Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mike_Young on May 02, 2009, 09:34:13 AM
-
Over the last 50 years golf architecture has tried to extricate itself from the "build" side of the golf course. But in doing so a fee must be charged that can allow a firm to survive over the career of an architect and then hopefully into the careers of his associates etc. But today with the present economy and the cost of golf I am convinced that we are about to go back to a design/build type of market. We already see many of the contractors doing so. Many architects refuse....
It stands to reason that if there are only 100 courses being built on average then a practicing architect/builder will need to justify more revenues from the individual project than just a fee or the practice will not survive as a full time business......I think we are about to see much less separation between the team building the course and the architecture firm and vice versa.....
It is happening...I think it is good for golf...and affordable golf.... thoughts????
-
Mike. For us less involved in the actual business could you expound on the meaning of design built versus the other? I assume you mean controling cost by utilizing more natural features. But that's why I'm asking for clarification. BTW. If it is as I suspect I have a new theory on why many golfers don't like the randomness of nature and prefer to have their canvas predictable.
-
Mike. For us less involved in the actual business could you expound on the meaning of design built versus the other? I assume you mean controling cost by utilizing more natural features. But that's why I'm asking for clarification. BTW. If it is as I suspect I have a new theory on why many golfers don't like the randomness of nature and prefer to have their canvas predictable.
Adam,
For me design/build means the architect is more involved in the actual constrcution process and may actually have his own group of shapers and finishing people who all work for him in some way/shape/form.....he would give a price to build a project which could be a "not to exceed" price or he may give an estimate. Some say that this separates the architect's responsibility as an owners representative...but they have to get past that....
I have always had my own people involved in my projects and have eliminated the general contractor in doing so....
I think Pete Dye has often brought his people to the project and allowed the owner to hire them on a n hourly or contractual basis...
From my past experience of working this way you can rest assured the general contractors will "diss" you But now I think we are seeing more and more GC's building courses w/o an architect or either they hire a guy that was laid off by a firm and put him on the payroll....
For the last 20 years it has been "frowned upon" by the Architectural groups and the builder groups but it is here......I think you can see examples of this on google ..check out Bob Lohman of Chicago...they do the same thing.....and I think Dennis Griffiths in Atlanta also does such....
OR you can look some of the larger builders like Landscapes etc.....they have done work for "sgnatures" for years and have pt a quality product on the ground. Don't think for a minute they can't design a golf course and get it in budget for an owner and give him a good product w/o an architect involved. Hell many of these guys just need a phone call from a signature saying " Hey Joe..will you pt green from hole & at course A on the green site for hole 9 on course B and call me when you need me...I should be back out in a month or so"
TODAY the builder are the ones that have the advantage if they wish to take it.....they got much of this stuff memorized..... ;D ;D
It's going that way.....
-
Isn't that what Doak's Renaissance Golf company does?
In the construction business there are typically two design-build models. In one model, a really big construction company has a full team of architects and engineers on staff full time and truly design build. In the other, as practiced by smaller construction companies, the general contractor will hire an architect for a specific project and contract with the owner on a 'design build' basis.
Does Mike Young Golf Design want to keep a crew of shapers and a fleet of equipment on hand? I don't think so. Will golf construction companies do the marketing and sales of new projects and have architects on staff to 'design build?' I don't think so, the architect has been the lead traditionally.
So I don't think it's true design build models that Mike is talking about, but maybe some sort of alliance where he markets and sells the project and then brings in a team he works with on a regular basis and acts as the general contractor as well as architect.
-
Mike, If there's a growing artistic appreciation for what you guys do, why would any artist hand off their plans to someone they don't necessarily know or trust to complete their vision? Maybe some foundational engineering, but not the finish work of the golf course.
The business side of looking at projects has to be looked at differently, nowadays. Don't you think? There are too many examples of doomed projects out there, right now, to be able to argue for the failed model that came out of the mid-80's rush to build.
