Backstabbing Architects

[Stewart Abramson]

This piece (titled "Backstabbing Architects") just arrived in my e-mail box from Golf Digest. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post it, but I couldn't figure out how to get  a link to it and since it's a free edition that I did not solicit, I suppose it's okay to share. 

Wondering if others have experienced and what the architects here think.


Welcome to The Undercover Newsletter, where we grant anonymity to people in golf who’ve got something to say. This comes from a course architect interviewed by Architecture Editor Derek Duncan. This is a free edition of The Undercover Newsletter, but you can sign up via Golf Digest+ to receive it regularly going forward.

I recently got some hard news. A club that I consult for hired another architect to renovate their course. I’ve worked for this southeastern club for over 15 years and had conducted a full renovation, getting the course back to the look and playability of its original 1920s-era design. My team put a lot of time into the research, had good documentation and felt we got it right. So did the club. At least they did then.Now, people tell me the new work there has severely changed the course’s character and isn’t even based on its architectural history. When you hear about this kind of thing heat goes up your neck, and for a couple of nights I had trouble sleeping. When you’ve put so much of yourself—and the club’s resources—into remodeling a golf course it starts to feel like your baby.Unfortunately, working as a consulting architect can be tenuous. Renovation work tends to be based on informal arrangements, not contractual commitments. Some of my closest friends are those who I met when they were on boards or committees, but you show up at a club one day and realize you’re two or three superintendents or general managers down the road from when you started. The people that liked me aren’t there anymore and might not even be alive. The hiring committees have turned over, and the current one is probably more enamored with the idea of working with somebody elseThat’s probably what happened with the southeastern club in question, though I don’t know because they didn’t inform me they were moving on. That is difficult to take after such a long time together, but it happens, and I’m doing a little bit better at handling this sort of thing than I used to.As much as I feel stabbed in the back, I can’t blame this other architect for taking the job. The club must’ve reached out to him, just as clubs often reach out to me. Do I call my peers to inform them when I’m the new guy? Never once. In all my time doing this, I’ve had one architect call to tell me a club had hired him where I’d been working. Ultimately, it's the club’s responsibility, and they should be gracious enough to inform their previous consultant when they move on.Although, if this architect knew the club wanted to alter a design that was historically and intentionally restored, I wish he would have respected the course and history enough to not take the job. Then again, the club would just find somebody else to do it.It’s rewarding to be closely connected to a club, especially if it has an interesting or important history. I’ve been honored and humbled to work on courses that have been touched by Donald Ross, A.W. Tillinghast and Seth Raynor, and the best situations are when you can help these clubs restore the glory of the original architecture.The problem is, people always want to put their stamp on a course, whether it’s a consultant or a club committee member. If Ross’s and Raynor’s and Tilly’s courses can be redone, then my renovations can be reworked, too. And there’s always going to be an architect willing to do it. Whatever success I’ve had in this profession is because somebody tinkered with a golf course and somebody else wanted it changed back. And somebody is going to come along after me and make a living putting the pieces back together as they see fit. That’s the business we’re in.

Edited to adjust font size

[Mike Hendren]

What they do?
They smile in your face.
All the time they want to take your place.
The back stabbers.
- The O’Jays

[Kevin_Reilly]

The Undercover Architect just "recently" found out he is no longer employed by that club, yet "Now, people tell me the new work there has severely changed the course’s character and isn’t even based on its architectural history."


So the club not only hired a new consulting architect, but they completed the work... and UA just found out about it?


Sour grapes.  "It's not personal it's strictly business." - Michael Corleone

[Tom_Doak]

That interview calls up some of the reasons I got out of the renovation business:


1.  Clubs are likely to blow up your work again in a few years
2.  There are plenty of architects desperate for the opportunity to do their bidding


At the end of the day, in a renovation or restoration you start with 18 holes and finish with 18, and the improvement is all a matter of opinion. 


The anonymous architect is right that part of the reason the renovation business exists is because club members are always wanting to tinker and put their stamp on something, but that's only 50% of the reason.


