Sam would go back and read the opening post, then my reply # 2 in might provide some context and enlighten you regarding Garland's reply #. 6

Do you look at a single frame in a movie or do you view the entire movie in trying to gain context ?

It's clear that so far, neither of you get it., without it being spelled out for you.

Pat:
Believe me, I get it.  Your first post asked both a very general question about the exchange of ideas between modern architects ("Do modern day architects really learn anything from other contemporary architects?") and a very specific question about whether architects go visit others' "ongoing" projects (a word that you used just once in a nine-sentence opening post.)  Garland responded by saying that some architects do get together at least once a year, at which meetings he assumed they would exchange information, which I interpreted as a response to your very general question, rather than your very specific one.  As relevant here, that response certainly didn't state anywhere that he thought that at those annual meetings they visited specific ongoing projects.  You then excoriated Garland for not being able to produce evidence of something he hadn't said [i.e., that architects at the annual meeting look at ongoing projects]. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You really should do a little more reading and a little less writing.  

It's a delicate balance, and, I do have a number of other interests


I've already shared the process of design for Streamsong and the details of my collaboration with Bill Coore on the routing several times on this forum.  We worked together on the routing; Bill suggested holes, I suggested holes, we changed each other's holes, etc.  But, once we figured out which holes belonged to each of us, we worked separately with our own teams from there.  I expected we might walk around with each other a bit more and make comments about what we saw the other guys doing, but in the end, we both respect the other's team of guys, and neither of us wanted to meddle in that dynamic.  

When we did share with Bill's guys that we liked a particular feature we'd seen, they were not sure if we were serious, or pulling their legs.  We were serious -- but the reaction was so funny that we were encouraged to do it more.

As to routings -- in general, I don't like to see other architects' routings for a property before I start working on my own.  If I see an idea or two that I like, it's hard to get it out of my head and look at different alternatives.  I don't mind looking at other routing ideas later in the process, but not at the beginning.  That's why, even though I try to get my associates more involved in the routing process, it's hard to do, because I don't want their ideas to distract me from coming up with some of my own ... and by the time I get my ideas refined a little bit, there's not a lot of room for them to change it around.

As for Sebonack, I was only given a blank topo to start with, and I did my routing -- which was pretty much the final routing -- on that blank topo, without even walking the ground first.  It's rare that it turns out that way.  Anyway, the client liked the routing, so that was the routing.  I never did see the routing(s) that Jack had done previously, or a routing that Tom Fazio did, either.  I think Jim Urbina looked at those at some point, but I never bothered, because I was confident I'd come up with a really good solution.

P.S.  I wonder how many days Tillinghast or Thomas actually spent out on site at Pine Valley with George Crump.  Do you have any idea?  I think Bill Coore and I spent five or six days together in Florida during the routing phase, though at least half the time on those days we were each out looking on our own.

Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you how many days AWT spent at PV.
Phil Young probably could as he's one of the experts on AWT

[Sam Morrow]

Garland didn't say anything about ongoing projects, did he?

Sam,
Read reply # 6 and try to place it within the context of the jist of this thread

Pat:

Not exactly sure why I'm jumping in to to defend Garland, but Garland's entire reply # 6 was:

* * * *

PM,

I thought you would be aware that they don't just sit in rooms. That their meetings are typically associated with a golf course or two since there have been mentions of playing golf at these meetings.

* * * *

Garland made no mention of the architects reviewing ongoing projects (let alone that the annual meetings are "held to review ongoing projects," as you attempted to frame it earlier).  Moreover, we now know, as confirmed by Jeff Blume, that at the annual meetings both (A) the architects get together and play courses together and (B) at least sometimes (as in the case of Chambers Bay) the architects of the "modern day" course are there to discuss (and do discuss) their work.  

Carl,

If you and Sam would go back and read the opening post, then my reply # 2 in might provide some context and enlighten you regarding Garland's reply #. 6

Do you look at a single frame in a movie or do you view the entire movie in trying to gain context ?

It's clear that so far, neither of you get it., without it being spelled out for you.

Pat if you would learn to read and not try to put words in peoples mouths you'd be dangerous.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sam,

You and Carl lack context.

You're like the three blind men examining the elephant.

One has the ear in his hand and thinks an elephant is a leaf like creature.

The other has the tusk in his hand and thinks that an elephant is a mollusk.

