[Mike_Young]

20 years ago the cool thing was to put n your resume that you worked for Pete Dye.  Well, a guy could work for Pete Dye and Pete Dye not know he was working for him on some of the sites I saw.  But it sounded good.  The guys that did the real work on the PD courses I saw knew how to get it done...EFFICIENTLY

Today we have a new breed that is developing or was developing.  Get the degree, read every design book one can.  Get an old truck and a nice hat and become a designer/builder/shaper.  Sounds good but it doesn't work from what I'm seeing.  "Sir, I know what a shaper is and you are no shaper" is a phrase I have wanted to use a couple of  times in the last year.  Shaping a bunker in 7 days that should take 4 hours is not shaping.  Some of these guys want a monthly fee that is a joke.   Economically efficient, quality work is the name of the game if one wants to work in the business.  Some of the stuff happening right now is just plain funny...

[Tom_Doak]

What bothers you more, that they are so inefficient or that they are getting paid so much for it?


You're right on that there is much inefficient work going on, partly because the architects of those projects aren't taking enough time on them but just leaving the kids at the playground.  (Assuming, of course, that the architect even knows what he wants.)


But don't dismiss the value of some trial and error in the course of any project.  That's the only way we are likely to find any new path.  So you can only take them to task for their inefficiency if the end result is only another big steaming pile of bunkers.

[Mike_Young]

TD,

I don't know.  I do agree it has much to do with the architect being there more and with the architect actually knowing how to get the results he wants with a specific piece of equipment. 
I guess what freaks me is that I was expecting one thing and got another....I've sent one to Latin America last year and got him the fee he wanted but the guys who could really operate on the job freaked out on me with this stuff.  Trust me, I've always let my guys do trial and error and more often than not it becomes the product...I'm mainly just talking about no machine skills at all...

[Tom_Doak]

As one of my favorite authors says, it's not uncommon for experts to have the arrow of causation pointing in the opposite direction of how it's really happening.  Caveat emptor!


Machine skills do take time and practice.

[Mike_Young]

As one of my favorite authors says, it's not uncommon for experts to have the arrow of causation pointing in the opposite direction of how it's really happening.  Caveat emptor!


Machine skills do take time and practice.

Well then maybe my real gripe is the pricing after all....    Ask Kye about Metz sometime....he was a studious, design absorbed Moose...ran a dozer with a set of Hogans wired to the cab...

[Tom_Doak]

Ask Kye if Metz was really as good as Eric or either of the Brian's!

[Mike_Young]

Ask Kye if Metz was really as good as Eric or either of the Brian's!

It doesn't matter he arranged for me to go with him to meet Hogan...can't be topped...

[Kyle Harris]

It upsets me, almost existentially, that nobody will actually read this thread. I'll go ponder that notion on Blue #15. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

It might not be of interest to most here, but I think Mike raises a good topic. 


As Mike mentions, PD was famous for having the owner hire a bunch of interns, some of whom never ran equipment, and his thinking was partially that some unique shaping would arise out of such inexperience.  However, within the industry, at least early Dye courses were considered some of the worst built courses of the day.


Which is partly why I have always taken the tack of working with professional golf course contractors.  I figure there are enough folks out there who already know how to build a course well and fast.  Adding me to the mix really didn't help the golf world at all.  And, in so doing, sometimes I get new (to me anyway) shaping, as a shaper has always worked for other architects and sometimes says "Fazio did this in a similar situation" to explain what was on the ground.  (And, I have a few examples of Fazio borrowing from my design/shaping, too)


But, quality construction isn't about just the shaping.  I always look for settled trenches, or greens, or banks, which indicate poor compaction, long, wet drainage swales, bad transitions causing mowing scalp, bad tie ins, irrigation leaks, perched or sunken catch basins, etc.  Other architects like Mike and Tom could, and I wish they would, add to that "off the top of my head" list.


And, as I have mentioned here occasionally, schedule does matter as much as cost and product, and at some point, seeding in the prime window makes it a better choice not to redo a green surface or other design feature "one more time" to make it perfect or better.  There is an old saying that a day on the front end of the job means a lost week at the end, a week equals a month, and a month can equal a year.  So, it pays to be efficient from day one.