The other 50% is that there are a lot of architects whose entire livelihood consists of selling clubs on doing that sort of work.  And then they get feelings about it?  "It starts to feel like your baby" ?  It wasn't your baby, my man.


Hopefully, with my new courses, the vultures will wait until after I'm dead to start "restoring" them.  [NOTE: edited last couple of lines because they were pretty harsh.]

[James Reader]

The Undercover Architect just "recently" found out he is no longer employed by that club, yet "Now, people tell me the new work there has severely changed the course’s character and isn’t even based on its architectural history."


So the club not only hired a new consulting architect, but they completed the work... and UA just found out about it?


Sour grapes.  "It's not personal it's strictly business." - Michael Corleone

I read that as people commenting on his work, not that of the new architect.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Yeah, I can see that interpretation.  I withdraw my post!

[Ian Mackenzie]

This sh*t happens in corporate America every damn day.


Business consultants, tax firms, law firms, "transformation consultants", and (of course) architects of every shape and size.
They are changed by new leadership or new boards constantly.


The average golf club is an $8-$12M small business, but with scores of members who think they know more than everyone else before them.


GCAs may want to think about not taking it so personally.


It's "just business"...

[Tim Martin]

When Greens Chairman, committee members, club officers, superintendents, GMs, DOG’s or any combination leave everything is subject to change.

[Joe Hancock]

Golf, the game, relies on attributes such as honesty, integrity, courtesy, etc….


So when golf, the business, deviates from those attributes, it really bothers me. I know things happen, and business is business and all that…..but it shouldn’t happen in any facet of golf, just out of principle.

[Cal Carlisle]

Hopefully, with my new courses, the vultures will wait until after I'm dead to start "restoring" them.  [NOTE: edited last couple of lines because they were pretty harsh.]

But...but....those last couple of lines are usually my favorite part.

[Brett Hochstein]

Golf, the game, relies on attributes such as honesty, integrity, courtesy, etc….


So when golf, the business, deviates from those attributes, it really bothers me. I know things happen, and business is business and all that…..but it shouldn’t happen in any facet of golf, just out of principle.

Call me naive/young/stupid/whatever, but I'm with this. I don't have interest in dirty business or covertly poaching clients. It's just no way to live, and it also seems like bad business long-term.

[cary lichtenstein]

Why would anyone think that this industry is free of back stabbing??/

[Sam Morrow]

Why would anyone think that this industry is free of back stabbing? ?/

Why would anyone think ANY industry is free of back stabbing?

[Tom_Doak]

I’m not sure where the “backstabbing” took place here.


Is it backstabbing for the new consultant to point out where he disagrees with the previous round of work and recommends changes?  That’s what a consultant DOES.


Are you “covertly poaching” clients if someone from the club calls you and asks if you would be interested in interviewing for the job?


When I started being a consultant 40 years ago there were a lot of clubs that had never had a consulting architect on call.  Nowadays you have to go pretty far out of town to find one.  Most of the $ spent on restoration is done by the same “500 clubs” Mike Young talks about, doing things over and over with different designers.  I won’t say their names, but there is still plenty of renovation work done by certain designers 20-25 years ago that will eventually be undone.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, the article might have been titled, "Welcome to Wednesday" if you are a gca.    


In most design fields, there are some ethical cannons that one designer cannot take a job without confirmation from the owner that they are not under any contract with an existing architect.  In talking with friends in marketing and other (larger) fields, they say there are no qualms about taking on a new client who wants to change horses.


We aren't supposed to sell negatively, i.e., criticize others or their work, but as TD says, if they ask you your opinion on specific items of work, you have to answer.


Lastly, it is still good etiquette for the owner or new gca to alert the former architect, although it doesn't always happen.  Luckily, most architects have alerted me when they are offered a commission for small renovations on my work.  It always feels like I am getting some respect, anyway, saving me from the Rodney D tug at the collar......

[Jeff_Brauer]

A bit OT, but since the article and a few responses allude to accurate restorations, this gets me wondering how current architecture will be restored.