-
Over the last 50 years golf architecture has tried to extricate itself from the "build" side of the golf course. But in doing so a fee must be charged that can allow a firm to survive over the career of an architect and then hopefully into the careers of his associates etc. But today with the present economy and the cost of golf I am convinced that we are about to go back to a design/build type of market. We already see many of the contractors doing so. Many architects refuse....
It stands to reason that if there are only 100 courses being built on average then a practicing architect/builder will need to justify more revenues from the individual project than just a fee or the practice will not survive as a full time business......I think we are about to see much less separation between the team building the course and the architecture firm and vice versa.....
It is happening...I think it is good for golf...and affordable golf.... thoughts????
Kris Spence might like to chime in on this one.
-
The design / build scenario looks appealing until you get into the details.
The 1st thing that comes to mind is : " What builder wants to compete with the architects who control the bid list ? " ... If I'm a builder , that's a huge business risk.
The 2nd thing that comes to mind : " What architect wants to ( A ) maintain bonding capability ? ( B ) Live and die with the risk involved with golf course construction ?
The 3rd thing that comes to mind : " What developer wants to hire an architect and give him / her a blank check without bonded hard bids ? " ... The checks and balances that come with the current system are pretty good.
There are plenty of other " potential issues "
Having said that , I think there is significant business potential for joint ventures between architects and builders. Having been involved in a few of these type deals , they can be wonderful , provided that the developer , architect and builder are all on the same page with the same agenda ( typically significant ownership in the project )
Final thought : It's a small world ... never burn your bridges ... even in a down cycle. ;D
-
Final thought : It's a small world ... never burn your bridges ... even in a down cycle. ;D "
ESPECIALLY in a down cycle!
Trey's thoughts are what I was mumbling about above. I do think in a regional market, on affordable golf projects, loose affiliations driven by the architect can be a really good thing, and I think Mike has worked well in that model in the past.
Mike Nuzzo pretty much did the same thing to great advantage at Wolf Point as well.
-
Bill , I agree that there is potential for this type deal to work on small scale or closely held projects.
I remember a few years back , there were a few guys selling the concept of , " I'll design / build you a golf course for a million bucks " ... For a client that just needs to have a plain vanilla course to build the value of the surrounding real estate or a rural community project.
Of course that's just the start of the full development process , but there a lots of golfers out there who play on affordable courses that were developed just like this.
-
Mike Young,
Ralph Plummer designed or remodeled some 100 courses, mostly in TX prior to 1970, and until the last decade of his life, he built what he designed.
When I tried to develop a budget-concious course in the early 1990s, I settled on a local architect because I believed that being on the site frequently and having responsibility for the entire project were very important. The fact that there are well-educated, highly qualified architects capable of doing and/or managing all aspects of building a golf course makes this design/build approach feasible and practical. So long as I had the right architect with the requisite skills, and work and business ethics, I would rather have one central point of responsibility and accountability than to have to deal with a half-dozen contractors.
A relationship such as the one responsible for Wolf Point makes a lot of sense. Much of the work was done in-house with local labor, some specialty work was contracted out. The architect and the superintendent worked very closely together, designing, moving dirt, shaping, etc. While the schedule was long by today's standards, the finished product is outstanding and the project costs were reduced significantly.
-
Bill. And. Trey
There are mo large scale golf projects. The scenario mention is all over. And yes I have had my own equipment for years. That is finishing equip and small shaping doziers. But nowdays one is crazy not to rent. ;D
-
Ignoring for a second the business/economic aspect of going design/build, does doing it this way give the architect more of a chance to work in the field, more control and more leeway to modify his plans than the traditional procurement method, thereby producing a better golf course at the end of the day ?
Niall
-
Looks like what we are recognizing in this thread is that there is no such thing as a cookie cutter approach to developing a golf facility.
If I were going to do my own facility and had the luxury of : knowledge ( of course that's debatable ) , relationships , time , and the financial meter not ticking , I would seriously consider a partnership with a local architect , local subs , ect.
Yes , Ralph Plumber did lots of courses this way. I'm playing one of this this afternoon.
Yes , there were lots of courses built this way. I own one. It's not the greatest piece of architecture , but it serves it's purpose.
