[BCrosby]

Jeff -

It's all about the distinction between de jure and de facto. Legally, the ASGCA is just a bunch of guys and gals that get together for self-education and some good times. Fair enough.

In fact, they are perceived by the average Joe commiteeman as a sanctioning body. Do you doubt that some members, when competing for jobs, have allowed that perception to exist?  

My brother is an architect who competes for jobs every week. I have three hours worth of stories about how the AIA is used by him and his competitors similarly. I will even buy you a drink while I retell his stories.

Bob

[GDStudio]

There seems to be mostly talk of the ASGCA and the US golf industry here, but I know there are many guys here doing work (or living) abroad.  It would be interesting to hear some of their comments about competition, bad blood, cooperation, etc.

I will way in on this as well, but I need to run to a meeting right now.

Looking forward to seeing some more comments, this is an interesting discussion.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom P,
Thanks for starting this thread, it is one of the most intersting threads I have ever read.
Thanks to the architects for contributing, it gives the wanna bees amongst us, a tremendous insight into your worlds..thanks very much

[Mike Hendren]

Excellent posts.  Thanks.

Is it fair to say there is excess capacity in the golf course architectural industry?  If so, is this attributable to: 1)the absence of barriers to entry; 2) possible low overhead dynamics; 3) a mature golf market; or 4) a combination of the above?

One would expect the price of architectural services to go down in a market where supply exceeds demand.  Is there such pressure, or does cache, genius, or marketing appeal still command a premium?

Is the industry headed to bifurcation - a handfull of big boys and mom and pops?

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Mike H:  The answer to your first question is (4).  There is an oversupply, and there are about 500 more young people on the career path, either working for someone else or still in school, many of whom are going to be profoundly disappointed someday.

The ones who survive and perhaps thrive will be not necessarily the best or brightest, but the ones who love it enough and are tough enough to stick it out.

There has always been bifurcation or perhaps more accurately, trifurcation -- the handful of big names who can command high fees, the rest of the full-time professionals, and the ones who keep straggling along either by design-build or by doing a course here and there.  I don't think the middle will get wiped out, but it's clearly getting harder for them.  Many are going overseas or surviving on reconstruction projects right now -- I hate to say it but I should cut and paste Jeff Brauer's post into all the threads about restoration and redesign, because a lot of that work is indeed being driven by architects who are just trying to stay in business.

Market forces may suggest that prices should fall, but I don't think that's fair at all.  I just wrote a piece for the new GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE magazine arguing just the opposite -- that designers aren't compensated enough in many cases.  Those who try to stay in business by slashing prices are are hurting everyone, including themselves.  Instead of cutting prices, they should be offering more complete services, spending more time per project and even getting involved in project management, in order to justify fair pay.

[Brad Klein]

Doak's argument about market forces and not slashing fees can draw support from the golf course industry. An oversupply there has led many facilities to discount prices, which just produces poor revenue streams and allows golfers to sit back and wait while more courses go broke. Higher end courses don't discount because people play them regardless of cost. At the upper end of the market, in other words, prices in golf are in-elastic, or even reverse-elastic. All the discounting does is force those at the lower end of the market into a competition that will prove suicidal.

Eventually, courses will suffer and be driven out, but the discounting is disastrous for business. Besides, design fees are only a small part of the total development costs of a golf course - no more than 5%, usually less than 3%. So anyone who selects a designer on the basis of price discounting rather than quality of work is probably an owner who should not be one.

[A.G._Crockett]

Eventually, courses will suffer and be driven out, but the discounting is disastrous for business. Besides, design fees are only a small part of the total development costs of a golf course - no more than 5%, usually less than 3%. So anyone who selects a designer on the basis of price discounting rather than quality of work is probably an owner who should not be one.

Brad,
Which do you think is a less desirable feature of the industry: the scenario you mention above in which ithe owner selects a GCA based on low price rather than quality, OR a situation in which the owner selects a "name" for the dreaded "signature course" and drives up prices relative to the quality of the architecture?  

(This is NOT to say that signature courses are bad, or have bad GCA; I'm just referring to cases where the name on the course drives up market prices.)

[Tim Liddy]

I find it extremely competitive.

