[Mike_Young]

thought you guys might find this article interesting...
http://golfcourseindustry.texterity.com/golfcourseindustry/200802/

[Joe Hancock]

OK, Mike...I bet you have some thoughts on this...care to share??

 

[Mike_Young]

Joe,
I do.  But I don't know these young men and I am sure they are good at what they do.  My questions would not be directed toward them. 
I think the writer did not do enough research for such a title.....he took 4 from one firm......he should have searched other firms etc....it just shows that as less construction takes place....there is less to write about....
I think a better topic is how will today's signatures carry on once the signatures have passed on.  It is going to be an interesting scenario.  Are young people better off to work under a signature and then one day one not be there or would one be better to go on his own asap?   

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

Is there more or less stability being in a big firm like Palmer or Nicklaus or Fazio vs. trying to break into the field as an independent?

To be an independent, you better be really, really good...not only now, but in the future.

I think.....

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

You know what I think, Joe? I think the danger for young designers of being with a big/big name firm like Nicklaus or Fazio or Palmer is that there's the temptation to blame everything on the boss.  A young independent might compromise his ideals/style to get work, but he'll know he has only himself to blame for that choice (if that choice is even blameworthy, I'm not saying it is.)  But the young guys working for the big guns can always justify the same kind of compromise by saying "That's the way Mr. Nicklaus/Fazio/Palmer wants it.  Now, if it was up to me.....".  And if they're not careful, they may find that, in what seems like the blink of an eye, they're suddenly not the young guys anymore; they're old, and no one wants to hear them shirking personal responsibility (and being disloyal, and bad and two-faced employees to boot) by blaming the boss for the type of work they're doing.

Peter     

PS - not a specific reference to the young designers in question. I've just seen the pattern before...

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

I thought this was about you changing your company name.

An article like this could have been facinating if the four people came from four very different approaches to the art and all of them had their own fledgling business.

Four off the top of my head - Dan Hixson, Mike Nuzzo, Art Shaupeter and Dan Schlegal

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
You got me on that one

[Tim Copeland]

I applaud these young(no pun intended) whippersnappers.

Some have the correct last name and the others have just been lucky it seems.

Waiting for an opportunity to work as an on site guy to make the next step.  I thought I was close after meeting Mr. Larsen during a site visit to Clemson and mailing him some acorns from a tree that he expressed an interest in.

Maybe I need to call these guys and see how it is done...although I am too old now to be considered a young(again no pun intended) whippersnapper.

If I have not been lied to(and I have been in that boat too much lately) Palmer has no more openings....and didnt have openings for 6 years.......guess I should have mailed Larsen some of his favorite whiskey.

Such is life..........

[JMorgan]

This article demonstrates how professionalized and unimaginative is the career path of a young and aspiring gca.   And that's a shame.  What the author fails to mention is how past or contemporary "successful" architects arrived at their levels of recognition and why these four young men have chosen a different path despite these examples (or like the successful path Mr. Young took, for instance ).  Personally, I don't think I've ever encountered such an insular and professionalized occupation as landscape architecture; and if gca is an even "greater" subset of this insularity, then I cannot imagine what these young men and women think over a 24 hour period besides professionalizing their way into a world of oversupplied, unimaginative work, and where a future client can almost as easily be categorized in a one-dimensional manner.

(Edit: I hope I'm wrong in my observation, by the way.)

[Lester George]

Yes, I am slightly biased, but one of the most promising up and coming golf architects in the country, aside from those already mentioned, is Glenn Muckley who currently works for me.  Glenn has already logged 3+ years with me and before that worked for Williamsburg Environmental in their golf division.  If he doesn't adopt any of my habits or characteristics he'll be a force to be reckoned with.  He is only 30 years old.  Really smart, great with people, degree in engineering from UI (we don't hold that against him) as has the "gift".

Lester   

[Mike_Young]

This article demonstrates how professionalized and unimaginative is the career path of a young and aspiring gca.   And that's a shame.  What the author fails to mention is how past or contemporary "successful" architects arrived at their levels of recognition and why these four young men have chosen a different path despite these examples (or like the successful path Mr. Young took, for instance ).  Personally, I don't think I've ever encountered such an insular and professionalized occupation as landscape architecture; and if gca is an even "greater" subset of this insularity, then I cannot imagine what these young men and women think over a 24 hour period besides professionalizing their way into a world of oversupplied, unimaginative work, and where a future client can almost as easily be categorized in a one-dimensional manner.

(Edit: I hope I'm wrong in my observation, by the way.)

JMorgan,
If you read the post by LG above I think you will find that most of us have a young man that we consider very capable.  AND I also hope your observation is wrong......because I think there are many out there that have taken a different path.....AGAIN...none of this is to discredit any of the young men mentioned......MY INTENT is to show how sloppy some writers can be in composing an article.....  this was not a good article convey a message about young guys in the business....why would you not go to TD who openly takes an intern each year, or why not take a moment to speak with LG regarding his young man..or me regarding mine....or any of 50 other guys.....I think it would be interesting to see how many did not have LAR degrees....
As you say, the golf design business is getting tighter.....no one can really tout it as a business for a young person to get into unless they are extremely passionate about it and know enough about it to know it is not a drafting board  ..pretty picture....job.
I have my suspicions as to how these article evolve..... 
I have my own suspicions of how such an article comes about.