Yes , I love the thought of the architect being on site ... Especially when it comes to finish work.
From my perspective , I looks like a wonderful way to develop a closely held project , but unlikely to meet the needs of most developers.
-
All our projects are pretty much Design and Build.
-
Ignoring for a second the business/economic aspect of going design/build, does doing it this way give the architect more of a chance to work in the field, more control and more leeway to modify his plans than the traditional procurement method, thereby producing a better golf course at the end of the day ?
Niall
In spades.
More time means more observations, discussions, preemptive improvements, real-time editing, opportunity seeking. It's faster, better, cheaper and produces the best courses for the budget.
.
-
From my perspective , I looks like a wonderful way to develop a closely held project , but unlikely to meet the needs of most developers.
Trey,
IMHO there are no more golf developers....and one of the reasons is that their needs were not met.....Why did they build golf courses? They did not care for the golf...it was to sell housing lots and the more hype and expense they could add to the course..the more they could market the "exclusivity" of their development....but that is over.....Signature architects were the best thing to happen to golf architecture and the worst thing to happen to golf architecture...they helped increase fees for all of us and they were used by developers to develop unsustainable projects n many cases. So IMHO the developers could care less about the architect/contractor relationship.
While we hear all of the talk about the housing industry and how many homes need to be sold...what we don't hear much is how many undeveloped lots are in the market place. there are over 10 years worth...so it will be a long time before "developers" not builders of homes are back with big time projects.....plus they care not to be maintaining all of these exclusive courses and clubhouses f lots and homes are not selling....that's done also.
Now let's say that you and your family decide to build a home and choose a plan from Southern Living or some magazine...order the plan......get a construction loan and hire a builder to build the home.....are you uncomfortable with such a situation because many many homes are built in just such a way......
Ad for those of us in the golf business....it will evolve into the same.....let's say architect fees go to around $200,000.....ok...good for one job but what if you only get one every couple of years? doesn't work.....I say 2/3 or s will be in something else as will shapers and contractors.....Unless they can convince clinets that they bring more to the table and can generate a project that works .......a few post back Bill McBride mentions :
"The design / build scenario looks appealing until you get into the details.
The 1st thing that comes to mind is : " What builder wants to compete with the architects who control the bid list ? " ... If I'm a builder , that's a huge business risk.
Well......that very thing is what scares many from getting into this scene....
But the market is going to overide much of tis as they search for a project that works.....
All of the "dissing" and talk from general contractors toward design build and the same back at the GC's from architects will not matter.....I mean if there are guys that have been practicing this way for years and they continue to have clients then they must be doing something right.
At the end of the day...we have to have a product for golf that works and the present scenario is lacking.....
-
We have had Niblick Golf Design going for 5 years now in Norway and Graeme my partner has had Team Niblick going for about 15 years.
In Norway we do not have one unhappy client when it comes to budgets being met or quality of construction being achieved.
In the end it all comes down to usual business principles honesty, integrity and giving 100%. All of the work we get these days is by word of mouth and that is our strongest marketing point.
If anyone out there is worried about using a Design and Build team due to costs or unsure about trusting them then just talk to the references provided by the D&B company.
-
Mike,
We have completed four projects that were design/build including a driving range and short game area at Irem Temple, an elaborate drainage improvement program at Brookside CC (outside Philly), a multiple hole short course at Marvine in Bethlehem and a private golf practice area. We've also bid numerous other projects as design/build and are waiting for clubs to pull the trigger on spending. Not every client likes the model but in certain situations, I think it has many advantages. I like the concept.
Mark
-
Mike:
My model has always been that if times got tough, we could pull back and put everyone to work building just one golf course at a time ... as long as we have even ONE to build.
I have never done "design-build" as a contractor with a firm price for the entire construction ... I prefer not to take on the risk of all that, so we just do design - shape - (and sometimes) manage. It used to be hard to get paid as much as we ought to get paid for the construction work, because there's always some contractor around insisting he could do the shaping for less; but now that we get paid pretty well on the design end, it all works out in the end.