Take the TPC Sawgrass.  Dye renovated/softened the greens more than once to appease the pros the course is designed for.  Many if not most of the waste areas have been removed as impractical to maintain.  As someone pointed out, the long strip bunkers don't come into play strategically for many and punish average players.  Would they be put back full length if there was a cash crunch?  If money really gets tight at TPC, what about all the features requiring hand mowing?


How about all the greens by many architects that don't adhere to the 3% max rule for cup spaces, or don't allow enough cup spaces to move the pin around?


While some portray any design change in a renovation as arbitrary and contrary to original intent, and some no doubt are, I think most changes to courses over the years were in response to design features that didn't work, in the eyes of the members or municipalities, and were current era focused (not forward looking or backward looking......)  It is only the big money eras where wholesale design changes can be made outside those same 500 courses Mike talks about.

[Mark_Fine]

Years ago I completed a very detailed and fairly expensive master plan (over a year plus of work) for a club on the East Coast. Long story but one day I got a call from Gil Hanse asking me if I was still working at the club because he got a call to interview. I said I thought I was but I knew some members who were involved felt they needed a bigger name.  I told Gil I had just completed a master plan for the renovation of their golf course.  Gil asked if could send him a copy of the plan and rendering which I did. Long story short, Gil did interview with the club and told them he would take the job on the condition that he work with me to implement my plan. They told him they wanted a new plan from him.  He said he liked what I had done and that was his condition to take the work and he eventually walked away.  He called and told me the whole story.  Class act in my opinion.


For some time now I haven’t updated my website with all my active projects as I prefer not to disclose where I am working as it attracts less attention and pouchers 😊.


But you can’t blame architects for trying to step in as most just want to make a living but it’s not my style if someone is already working there.  If I get called I always ask if they have an architect under agreement.  It’s a small community and most play nice and in many cases collaborate (which I have done often). 

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


I am not so sure about your last paragraph.  Was there anything really "wrong" with the playability of Oakland Hills or Oak Hill, before RTJ and the Fazios changed them?  I think those changes were strictly to make the golf course harder for tournament play . . . and that many of those "500 clubs" followed suit in adding back tees and moving bunkers around.

[Kalen Braley]

I doubt there is an organized entity of size that doesn't have some kind of charter/mission statement/credo for how they will form and conduct themselves.  Whether it be businesses, clubs, politics, religious groups, etc...hell even the science club in my high school had one.

I don't see why there would be any expectation that a golf entity would be immune to selfishness, greed, or unethical and bad behavior otherwise.  As a conceptual analogy I think the line from Fury explains it best "Ideals are peaceful, History is violent"

[Don Mahaffey]

It is business but like the case with most small business owners is it's very personal to them. I know that sometimes shystie things happen, but I've also encountered many occasions where changes were made for good reason, but the business owners who lose out often look outward for the reasons why, instead of looking at what they might have done to better serve their clients.


Missing meetings, agreeing in principle to do certain things then going completely opposite in the field. Not honoring commitments, poor communication...sometimes work is lost because the job was simply not performed well enough.


I'd say the two most common reason I see changes made is 1) forgetting who we work for. Some in golf seem more loyal to industry partners than the clients who hired them. 2) non stop negotiation after deals are made in an attempt to expand or change scope.


When we've failed to meet client expectations in the past it's almost alway been a case where we could have done better. Not 100% of the time, but in those cases we often ignored red flags while pursuing the work. Picking the right situation and then performing the job well usually works out great for everyone.

[jeffwarne]

Really sad to see so much money spent to go backwards into the valley of vapid populism.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:


I am not so sure about your last paragraph.  Was there anything really "wrong" with the playability of Oakland Hills or Oak Hill, before RTJ and the Fazios changed them?  I think those changes were strictly to make the golf course harder for tournament play . . . and that many of those "500 clubs" followed suit in adding back tees and moving bunkers around.