When you consider the business side - the owner has borrowed millions to build or rebuild this thing, and is expecting over $1M revenue in 2017, not getting that money in until 2018 means he needs a short term loan/cash infusion again, just to open.  So, the architect and builder need to ask themselves if raising that little knob in the green is worth $1M.  99% of the time......it is not.


In my experience, most lawsuits by owners against builders are a result of just such lost revenues.

[Tom_Doak]

As Mike mentions, PD was famous for having the owner hire a bunch of interns, some of whom never ran equipment, and his thinking was partially that some unique shaping would arise out of such inexperience.  However, within the industry, at least early Dye courses were considered some of the worst built courses of the day.

Which were those, exactly?  I didn't see much wrong with Crooked Stick, The Golf Club, or Harbour Town, which were some of Pete's early courses.


Your defense of "golf industry business as usual" was not the point of Mike's thread, I don't think.  Most contractors rake more off the top in profits than any five young shapers could spend being "inefficient".  Nor does this approach have to be problematic in terms of project completion ... I would stand my record of efficient construction scheduling up against anybody's.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


The courses I personally saw were around the Atlanta area. Others were via rumor, at least to me.  And, those aren't particularly early, but I thought I would encounter less anger by suggesting there was improvement over time.


With construction practices all over the board, with RTJ building in house decades ago, I not sure I was implying there is any such "Golf Biz as Usual" intentions in my comments.  I don't think you or Pete reinvented anything.  But, I know what I have experienced and in many cases, a third party cracking the whip and setting standards for quality is necessary.


And, oh yeah, as to PD quality, one example might that most of his RR tie walls looked as if they were ready to fall down.  That has to be most likely due to poor building or engineering, although I think I have heard it said he built them that way on purpose for effect.  I wouldn't put it past him!


It is another old axiom that inexperienced builders can do well, but the value of a professional contractor becomes known in really difficult and unexpected situations.  Obviously, no intern or relative green horn can make claims like those Farmers commercials, where they say "We know a thing or two, because we have seen a thing or two." I still prefer experience and financial strength in my builders.


And, I still prefer contractual clarity, i.e., the owner to own, the designer to design and the builder to build.  There is always potential for conflict of interest in any other arrangement.  I know many DB projects have done well, so the contract aspect usually doesn't come up unless there are problems, and as noted, these are mostly schedule problems.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Who takes 7 days to build a bunker?! I'd love to hear a few examples, even if non-specific to spare the blushes...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


I visited a project last year, where the PM related/complained about interns shaping forever (several weeks), a design associate coming in every month or two to redo them, and the principal architect coming by every six months and often changing it again.  Of course, that latter thing can be done by any architect, and often has been done.


As to contractors "raking in" profits, I really don't care if it's done by doing things fast and good.


Years ago, my mentors put the field guys (like me) out with one shaper, and irrigation guy and whatever labor we could scrape up.  We kept records on the project, and once saved the owner 15% by our count. In other cases, it was plus 15% from our estimate, because we didn't take a bid.  Obviously, weather and what not play a part.


On a project with two nine hole phases, one done each way, we found the costs evened out both ways, with the efficiency of the contractor offsetting his profit and overhead.  Obviously, that direct comparison has colored my take on the subject ever since.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

I think we agree to disagree regarding using general contractors.  I have done two jobs in my time with GC's and it just was not fun for me.  I felt disconnected from the project and I didn't feel like I could spend as much time as I could if I were doing it myself.  I lke the connection of all the guys being on the same team.  That's me.

A couple of things:  TD mentions " I don't think.  Most contractors rake more off the top in profits than any five young shapers could spend being "inefficient".   My thread was not about young shapers.  There are good young shapers out there.  Probably better than any of their predecessors.  I'm talking about guys who sell themselves as having shaped when actually they used a sand pro or something to finish an area another had already roughed in.  IMHO a shaper creates or finds and enhance features and can either finish those or direct another to do so.  But my gripe is probably my own fault for not digging into it more.

Here's my thought process on the GC thing.

