When Should A Club Engage An Architect?

[Jim_Coleman]

    When does a super's work morph into architecture?  Is the super's job to provide top quality turf, or is it much more?  And if it is more, at what point should an experienced architect be called in before changes are made?  I'll offer a few projects for consideration:   
   
     1) moving fairways by changing mowing patterns;     
     2) changing the location of bunkers;     
     3) adding bunkers not originally built;   
     4) removing bunkers that were added by committees;     
     5) removing bunkers that were added by architect consultants;   
     6) adding new tees;   
     7) major tree removal that changes shot values (as opposed to routine pruning):
      major tree planting (pardon the emoji; I can't seem to get rid of it);
     9) green expansion.
     
     Assuming we are dealing with a course of some pedigree, I believe none of these projects should be undertaken without the advice of an architect.  I suppose I would draw the line as follows: if a proposed change will affect shot values or how the hole will be played, get a good architect.  And please don't answer by saying it depends on the super or the architect.  Every super who would dare take on a major  project believes he or she has the chops.  Indeed, most clubs probably have a member or two who think they know enough to be trusted with the decision making.  I think an experienced architect should be engaged if, for no other reason, than to give credibility to any project which will likely generate controversy among the members.

   

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

As they say in real estate, now is the best time to buy.....always!


Seriously, I am often surprised at the lengths courses may go to avoid paying even $2500 to a gca for a site visit and review.  They don't even know what they don't know.  If one mistake is avoided, it is certainly worth that.  I (and not flattering myself) have never failed to correct at least one crazy idea that a course has, they just know so little about gca, even down to mowing patterns.


And, I'm not even talking about just pedigree courses.

[/size]Typically, superintendents design for maintenance, contractors design for construction ease, and members design for their own games!  Golf Course Architects design from all perspectives, and have the skills to bring it together using appropriate compromises. 

[/size][size=0pt]I get it, some projects seem too small to care about design.   In reality, the smallest projects require the most detailed planning to pull off well.  Prior planning pays, and experienced golf course architects do just that.  [/size]But everything is designed, and the alternative to good design is bad design, no? [/font][/size]

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:


A good superintendent with a good eye can probably pull off six or seven of the things on your list without any assistance.


But, should the club pay an architect for a second opinion before surgery?  I believe the answer to that one is a definite yes.  If you've got the money to do the project, you've got the money to get a second opinion.


At the same time, most architects you bring in are going to try to sell you a $50,000 master plan and paying them to supervise every little thing you do.  So that first $2500 can be the tip of the iceberg if you don't set ground rules for what you need and what you don't.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Glad to know the going MP rate is $50K.  I've been under charging!


And, that said, I (and I don't believe I am alone in this) go in with a menu of possible services and contrary to opinion here, I have never to my knowledge, sold a bill of goods, i.e., unneeded services to clubs or cities.  Most are smart people and, as I mentioned, tend to underestimate the need for design.  Only a few have willingly paid more than less, or for lots of plans when they only needed a few.

[Jim_Coleman]

Tom:
   Although 100%of supers no doubt believe they are good at their jobs and have a good eye, I suspect the actual percentage is far lower.  That's the problem.  That being said, which of the 2 or 3  projects on my list do you believe should involve an architect?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom:
   Although 100%of supers no doubt believe they are good at their jobs and have a good eye, I suspect the actual percentage is far lower.  That's the problem.  That being said, which of the 2 or 3  projects on my list do you believe should involve an architect?

I know you didn't ask me, but other than removing bunkers by committee and maybe other gca's, if universally unloved, and removing trees would be the only ones for me.  Everything else can be done well or be done badly, and my experience is that a higher percentage of supers don't have the broad perspective or eye of a gca.  Every other item I have seen really bad decisions made that could be avoided for from $2500 to apparently $50,000 in architecture fees (plus expenses) 


I have even seen some whoppers of fw mowing patterns messed up, most often because both the super (reduce fw maintenance) and pro (make course tougher) want to make them nearly single file........And, aesthetically, those flowing curves can look more like shark's teeth from eye level if not laid out carefully, a personal pet peeve of mine.