Some clients are resistant to a design-build architect, but they seem less resistant to a design-shape deal, especially after we built Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle that way. And, the golf course contractors stopped arguing about it once they realized our guys really COULD shape the whole course, so they could send their "A" shapers to other jobs.
I was with an old friend yesterday who said he thinks the greenkeeping business will swing back in that direction, too ... that it will be the guys who are willing to go out and get dirty and do their own irrigation fixes in the off-season who will thrive, while the hot-shot managers will struggle when their budgets are cut 30% and they can't pay assistants to do all the work.
-
Tom,
Sounds like our model is about the same.....I have never set it up where we took the risk on a guaranteed price but we have managed jobs where we gave the owner the estimated cost.
Funny you mention the supt. situation......I agree 100%....and you are going to see mowing equipment etc drop back a little.....the problem I see is that so many of the younger supts have never ever seen it done this way and cannot believe it can be done when you tell them...they have been taught top notch conditioning at all cost for so long that they cannot fathom any other way.......Now take it a step further and watch the golf professionals that change back to golf pro form Director of golf.....with two class A's and a shop merchandiser under them.....
-
When you combine the need to reduce maintenance costs with our long term water shortages, what are the chances of a new fast, firm and drier maintenance meld? It's going to be hard for a lot of privates to change, but it looks to be becoming necessary.
-
Mike,
Design build is the way to go, especially if your goal is to produce not only an affordable end result but a long term profitable one as well. THis is the best way to avoid the dreaded "no one makes the course work until the third owner" scenario that has become so common over the last twenty years. Tow great maxims over the years: "the only reason someone pays retail for a course is because they can, not because they have to" and my favorite "no body ever paid Rodin for his drawings". The unpealing of the onion of the construction / development onion si the first step in returning golf to its affordable everyman roots!
Cheers!
JT
P.S. Where do I sign up???
-
Kelly,
We worked with the Williard Group at Brookside, George Ley & Co. on the private facility (along with a Toro irrigation consultant), also George Ley at the Irem Temple project and a combination of firms on the short course including a local shaper named Dave Wigfield.
Mark
-
Mike,
There are also several examples of design then build to print that are also successful.
I don't think it is the method that relates to the issue you are describing.
Which brings us back to how to get to superior and affordable. :)
-
Does design build save enough money to make a project financially viable? Is a golf course's success at the mercy of the business plan, not the golf course design?
-
Ryan:
If you are talking about the "business success" of the golf course, then yes, it is at the mercy of the business plan.
Great golf courses can and will go bankrupt. Dan Wexler wrote a whole book on the subject.
-
Mike,
Design build is the way to go, especially if your goal is to produce not only an affordable end result but a long term profitable one as well. THis is the best way to avoid the dreaded "no one makes the course work until the third owner" scenario that has become so common over the last twenty years. Tow great maxims over the years: "the only reason someone pays retail for a course is because they can, not because they have to" and my favorite "no body ever paid Rodin for his drawings". The unpealing of the onion of the construction / development onion si the first step in returning golf to its affordable everyman roots!
Cheers!
JT
P.S. Where do I sign up???
Jim, who told you Rodin never sold his paintings? That's how he made his living, more so than from selling his statues, at least that's what it says in the Rodin Museum in Paris where a lot of his great painting and etchings are on sale.
But I get what you mean in theory! ;)
-
Mike:
I was with an old friend yesterday who said he thinks the greenkeeping business will swing back in that direction, too ... that it will be the guys who are willing to go out and get dirty and do their own irrigation fixes in the off-season who will thrive, while the hot-shot managers will struggle when their budgets are cut 30% and they can't pay assistants to do all the work.
It is not only with the maintenance side of the business. Everyone, architecht, supers, pros, are having to pull up their sleeves and do more than before in order for two things to happen: Keep their job and keep their course afloat.
-
The design / build scenario looks appealing until you get into the details.
The 1st thing that comes to mind is : " What builder wants to compete with the architects who control the bid list ? " ... If I'm a builder , that's a huge business risk.