Tom, I have a hunch that many courses were in bad shape after the gas rations and other problems of WWII, and since they needed work, they also took a look at the design.  You and others are just assuming all was great after years of neglect.  Also, I know from my father that they came back from WWII and were looking for entirely new design styles (think Art Deco) and were in no mood to remember the last 15 years of suffering.  Perfectly logical to me, and far more important to design for now and the future (then or now) than to be held to the architect's original intent (which as I hint in the first PP was probably lost a long time ago back then)


Your Oakland Hills example is an interesting one.  They had initially called Ross to renovate it for the 1951 Open, and his plan wasn't really much different than what RTJ came up with (I saw the original red marked Ross plan in the maintenance building, so I know).  So, Ross was perfectly willing to renovate his course for a specific reason, i.e., tournaments.  The fact that his and RTJ's plans were so similar may suggest that the USGA was driving the boat on the design changes, not the gca and not the club members.  So, examples are all over the map of why courses got changed, and I still disagree with the notion that those WWII vets were somehow misguided by today's conventions.


Similarly, many of that generation of gca's is critiqued for designing real estate courses.  But, while driving distances in the US Open were one distance issue, the most important distance issue post WWII was the driving distance.....from your front door to the first tee.


And as if karma to confirm my post, I just saw some pics of Augusta no. 12 from 1952.  In addition to some maintenance issues, there was nothing in that iteration of the hole design that was superior to what they changed it to later.

[Adam Lawrence]

Jeff:

Tom, I have a hunch that many courses were in bad shape after the gas rations and other problems of WWII, and since they needed work, they also took a look at the design.  You and others are just assuming all was great after years of neglect.  Also, I know from my father that they came back from WWII and were looking for entirely new design styles (think Art Deco) and were in no mood to remember the last 15 years of suffering.  Perfectly logical to me, and far more important to design for now and the future (then or now) than to be held to the architect's original intent (which as I hint in the first PP was probably lost a long time ago back then)

Jeff, I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, but art deco is not a good example of it. Deco first appeared in Paris between 1910 and the outbreak of WW1, and its period of popularity in the US was mostly confined to the Twenties and Thirties.

[Tom_Doak]

Your Oakland Hills example is an interesting one.  They had initially called Ross to renovate it for the 1951 Open, and his plan wasn't really much different than what RTJ came up with (I saw the original red marked Ross plan in the maintenance building, so I know).  So, Ross was perfectly willing to renovate his course for a specific reason, i.e., tournaments.  The fact that his and RTJ's plans were so similar may suggest that the USGA was driving the boat on the design changes, not the gca and not the club members. 

I'm not sure if it qualifies as "backstabbing," since it was apparently done right to his face, but imagine the gumption of proposing changes to one of Donald Ross's courses while Mr. Ross, in his old age, still wanted the job!


I think you are right that the USGA was driving the bus on those changes [or more accurately, they owned the bus, and they felt Mr. Jones would drive it the way they wanted.]  Whereas Mr. Ross's opinion would have commanded a little more respect.  Can't have that when you are the governing body and out to make changes!


I don't disagree with your point that lots of design changes were driven by disrepair and the desire to "modernize", but that is not the same as saying they had "design features that didn't work," as you stated in your previous post.  "Not working" and being "out of style" are two pretty different things.

[Brett Hochstein]

I’m not sure where the “backstabbing” took place here.

Are you “covertly poaching” clients if someone from the club calls you and asks if you would be interested in interviewing for the job?

No. That's more overt, and if the club (main entities, not background players) is transparent that they are moving in another direction, there's not really much wrong with that. That's their prerogative, and you just hope they've given their current gca the courtesy of knowing that (I'd not be afraid to let them know myself, if I know them). At that point it's about judging whether or not there's any need or want to do anything to any previous work, which, there very well might not be.


The covert part happens when there is a subset of a membership or other vested interest in the club reaching out to do work or make proposals when you happen to know there is already another architect on record.  Sometimes the intent of this is malicious, sometimes it's completely innocent.  Almost always for me, given my (relatively unknown) position in the industry, it's an attempt to do something more cheaply.  And always, my response is "I'd love to help, but you need to bring this to your current architect."  Will I always be shown that courtesy in the future? Maybe not, but it's at least the way I want to be.