Don't even get me started on laying out cart paths, LOL


  1) moving fairways by changing mowing patterns;     [/size]     2) changing the location of bunkers;          3) adding bunkers not originally built;        4) removing bunkers that were added by committees;          5) removing bunkers that were added by architect consultants;        6) adding new tees;        7) major tree removal that changes shot values (as opposed to routine pruning):      major tree planting (pardon the emoji; I can't seem to get rid of it);     9) green expansion.[/color]

[Terry Lavin]

Right after the club hires KemperLesnik to manage the club. The Board governance of private clubs in the USA is beyond dysfunctional. Too much petty politics. Too much micromanagement of key employees. A properly secure and talented superintendent doesn’t need to deal with the different factions that attempt to control the process. Same is true for the general manager and golf professional.


Hire a pro to allow the pros to run your club.

[Carl Rogers]

TD, Riverfront has been on extensive bunker removal program for years.
Accepting the fact that certain bunkers were going to be lost,  I wish they had got you and/or Team out to there to do it more seamlessly.

[Greg Tallman]

Speaking from first hand experience I’d say Tom is about right. Most can be done without engaging. That said the $50,000 is money well spent to get a better idea of what might be prioritized, done in conjunction with another project... etc.


We would always develop internal ideas, schedules... etc and then engage the architect (Nicklaus/Jim Lipe, Kurt Bowman & Weiskopf/Phil Smith). We would present, explain and then do a ride through and go pint by point, bunker by bunker or whatever the case may be. We didn’t go the master plan route for reasons that are painfully obvious today. Rarely did our internal ideas win the day but they set the expectation and rationale for what we wished to accomplish.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Glad to know the going MP rate is $50K.  I've been under charging!

I was thinking the same thing!

[Mark_Fine]

I have found that most clubs at one point or another in their history try on their own to do one or all of those things on your list.  Sometimes it works out ok and other times it creates new restoration and renovation opportunities 😊.  Hiring an architect, however, doesn’t guarantee the work will be any better but as noted here it does at least provide a second opinion. 

I personally believe in dating before marrying so I never immediately propose a Master Plan (which I view as like getting married). What I usually propose first is what I call a PAR (Preliminarily Assessment Report) which is more like dating and is a fraction of the cost of a Master Plan.  This gives me a chance to learn about the club and the course and for the owners/decision makers to get to know me and hear some of my initial thoughts and ideas before either of us tries to move forward with something more involved and expensive like a Master Plan.  I have found a PAR can be very helpful to a club and it also helps me determine if my thoughts and approach are aligned with theirs.  If we aren’t aligned it is probably not a good fit for either party and we are both better off moving on.   


Bottomline, architects can help solve problems and they can also create problems and unnecessary expense.  There are lots of great architects out there but choose wisely 😊

[David_Elvins]

If a club is building bunkers they should use a good shaper.


If they are building greens they should use a good architect and good shaper.


Anything else can definitely be done in house if there is reasonable knowledge and talent in the membership, committee and staff.  A good club knows if they have that talent or not.


I am not even a big believer in the idea that you need an architect to sell a project to give it legitimacy.  I have seen too many architects put together good plans and not be able to get them past a fractured or uneducated committee or membership.

[Joe Hancock]

It’s in the best interest of the club, superintendent, golf pro, leadership, etc. to hire a qualified individual(or firm) to be the buffer between all parties. It doesn’t take much, sometimes, to have differing opinions result in a change in personnel.


There are success stories out there of superintendents who have been asked (or volunteered) to do things beyond their normal, but there are also plenty of failures.

[Scott Champion]

Usually right after the question "Should we hire an architect?" is asked in a board meeting...