The 2nd thing that comes to mind : " What architect wants to ( A ) maintain bonding capability ? ( B ) Live and die with the risk involved with golf course construction ?
The 3rd thing that comes to mind : " What developer wants to hire an architect and give him / her a blank check without bonded hard bids ? " ... The checks and balances that come with the current system are pretty good.
There are plenty of other " potential issues "
Having said that , I think there is significant business potential for joint ventures between architects and builders. Having been involved in a few of these type deals , they can be wonderful , provided that the developer , architect and builder are all on the same page with the same agenda ( typically significant ownership in the project )
Final thought : It's a small world ... never burn your bridges ... even in a down cycle. ;D
Well put former boss! ;D
-
Of all the courses I have been involved with, the worst were when the owner insisted on hiring a General Contractor as part of a fixed fee/bid scenario....usually because it was assumed that was how to control cost best [it doesn't, nor does it improve quality].
I much prefer working and throwing together whatever it takes to get the job done....and this can mean many approaches, similar to what Tom and Mike describe.
Having to do with less money as a result of this downturn can have a tonic effect and is refreshing. The only thing that's scary is whether one can string along enough work to get through, but when we do emerge we will be leaner and meaner.
I had the pleasure this week of reviewing a flagged in the field irrigation layout supplied by a State required Irrigation Designer, who drew the plans from my preliminary grassing/irrigated areas plan.
I eliminated 300 small heads
I eliminated 80% of the half heads on the edges by allowing water to drift out. I want lack of water to maintain the edge, not labor.
I eliminated on average a full row of irrigation heads per hole by re spacing the full heads.
I eliminated four heads per tee, and just triangulated starting from the back while skipping un watered spaces, to reduce these heads in half.
....and I almost eliminated the greens loop because we are using the same grass through out [Platinum Paspalum].....I might still...I hate double heads in aprons with all the other boxes etc.
And this is on a job where we could actually afford to do the aforementioned.
I just don't have the conscience to justify the extra expense, the extra water use, and the extra maintenance that would be required.
...and the Irrigation Contractor [a friend] agrees, even though this means less in his pocket....he knows which way this games got to go.
In the future the idea of "Growing the Game" will at times mean growing smaller.
-
Paul:
Good for you!
I stopped battling the irrigation designers about five years ago ... I did not have the time to waste arguing about it when the client seemed to be on their side, i.e. for spending whatever the irrigation designer recommended. (Instead, I just realized money meant nothing to them, and doubled my design fee. ;) )
Now I may have to halve my design fee again, but I will probably be more happy if I can get the clients to spend what's reasonable.
-
Just curious...
The structural AEC industry left the design/build model years ago, for larger development projects, because the bank (owners/developers) were too exposed financially. Owners' representatives were generally employees of the GC (read conflict of interest) and change orders were more the norm than the exception...hence forward, Independent Project Managers or Inspectors, working for the banks, became the more prudent biz model...lump sum and not to exceed went out the door as well.
Question: how is the gc budget managed such that the design, that which was 'built/budgeted on paper first', is executed within the bid and not exceeded? What check/balance methods exist to quantify contractor performance and minimize change orders? Is there 3rd party due diligence in place, much like the hardscape industry?
Thank you,
-
Davis:
I don't know how most people do design/shape, only myself.
In our model, sometimes we do the shaping of the greens and bunkers for a total price, other times we have just hired out our people at a daily rate with an estimate for the shaping budget. In the latter case, it's on the owner if we have to spend more time than anticipated
In either case, we are usually working with a local contractor on other parts of the job, and we have always encouraged our clients to do jobs on a time and materials basis, or cost-plus, instead of on a fixed-price contract. My experience has been that fixed-price contracts generally include a fairly hefty profit margin for the contractor, and that if the job has problems and the contractor might lose money, he goes into a four-corners offense and basically asks to be made whole or he won't be able to finish on time (in which case the developer will lose $$$ from all the tee times he can't book).
I saw that scenario twice on fixed-price contracts and realized there is no stopping it, in which case, what is the point of the fixed-price contract? The contractor is taking the upside if everything goes smoothly, and asks the developer for a bailout if it doesn't. (Maybe the big-money banks figured this out from their recent involvement in the golf industry.)