Another point worth mentioning is that golf architects have great staying power.  One job a year will provide many a decent income, especially if they work out of their house, the wife works, and do landscape architecture on side, etc. This keeps the number of golf course architects inordinately high, even in bad times.  Conversely, golf course contractors with their large overhead have a much harder time staying afloat through slow times.

[Forrest Richardson]

Mark speaks the truth: It is no more competitive than most professional businesses which offer a creative product. Some golf course architects do not practice decent behavior all of the time, but this is to be expected in any business — not everyone is as good as can be.

I have pushed for collaboration in many areas, and have been approached by others to collaborate. I feel this is one area of our professional that went away after the Golden Age — and I am glad to see it return.

[paul cowley]

I agree Forrest.....a new gestault strategy at work!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff -

It's all about the distinction between de jure and de facto. Legally, the ASGCA is just a bunch of guys and gals that get together for self-education and some good times. Fair enough.

In fact, they are perceived by the average Joe commiteeman as a sanctioning body. Do you doubt that some members, when competing for jobs, have allowed that perception to exist?  

My brother is an architect who competes for jobs every week. I have three hours worth of stories about how the AIA is used by him and his competitors similarly. I will even buy you a drink while I retell his stories.

Bob

Bob,

Yes I do doubt that anyone declares that the ASGCA is a sanctioning body during interviews.  Now, they may mention that they are a member of a professional group generally consisting of the top gca's, and that that group is limited to those who have demonstrated experience in the field.

I don't know how many interviews you have sat in on, but I would love to know where these people are.  I rarely here any comments on ASGCA being superior and I have never heard the idea that it is a sanctioning body.  Kind of wish I had.

In any event, I find it hard to believe that we would have any legal liability for someone else's misconceptions about what we are.  Of course, in this country, you can get sued if someone doesn't like the way you look, so I guess it could happen.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Well, it sure wasn't a goose egg.  

I took particular note of Brad Klein's post that the ASGCA is a Society and not a trade organization and that the ASGCA has made things so much better because there isn't any back stabbing anymore.

Shit, why do you think I started this thread? I wanted to see a whole bunch of back stabbing and a whole bunch of stabbed backs. I miss the way it must have been early-on in Tillie's era when he blasted other architects like J.H. Taylor with both barrels, and IN PRINT, and when Travis went after Macdonald and Macdonald went after Travis, and stuff like that.

Those were the days, Boy. Sure there was more collaboration but if they didn't like each other they seemed to go after each other with guns and knives---figuratively speaking of course.

Those were the days. No wonder they're called "The Good Old Days".

[Ian Andrew]

Tom P,

"I wanted to see a whole bunch of back stabbing and a whole bunch of stabbed backs"

When Brauer said " However, the jury is still out on Ian!" that was ASGCAspeak for "How the hell did he get in?"

Oh It's there, you just have to find the subtleties after the ASGCA lawyers have cut and rewritten each of our replies.  

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

There are misunderstandings that lay people have of the ASGCA. Among those common misunderstandings is that the ASGCA is a sanctioning body. Like a state bar association.

There are situations I've heard of (and I don't get out much) where architects who were members of the ASGCA, when competing for jobs against non-members, have not gone out of their way to disabuse club owners of their misconception that the ASGC is a sanctioning body. Architects use the AIA as the same kind of cudgel.

The sin is one of ommission. Most people think that if you aren't a member of the ASGCA that you are not  a fully licensed and qualified golf architect. That such non-members are, as it were, practicng architecture without having passed the bar. People, when competing for jobs, don't go out of their way to correct such misunderstandings.

Is any of that illegal? Probably not (though it wouldn't be hard to come up with a slightly different set of facts where it would be). But at a minimum, oughtn't it be troubling that people use their ASGCA (or AIA) memberships in that way?  

Bob  

[Forrest Richardson]

Bob — "There are misunderstandings that lay people have of the ASGCA"

Lay people? Who? How many people?

I cannot fathom enough people having enough misunderstandings about the ASGCA that the situation could not be handled by a few posts or a few phone calls.

We are talking golf course architecture here. While we may all think it is a large and massive business, it isn't. It is a small world with very personal connections.