- GC's don't care for archies who do design/build and therefore will not promote them like they will a guy who they know will get them the next job. 

If one uses the GC method then the GC representative is the person the owner sees more than anyone else.  I have personally seen a young GC rep dig in deep with a city official on a municipal job we did a few years back and since he had the guy's ear everyday he would tell him how it was done when he was the GC on the "Palmer" job.  I finally got him off the job but it was a pain.  The GC was one of those GCBAA certified dudes and they fed the city guy well.  2 million in change orders that I did not request.  All of those guys end up with more power on the job than the archie himself in many cases.  I don't like that.  And you know you are not gettng their best labor. 

The best thing I ever did was by a small plane when things were going strong in the 90's and early 2000's.  That allowed me to be on my sites every three or four days and not be sending an associate  who the owners or contractors would be using on the next project.  I don't like the system at all.  You do because they know you have no intention of doing your own work.  And as far as saving or going over 15% on those jobs I don't know your situation but I do feel I can save significantly and have very satisfied owners. 

And lastly, this is not you, but many ASGCA members are  hypocritcal regarding design build and go out of their way to act as if they are more noble when the entire time they are doing the same thing with smoke and mirrors.  IMHO the GCBAA/ASGCA/vendor  is much more slimy than the design/build...and again I'm not saying you.  I'm saying overall.

[Ben Sims]

I watched one of the Brian's run an excavator while he (presumably) listened to an eclectic alternative album. Anything that can be done while listening to an ironic mandolin can't be too hard, right?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Agree that general contractors recommend architects who aren't competing with them for construction jobs more than they recommend those that do.  Common sense on their part.  Also, in general, don't like it when forced to hire architects shapers rather than their own, both for loss of revenue, but also because its hard to have a de facto employee who is serving two masters. Also common sense on their part.  I have seen some really unfair "architects shaper" clauses that make it hard for the contractor to carry out his responsibilities.


Lastly, agree that the construction foreman, there every day, tends to become the owner's go to guy for problems, and its something architects must work hard on.  The best arrangements have the architect still be say on final design decisions, and the best foreman defer to the architect in those situations, but it doesn't always happen.  Still, no matter what the construction method, I think someone on site ought to be in charge of construction expediency, and usually, a contractor has more incentive to do that than the architect.  It does create some natural push-pull tension in the arrangement, but that is always not a bad thing.


As to what constitutes a shaper, I agree.  Everyone that applies for a construction job seems to exaggerate their accomplishments, although some architects inflate their project lists, too!  I have heard what turned out to be a tractor operator claim to have built "golf course X" when I know in fact it was a Wadsworth project.  Call them, and they barely remember the name of the farmer they called to prepare the seedbed!  Such is the lure of the "glamorous" golf biz.

I am not going to change your mind about the best way to operate.  There are a lot of great courses built with different methods.  I really am just pointing out that there are advantages and disadvantages to each, conceptually, legally, practically, for the non-golf folks on this board.

I will also disagree on the slime factor.  ?  I can count the slimy architects I have known on a few fingers, regardless of whether they make money on construction or not, and can count the number of slimy contractors I have worked with or heard about on way less than my fingers on both hands.

Cheers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As Mike mentions, PD was famous for having the owner hire a bunch of interns, some of whom never ran equipment, and his thinking was partially that some unique shaping would arise out of such inexperience.  However, within the industry, at least early Dye courses were considered some of the worst built courses of the day.

Which were those, exactly?  I didn't see much wrong with Crooked Stick, The Golf Club, or Harbour Town, which were some of Pete's early courses.