At the end of the day, the financial control of the project is ultimately based on the character of the contractor and, in our case, on our own. Once you get a very good track record behind you, it's not so difficult ... all a prospective client of mine has to do is to call Mike Keiser or Julian Robertson or any of a dozen other clients, and they will gladly tell them we are careful with other people's money.
Maybe that doesn't work on a project heavily financed by bank debt. Are there any more of those left?
-
Tom,
Interesting comments. How does this work when you work on a feature or green that you just can't seem to get right and go thru multiple iterations before finding something your happy with? Is that just a part of the process or is there some cost sharing?
Thanks
-
Thanks for sharing Paul.
But why was that irrigation designed in the first place?
Tom's points are good ones, but I find that some contractors don't have room for a hefty profit margin.
And they sure get a lot done after a big rain slows them down.
They always seem to find a way to perform 2 separate paid line items at once.
-
Kalen:
We seldom go through 3 or 4 iterations on a green, but when we do, it just takes a bit more fuel for the dozer, which is rented by the month anyway, and another day or two for the shaper. It's just part of the process. I know there are some architects out there who claim to "get everything right the first time," but I suspect they might have done even better if they had spent a couple of extra days working on the greens which were problems or which were kind of dull.
In other words, there is a bit of fat in the shaping budget to handle the greens or bunkers which take a bit of extra time and editing.
-
I doubt any one model will ever suffice. Each has its problems each has its potential. IMHO, in the end, if well managed each ends up costing the same. If a poor manager (either poor financially or in managment sense) is in charge, cost can trump quality in any scenario. No matter what contract scenario an owner chooses, its just important to be dealing with PEOPLE you trust and who have your best interests at heart. When that happens, the contract rarely gets pulled out in a dispute.
For some (cities and bank controlled projects) including private owners, the strength of the design-bid system is that you can answer an investor's question "Did we get the lowest possible price?" That question usually comes up, and I don't think tough times will cause it to surface any less.
-
Jeff:
Shouldn't the question be "Did we get the best possible course for the lowest possible price?"
And how could you ever really know the answer to that? I guarantee you that having the client as his own general contractor sometimes comes out cheaper than any bid process could. Just ask Rupert O'Neal about that.
-
Tom,
Of course that should be the question, but are most owners saavy enough to know what the best possible course is? They do understand the lowest price.
Typical questions include specs for bunker, green mix and tee sand, whether to use bunker liners, etc. No matter who is in charge, these questions must get answered. If its a gca before a bid process, the discussion can center on the cost-benefit ratio. If its a discussion had after the bid or negotiated price is fixed, it likely centers on cost. It doesn't really matter what the contract scenario is, its whether the budget is fixed.
Killian and Nugent used to do the Owner as contractor method, with young guys like me in charge of the project. The best I ever did over a contractors price was a 15% savings. I saw some projects go 15% over. KN charged for project management (as do any DB contractors) and used a mix of sub contractors of varying ability. Of course, sometimes you hire the best golf contractor in the world and get a lot of subs, too.
In general, someone has to manage the project and pick the subs. While the owner or gca might be able to do it cheaper, especially if they know the right people, the contractor brings experienced people to the table in most cases. Saving their profit and OH might be offset somewhat by their people also doing the work faster.
There is also some benefit in having the three part system where the gca argues quality, the independent PM argues cost and the Owner decides. The Contractor can certainly chime in, too.
I am doing a DB with LUI right now. In the field yesterday, we through out the grading plans I had initially prepared. Their input was that they needed something to build fast with dozers until the scrapers got down there. I was fine with that as necessity is the mother of invention. I reconfigured some tees, etc. to make work for them and I was the final judge of whether those design changes worked, and I think they will actually work better than what I had concieved on paper.
In other cases, I have been involved with design build and the contractor who stood to benefit from reduced work decided that my 10 foot high earthforms really looked better at 2 feet high. In many cases, holes get altered because they send the scraper back at the end of the month to save rental fees and the option is to build the best hole you can, as long as you build with dozer cuts. Its not hard to see design problems with that either.