And, for the record, there is always the situation where you will find a non-ASGCA member who is not qualified to provide golf course architectural services.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

Again, I fail to see how anyone with enough brains to suceed in society could confuse a professional society with a state licencing situation....

As to using ASGCA for sales, I have interviewed in Florida where all public interviews are taped.  We all mentioned ASGCA, and all got zip reaction from the committee.  My perspective is that it doesn't help all that much, compared to demonstrating how you are going to solve their problem.  It may help in getting me to the interview, or getting on the original list of candidates.  

For that matter, I have always believed that spending even one minute talking about the qualifications of other candidates doesn't sell.  Dissing them in even the slightest way is so off putting to committees (in a way, you are dissing them for their lack of intelligence in selecting interviewees) that it is a kiss of death for getting the job.  

So, even if AIA or ASGCA members have used those letters to sell, I doubt it is successful often enough for anyone to worry about.  If five teams interview, four are always going to come away unhappy.  And half of those might be prone to sour grapes.  If we assume that selecting bodies, public or private, are at least reasonably intelligent (although selecting a gca is usually more emotional than logical) then they ususally make the right decision for them, even if all five teams are about equally qualified.

Usually, the losers failed to establish relationships, didn't research the project well enough for the interview, and/or gave a bad presentation.  Or, their work isn't as good, or extensive enough to be selected.  Human nature being what it is, it couldn't be THEIR fault they didn't get the project, so they blame things like AIA, unfair tactics, etc.  But those sour grapes usually are a bit delusional.

Just MHO, but I am pretty sure I'm right in most cases.

[BCrosby]

Forrest/Jeff -

It sounds like you have had the good fortune of working with better informed committeemen than the sampling I know.

Bob

[Forrest Richardson]

Bill Coore has been an ASGCA member for six years. Hopefully all ASGCA members learn. Even Jack N. raises his hand and asks questions at our meetings; and shares insights for others. That is what it is all about.

And, yes, Bob — we always try to work with good people! I prefer them to bad people. Call me crazy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff -

My brother is an architect who competes for jobs every week. I have three hours worth of stories about how the AIA is used by him and his competitors similarly. I will even buy you a drink while I retell his stories.

Bob

I should probably let this one die, but I have another question for Bob....

If it is unfair for me to mention that I am a member of ASGCA in sales presentation, is it unfair for Jack Nicklaus to mention he is a member of the PGA Tour?  Or that he won some tournaments?  Or that he has designed 100 courses?

Given that my green jacket came from a department store, I would like to think so, and yet, I don't complain.....

Where (and who) should draw the line for people presenting their own credentials, experience and philospy so that a client can make an informed decision?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I should probably let this one die, part 2 -

How many times have non ASGCA (or non AIA) members benefitted from the efforts of those professional organizations without ever paying dues?  Have any non ASGCA architects gotten a project approved in part because of work we have done with environmental groups?  Or had a better renovation experience because of some education recieved by a green chairperson at Remodel U?  Or used the general contract we developed, obtained through secondary sources, or been hired by a developer using an RFP for selection that highlights the things clients SHOULD be looking for in a GCA, like relevant experience?

I think they have, even if a few members decide (rightfully in my mind) that having attained membership in ASGCA is something to be proud of, and does convey a signifigance of having developed a certain level of experience in the industry.

[Forrest Richardson]

I wil echo Jeff's most recent point — that being qualified and accepted in the ASGCA demonstrates several levels of commitment, skill and knowledge within this profession.

But...the real value of belonging to such an organization is learning from others — and sharing knowledge. Confusion about what becoming a member may bring your way may be the greatest hurdle of some who have attained celebrity status in our art and opted to not apply for membership — "why should I become a member?...why do I need this?"

Note: "I" is a focus of the questions.

The reasons to become a member should have do with this whole aspect of camaraderie, expanded thinking, and a bit of tradition. If membership has anything to do with ultimately getting hired for a project, then it probably has to do with how well you have leared and grown in the profession — not just the five-letter acronym.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

How many times have non ASGCA (or non AIA) members benefitted from the efforts of those professional organizations without ever paying dues?  Have any non ASGCA architects gotten a project approved in part because of work we have done with environmental groups?  Or had a better renovation experience because of some education recieved by a green chairperson at Remodel U?  Or used the general contract we developed, obtained through secondary sources, or been hired by a developer using an RFP for selection that highlights the things clients SHOULD be looking for in a GCA, like relevant experience?