Engaging an architect should not result in a heap of unnecessary work....though it often does, if the club either (a) chooses the wrong architect, or (b) doesn't set the parameters of what they actually want (or think they want).

And whatever you do, don't hold a design competition. Where the person with the least amount of actual work is likely to put the most amount of work into a fancy proposal that can sway a board who might have no idea what it is looking at.

[Tom_Doak]

TD, Riverfront has been on extensive bunker removal program for years.
Accepting the fact that certain bunkers were going to be lost,  I wish they had got you and/or Team out to there to do it more seamlessly.

We consult on our own courses essentially for free, so they aren't trying very hard.

[Mike Nuzzo]

10) Hire an architect to tell us something we don't see or an improvement we aren't aware would be possible, even economically. Peace

[Tom_Doak]

I don't have a fancy name for it like Mark, but I always preferred to start with a one-day consulting report outlining what I think the club's priorities should be.


Master Plans anticipate a lot of song and dance and member politics, all of which I hate.  You can often avoid a lot of that if you just lay out the priorities in some detail.  If a club needs to justify things to the membership, then maybe it's time for the expensive show, but the idea that "all clubs need a master plan" is more about what architects want than about what every club needs.


The club I most recently signed on with had proposals from a bunch of architects for master plans, some of which were well over $50k.  Seems crazy to me.

[Duncan Cheslett]

What about the situation whereby a member of the club is a professional golf course architect and offers his services free of charge? Is that necessarily a good thing?

[Sean_A]

What about the situation whereby a member of the club is a professional golf course architect and offers his services free of charge? Is that necessarily a good thing?

I think it's risky for both sides. Sort of like selling a car to a friend 😎.

Even if the archie is bang on, a decent percentage of members will think he is a nimrod. If the archie gets shit wrong...

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

What about the situation whereby a member of the club is a professional golf course architect and offers his services free of charge? Is that necessarily a good thing?

Good and Bad for the Architect - I guess I know who you are referring to. The club benefits more IMO


Free marketing of his work and zero income for his business if there is no benefits (ie honorary/life membership) or no financial gain


Praise for doing good work or Risk of getting the wrath of certain members for changing elements of the course for the better or worse


Its like Marmite you can't please everyone.

[mike_malone]

Decided against engaging myself

[Thomas Dai]

Nous and research are important. Sensible club leaders will have thought about what sort of architect they wish to use beforehand and the scope/£$ of the work they are likely to suggest undertaking not just throw possible work out into the ether as effectively an open design competition. Not so sensible club leaders may choose another approach........ My sympathy to the members of the latter club.

As an aside, who was it who said 80% or restoration/renovation or whatever word is appropriate is revising mowing lines and tree removal?
atb

[PCCraig]

Right after the club hires KemperLesnik to manage the club. The Board governance of private clubs in the USA is beyond dysfunctional. Too much petty politics. Too much micromanagement of key employees. A properly secure and talented superintendent doesn’t need to deal with the different factions that attempt to control the process. Same is true for the general manager and golf professional.


Hire a pro to allow the pros to run your club.

You can't be serious, Terry. Hire Kemper to run your private club??

[Adrian_Stiff]

At the same time, most architects you bring in are going to try to sell you a $50,000 master plan and paying them to supervise every little thing you do.  So that first $2500 can be the tip of the iceberg if you don't set ground rules for what you need and what you don't.
THIS is not my way of working. I would have thought not many would work this way.

[Tom_Doak]

At the same time, most architects you bring in are going to try to sell you a $50,000 master plan and paying them to supervise every little thing you do.  So that first $2500 can be the tip of the iceberg if you don't set ground rules for what you need and what you don't.
THIS is not my way of working. I would have thought not many would work this way.

I shouldn't have said "most", but there are certainly a lot who work this way.  In the boom times, one or two prominent designers set their fee as a % of the work done, which certainly did not encourage them to "do less".  We are in the process of rebuilding some of the resulting work right now!