Again, its the people. If you want a great design in design build, the people in charge have to be committed to that. Which, I presume is the reason you and Pete Dye fashion your businesses as you do.
-
Kelly,
First of all, we still work with The Williard Group. I think quite highly of them. I no longer list them as a "partner" because we both realized that some clients were assuming all I did was design/build and that is not the case. For example, the projects I've done with Forrest, we have bid out. The same goes on others that I worked on with Scott Witter and/or on my own. We don't bid out our design/build projects. However, Elwood's group is still a firm we like to work with.
Again as far as my definition of design/build, I don't think it is different than anyone else's. It is a one stop turnkey approach to the whole project (or at least most of it). We select the contractor/s we want to work with at the start of a specific project and together present a proposal to the client to do the work. The client has the choice to have us get construction bids but usually that requires detailed construction drawings and more expense. We don't do them with design/build unless they are required for permiting. We all work closely together from start through completion.
Mark
-
From someone in the world of designing buildings, golf has always been 'design-build' but with some minor variations that might evolve over time or vary very slightly from one organization to another.
In my observation, the clearing process can not be controlled very well. In my mind one of the causes of design-build in golf is the 2 foot contour survey, which means a lot of detail about the property is not exactly known. If much of the site nuance can not be determined thus what is the point of a precisely developed design back in the office with no deviation in the field?
The other factor is that there are relatively few trades involved in golf courses and a whole bunch when it comes to buildings.
In the world of buildings, 'design-build' usually means fast, cheap & dumb.
-
I have never done "design-build" as a contractor with a firm price for the entire construction ... I prefer not to take on the risk of all that, so we just do design - shape - (and sometimes) manage. It used to be hard to get paid as much as we ought to get paid for the construction work, because there's always some contractor around insisting he could do the shaping for less; but now that we get paid pretty well on the design end, it all works out in the end.
Does this mean that in cases you will accept a modest loss on the shape and construct side, because it is offset by the fee's you are able to charge for design, to perhaps ensure it is done in the way intended?
-
Christian:
Yes, that's what I meant. We really want to do the shaping ourselves, because we think the design comes out better that way. I don't know that "taking a loss" on the shaping is really technically correct ... we just don't make as much on it as I think it ought to be worth.
-
It seems a few of the post on here may over complicate the design/build model in golf construction. I agree with the guys and the issues that arise in a building construction etc. But...for me....it is the only way to go.....anytime i have had to use the employees of a general contractor to shape ...it has completely frustrated me....and that is not to say that these are not good companies....
Is furniture making design/build?
If an artist does a sculpture..is it design/build?
The further you move from design build in golf..the less "soul" of the architect is present.....IMHO
-
Mike,
I agree. The key I think is to convince the client that he not only gets a better product, but he gets a fair priced one as well. I remember asking Elwood Willard what he would do with detailed construction drawings for a project (if we were asked to do them). We both knew the answer ahead of time ;) No substitute for working closely with the contractor/shaper in the field.
Mark
-
Mike,
Yes, shapers can drive you crazy. On the other hand, I have no desire to bring my own. The risk of being involved in any part of construction doesn't appeal to me and I am pretty sure others already exist who know more about it than me.
And, while I have a clause in my contract and specs giving me the right to approve and change shapers from a general contractor I can only recall asking for a shapers change a few times. Wadsworth, LUI, Mid America, etc, etc. etc. all have great shapers. I figure if I was going to hire one now, it would be one let go from one of the bigs and if they were let go what does that say about their level of work compared to the guys that are still working?
Not to mention the bonus that working with a new shaper gives - if you work with the same guys over and over I would suspect new ideas and twists are harder to come by. A shaper who has worked in a lot of climates and for a lot of gca's can easily say "I saw a similar situation on a XXX course last year and here is how we handled it." So, I see the upside as well as the downside of working with an egotistical shaper who is more interested in putting his ideas on the ground over mine. But, in 99% of the cases, the shapers I work with with the bigs are great, fun to work with, and contribute to the design in signifigant ways.