None, No, Nada

Part 3?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Certainly the "remodeling U" classes were a case of the ASGCA following instead of leading, and trying to take business away from non-members who were dominating that category [Ron Forse, Ron Prichard, etc.].  I doubt they have benefitted me at all.

And I've never been hired on the basis of an RFP, either.  In fact I've heard of one or two instances where the RFP considered me "unqualified".

You are certainly entitled to be proud of your ASGCA membership, but don't inflate the accomplishments of the organization, especially with some of the examples you cited.  In the end, the organization is about creating work for its members, is it not?

And Forrest:  How many ASGCA members have referred interns to me, vs. how many have I helped to find a young candidate for their offices?  In my experience, you guys use the personal pronoun just as much as the rest of us, and you are more protective of your own "turf".

And Tom P:  Look what you've started now!

[Kyle Harris]

I wil echo Jeff's most recent point — that being qualified and accepted in the ASGCA demonstrates several levels of commitment, skill and knowledge within this profession.

False. This should read that being accepted in the ASGCA could demonstrate several levels of commitment, skill and knowledge within your profession. A group of people determining these levels of knowledge are just as subjective as the individual determining these levels of knowledge. You assume that because more people are involved, the process is therefore cleaner - but this couldn't be further from the truth. The sum of all parts of a subjective measures is still subjective. You run into the inherently subjective question: How many of your clients hire you because they truly like your work, or because they fear the consequences of hiring a non-ASGCA architect? This is a question YOU CAN'T ANSWER and none of us can, so you cannot determine if it is truly your work that someone likes or your credentials.

But...the real value of belonging to such an organization is learning from others — and sharing knowledge. Confusion about what becoming a member may bring your way may be the greatest hurdle of some who have attained celebrity status in our art and opted to not apply for membership — "why should I become a member?...why do I need this?"

False. Forrest, you wrote a book (actually two) - a good book. I've read it two or three times completely through and have drawn some inspiration from it. You shared that knowledge with the world. Now, did YOU write the book or the ASGCA?

This point seems to imply that the dissemination of knowledge in this field is limited to membership in the ASGCA, as though the ASGCA somehow had the ability to determine the what is and what should never be of Golf Architecture. The ego is the fountainhead of all creation, the fact that I, a human, can look at information and interpret this information and through the workings of my motivations and mind produce something of greater value than simply the sum of its parts is what drives success in your field, regardless of the "five letters" as you put it. The ASGCA is just as fallable as a non-member in this regard, regardless of standards set in the organization, because the ultimate standard is the one set for one's self.

Note: "I" is a focus of the questions.

The reasons to become a member should have do with this whole aspect of camaraderie, expanded thinking, and a bit of tradition. If membership has anything to do with ultimately getting hired for a project, then it probably has to do with how well you have leared and grown in the profession — not just the five-letter acronym.

Forrest, you're a great guy, your posts are informative and from what I can tell you truly love your business and your work. You asked for my resume on a whim in December and for that I am eternally grateful, just for the consideration. BUT, if that were true... why does your signature read: "Forrest Richardson: Golf Course Architect/ASGCA." If your point were true, you could elimate those five letters and still garner the same regard.

I certainly hope you don't take this personally. It's not meant as an attack against you or your work.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tod D. asks, "How many ASGCA members have referred interns to me, vs. how many have I helped to find a young candidate for their offices?"

I have no way of knowing. You have been kind to send me some names. You have never asked me for any names or recommendations. Then again, you offer an exciting internship program and I will guess that you get all the candidates you could ever hope for. I have mentioned your internship program to several young people asking about getting into this field.

In the end Doak, this profession is about creating good work and making golf exciting. As you grow older and begin to watch life with older eyes, you will start asking yourself who you have helped and what kinds of things you will eventually be leaving behind. If your legacy are some great courses and a handful of disciples — that is a good and decent accomplishment. If your contribution extends to a wider universe — that will make your accomplishments a richer experience, now and forever.

I actually disagree with you. An ASGCA member probably uses the personal pronoun less than an accomplished golf architect who is not a member.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()