The third has the trunk in his hand and thinks the elephant is serpant like.

Individually and collectively, they don't have a clue.

I know what Garland's motives were, you don't.

And, I was specific, I referenced an architect with a project in progress whereby visiting architects came to that site and offered their opinions.

No such exercise and exchange took place at any of those ASGCA meetings.

I outlined the perameters of this thread, hence I know what the topic and focus is.
Garland simply tried to divert/disrupt the thread and he found some fools to help him.

[Sam Morrow]

Everybody is wrong you are right, blah, blah, blah. Same story different day.

[Sam Morrow]

Sorry, I forgot to say bingo.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sam,

I liked the analogy.

Do you know what a burden being right all the time is ?

Trust me on this one, I go back a long time with GJ

[Garland Bayley]

...

I know what Garland's motives were, you don't.

Seriously Patrick, you are not a mind reader.

And, I was specific, I referenced an architect with a project in progress whereby visiting architects came to that site and offered their opinions.

No such exercise and exchange took place at any of those ASGCA meetings.

I outlined the perameters of this thread, hence I know what the topic and focus is.
Garland simply tried to divert/disrupt the thread and he found some fools to help him.

As has been pointed out by "some fools" your "referenced an architect with a project in progress" did not appear in your question "Do modern day architects really learn anything from other contemporary architects ?" We are not mind readers either, so we cannot perceive that "There don't appear to be too many invitations or site visits by other architects." is anything other than a passing remark about one way they may learn "from other contemporary architects".

What you do need to learn is the difference between "divert/disrupt" a thread, and correct it. I know our history is quite long, going back to my first "divert/disrupt" of your thread when I corrected your argument that Jack Nicklaus was hamstrung in his wedge game by not having a gap wedge.

[Carl Nichols]

Sam,

You and Carl lack context.

You're like the three blind men examining the elephant.

One has the ear in his hand and thinks an elephant is a leaf like creature.

The other has the tusk in his hand and thinks that an elephant is a mollusk.

The third has the trunk in his hand and thinks the elephant is serpant like.

Individually and collectively, they don't have a clue.

I know what Garland's motives were, you don't.

And, I was specific, I referenced an architect with a project in progress whereby visiting architects came to that site and offered their opinions.

No such exercise and exchange took place at any of those ASGCA meetings.

I outlined the perameters of this thread, hence I know what the topic and focus is.
Garland simply tried to divert/disrupt the thread and he found some fools to help him.

Pat-
You sure got me with that witty and effective retort!  After this experience, I'll certainly be careful not to disagree with you in the future!  [emoticon dripping with sarcasm and facetiousness omitted] 

[archie_struthers]

 


When we were building Twisted Dune Mr Doak was nice enough to pay me a visit . Despite my inexperience , he was quite nice and asked me more than a few questions about why I was doing this or that. At the time , I was probably more concerned about approval of my ideas than I would be now, but Tom was genuinely interested in what we were doing. If he had suggestions he kept them to himself, but they would have been gladly accepted . He couldn't have been nicer , and I genuinely appreciated his visit.

At the time he was working on Atlantic City CC , and we ended up selling them a lot of fill from our site for mitigation work and also some natural sand that they used. I kept my mouth shut  when visiting his job ,  other than to take a good look around .  Knowing ACCC as well as we all did down here , we were quite interested in what was happening there. Many of our members at Greate Bay were émigrés , and Atlantic City had been "the place" to be a member at the shore.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You sure got me with that witty and effective retort! 

Carl,

Glad you liked it

After this experience, I'll certainly be careful not to disagree with you in the future! 

That wouldn't be any fun.
Hardly not in the interest of promoting discussion and debate

 [emoticon dripping with sarcasm and facetiousness omitted] 

Have you asked Ran to devise one ?

[Sam Morrow]

This thread makes sense now, it's all Garland's fault.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

Were you aware that I was the Captain of the ACCC Swim Team ?

Sam,

I knew, that if I gave you enough clues, that eventually, you'd get it.

GJ,

Yes, in the late 50's, early 60's, the Great Kreskin, just begining his career, was the magician/mentalist for my brothers confirmation party and he schooled me in the art of "mind reading".  I haven't had much occasion to use the talent on this site, because in order to read minds, well............. they have to be of a minimum standard IQ, and for a moment there, you just got over the threshold.
Unfortunately, the ability to read minds is totally lost when you're dealing with morons.