Not that they can't be frustrating for the same reason, saying "I shaped for Fazio and he seemed pleased." Well, we are all different and designs are different and sometimes it is difficult to get a shaper to do things my way. I know one who I like a lot, but who often adds more contours to the greens and narrows my green front entrances (which I actually think is because he shuts off the dirt being hauled and likes to create his own greens on site) I had one who agreed with everything I said and when he said "yup, I understand" really didn't and built everything nearly backwards from what I told him. I suspected dyslexia.
If they get out of hand, I just send them over to shape some forward tees for a while and they get the message!
-
If they get out of hand, I just send them over to shape some forward tees for a while and they get the message!
Ouch. I'm sure with further questioning, you'll likely respond with saying you agree the forward tees are every bit a part of the course as anything and everything else. Right?
Poorly built and positioned forward tees can be a blight on the landscape, not to mention the difficulty in making the forward tee players not feel like second rate golfers as it is. Now the guys who have to be burdened with building those pesky forward tees know where they stand....
I know, I know...it was a joke. Tell David Fleherty I said hey..... :)
Joe
-
Jeff anf Joe,
I have found that if I don't place forward tees on the course then I save considerable by not needing ladies restrooms at the halfway house ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
OK Jeff,
Now you have brought up a subject I have meant to discuss several times and have just not done it....when you say above
""Wadsworth, LUI, Mid America, etc, etc. etc. all have great shapers. I figure if I was going to hire one now, it would be one let go from one of the bigs and if they were let go what does that say about their level of work compared to the guys that are still working?"" JUST WHAT DOES IT SAY?
....I think I have found just the opposite....but at the same time I in no way wish to make a blanket statement. I can show you some guys shaping now that charge more than the guys that worked for the large construction companies. And they are still working....these types are the type that get so involved and want to be there for every detail...including finishing....so maybe they are more than shapers...
I have often( much more than once or twice) gone to a signature course and told the supt which shaper shaped which hole or which bunkers on the signature course...I call them telephone shapers because they often just work for one or two big signatures and the basics sort of go like this on the cell phone" 'Hey Elwood , you know the green on hole 7 you shaped at Bushwood?...just put iT on the green site for hole 12 and I will be by to check it in a few weeks".....I once ( one of the few places where I used a GC) had a shaper go to the city official in charge of the project and tell him how many courses he had shaped for Mr. signature..had the owner come in and take the official to lunch and tell him how many courses they had done for Mr. signature. City official begins to start telling me what to do.....gets city council to approve another 1.5 million in change orders ( at almost double the original unit pricing)for his new buddies on an initial bid of 3.2 million.....even took city official to Mr signatures golf outing that year.....One of the best sales jobs I ever witnessed. And this guy was once builder of the year....but no longer in business....BTW..NEITHER is the city official... ;D ;D
I guess I am trying to say that in no way do I think the shapers that are still working are any less talented than the ones that worked for the big boys....some of the weaker but safe shaping I have seen has come from such....
Now let me also say that the companies you mention in your post....especially LU, IMHO, understand this economy and what is going on better than most.....I think Joe Niebur might also....they have much more to offer than any design firm....
And on a last thought.....recently I have been watching mediocre shaping and feature work by a very good solid contractor on an older course....listening to a green committee who can do nothing but tell you how many courses these guys have built for TF....he could have given them a pile of horse manure and they would have jumped up and down....
If I had been trained (oops..I never been trained) by a larger firm and was used to the GC scenario then I might see shaping differently...but I don't think shaping can ever be a corporate thing for me....
-
Jeff:
I guess I would state it more simply ... are you thrilled with the work you're getting?
If yes, then you're fine. I personally can't imagine being thrilled with what a big contractor gives me, although at Lost Dunes we did pretty well, once we spoke up a little bit.
-
Tom,
Thank you for your reply on this topic...and thanks to all others who posted. I understand that experience/success brings with it a level of trust that is well earned; as it should be.
thank you,