TD,


Well, you were young, Pete was younger than he is now.  I got an off line email from an industry veteran this morning.  And, while I hate to pick on a 90+ year old industry icon, but somewhat sure he would agree generally, here is what someone who was there had to say about Harbor Town (shortened for brevity and to protect their anonymity ):


"I believe it was the most pivotal course design for many years and still rate it right at the top of all time greats "for creative architecture".  I was there and was privy to many issues at Harbor Town.The construction quality was marginal at best.Tees were awful, many not flat, not sure how many varieties of grass, many drainage problems, including bunkers,surface etc., shade issues and irrigation system was problematic.It has been an ongoingprojectever since.He also mentioned the obvious (also frequently admitted by Pete and Alice - "Does insurance salesman really give much insight into drainage, grading etc.?"
I believe the underlined quote above is a testament to the value of good construction - with bad construction the superintendent and owner need to go back yearly to fix the original mistakes.  So, I am not really arguing method, and maybe not even speed, or cost, just that quality is important. There are many qualified construction people in all construction methods, but just be sure to use one who is experienced and has great references from someone other than themselves.......


If you use a designers crew, or even the biggest name contractor, the experience of the individuals that are on the job trump the name and reputation of the builder or builder/designer.

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the topic Mike.  I think it is relevant to many professions.  I need to make decisions all of the time about whether to do work in house or to farm it to an outside law firm.  Many of the same dynamics come into play.

[Tom_Doak]

Also, in general, [contractors] don't like it when forced to hire architects shapers rather than their own, both for loss of revenue, but also because its hard to have a de facto employee who is serving two masters. Also common sense on their part.  I have seen some really unfair "architects shaper" clauses that make it hard for the contractor to carry out his responsibilities.

Actually this has not been a problem for me in the past fifteen years, since my reputation became established.  At some point the contractors figured out that my shapers got things done at a pretty fast pace, that we didn't have to go back and rebuild their work when I returned, and more importantly, that the contractor could take his "A" shapers to some other job, because I had my own.


And I suspect they still bid the jobs to make as much profit as they would have if they'd done the shaping, too.

[Mike_Young]

If you use a designers crew, or even the biggest name contractor, the experience of the individuals that are on the job trump the name and reputation of the builder or builder/designer.

Jeff,
We agree on something here...amen....and turning that for a second is why Ilike to be able to hire those individuals instead of GC.

Also,  I really like the word "slime" and like you I can't really name but one or two slimy dudes but the word really has a nice sound to it...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I used the contractor you used at TT about the same time.  He was in awe of your eroded edges idea and gave you more respect than he gave me (suing me for rejecting his dead sod, but that is another story) Not surprised you have had less problems after you became famous.  Also agree they bid the same profit either way. After all, they are going to be there 8-10 months whether you or they do the shaping. 


But, I have heard other examples of them griping about the shapers they were forced to use.  Again, it can be done, but it all depends on the shapers you get.  And, post recession, so many of the contractors actually just use independents anyway, having reduced their in house stable considerably, so no real difference, as long as they are good at what they do.  I have heard of somce contractual issues from time to time.  I believe they prefer to pay the shapers, figuring it gives them more control, than accept the architect paying, or the owner paying, just to make sure they are on board with schedules and general procedures.  But, it isn't usually a big problem and they accept it because they need the work.....

[Bob Montle]

Slightly ot, but I have successfully designed and built 5 houses by myself, only sub-contracting out the excavation, foundation, plumbing, and some of the electrical.  I chose the subs, was on site to watch them, and always had quality work done at extremely low cost.  (Ex: 1st house built in 1986 for $38,000.  Sold in 87 for $64k.   Currently valued at $325k.     5th house built 2002 for $86k,  sold in 2005 for $185k and currently valued at $300,000.  Different states)

A change in the financing laws required me to hire a contractor to finish the last 1/2 of my current house.  He demanded full control of the construction, as "his name would go on record as contractor."
His subs were awful and they robbed me blind.  I am still reworking the floors, the wiring and the trim work.

My lesson learned:  If you want it done right - do it yourself.  Or at least have YOUR people do it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Probably karma, but got a call from my contractor yesterday saying both his shapers have gotten into some kind of snit with other workers and walked off the job.....    When personnel change, you always worry about consistency, since only 12 holes have been shaped......    We shall see how this works out.


Shapers are prima donnas?  Who knew?   I suppose the same has happened with in house crews as well.

[Blake Conant]

Mike,


Water finds its level.  The good guys earn their rate, and the hacks eventually get weeded out.  Talent is pretty easy to identify, and it's a small enough industry that you can't fake it for too long.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()