[JMorgan]

This article demonstrates how professionalized and unimaginative is the career path of a young and aspiring gca.   And that's a shame.  What the author fails to mention is how past or contemporary "successful" architects arrived at their levels of recognition and why these four young men have chosen a different path despite these examples (or like the successful path Mr. Young took, for instance ).  Personally, I don't think I've ever encountered such an insular and professionalized occupation as landscape architecture; and if gca is an even "greater" subset of this insularity, then I cannot imagine what these young men and women think over a 24 hour period besides professionalizing their way into a world of oversupplied, unimaginative work, and where a future client can almost as easily be categorized in a one-dimensional manner.

(Edit: I hope I'm wrong in my observation, by the way.)

JMorgan,
If you read the post by LG above I think you will find that most of us have a young man that we consider very capable. 

Mike, this is a great relief -- and all I need to get a good night sleep again. 

[Adam Russell]

From an LAR at Georgia with employment looming in a year, I feel that article had a pretty narrow focus. Perhaps TF and AP kicked in a little money to the author??? I felt the article did highlight how different starting paths can end up with the same career arc. Personally, I feel the industry now dictates an LAR degree with professional practice has the greatest chance of making it. I like Tom Doak's career path; ergo I applyed for the internship and hope to pick up his style and philosophy and perhaps blend it with my own personal feelings about design. What is missed here is that alot of young guys have no idea what their personal signature is, and help is needed to develop this. The signature of an architect or one's personal style is irrelevant if you have no job. For me, its get a job, learn everything possible about design/practice, network developers, start a firm. The gca field is one of the hardest to break into right now, and most gca's will tell you there's no jobs because more people in the field means less work to go around (even if they won't outright admit to this ). The path to success for a gca is predetermined to the point that I don't believe there is another realistic option other than fall in line. Also, the idea of "young" for a successful gca is like fourty-five. The industry doesn't lend itself to renewal well, but hopefully in the next fifteen years enough guys will die so we can change this dopey model

[Mike_Young]

JMorgan,
Just wanted to be sure you could sleep

Adam russell,
Sounds like a plan to me.....

[Adam Russell]

Mike,
 Check back with me in a month when TD decides who gets the internship... could be singing a different tune then 

[RJ_Daley]

All I got from the article is that there are various work culture environments and experiences that the signature archies of the future will come from, and they reflect those factors. 

Coming from a high output production firm like APdesigns, they were fortunate to get exposure to more work and diverse client requirements - obviously a luxuary.  But, their own sensibilities will shape them in what they learn from greater volume of exposure.  Like the fellow who says his first turn-on was to see the gated community, with waterfall, perfect sand bunkers, lush green FW and greens at the Vegas course and think.... that is what he wanted to do.  Then after the exposure and some experience, his sensibilities (unknown if it is just trend following) gravitates towards wanting to do 'more is less' theme projects.  Or the guy that started with First Tee modest projects where all he had to work with is turf and some soil, and then got the chance to work in multi big budget projects. 

At the end of the day, these younger archies will evolve to whatever their work culture reflects and their sensibilities and personalities project into their own futures.   I'd say with all the mega projects they get to become involved in at the big firms, they will have an advantage only restrained by their own ability to evolve and learn.   They can either go out on their own and become their own signature in a botique firm, or evolve in the shadows that reflect the big mother firm.   Like all the future archies, the economic growth or lack thereof in the design construction arena will determine stagnation or advancement in the craft/profession of GCA.

One thing I wonder about, if work environment and culture have a bearing on future design concepts and quality of designs, is if people like the Mexican course laborers - who have been on the nomadic trail moving from one construction project to the next, would have any breakthrough insights if they were given free reign to come up with a design based on their cultural and work experience perspectives. 

Do any of the archies out there, ever ask them about their ideas?  With all the Mexican and migrant golf course construction laborers over the last few decades, there must be a few who have been at it for a long time and have seen nearly everything in the way of techniques and problem solving in the ground, and have their own sensibilities and ideas of how to do things.     

[Lester George]

I think the article is pretty narrow and, as most articles nowadays, very easy to read and somewhat self serving. 

There are very few journalists left because to be a good one is takes hard work a real research.  It (like golf course architecture in some ways) is a dying art.  Its just too easy to pen an article without doing much work so, in my mind, a lot of people are just getting by with mediocrity. 

Now before anyone jumps in and says I'm being too critical of this article and the young guys mentioned, I'm not.  I'm saying that these days it is easier to write about a couple of topics, get it inked, and published. 

It would have been better had the guy done a little more research and possibly mentioned more and different people.  Like Mike said, any number of guys could have contributed to this with stories of young talent and IMO it could have been a more comprehensive read.

Lester

[Tony Ristola]

Lester, I'll agree with you and add-continue on your premise there are few real golf (architecture) journalists out there. Journalism means digging out facts and reporting them. Asking tough questions and reporting them. The architecture side of golf reporting is more akin to propaganda. Think if someone asked really tough questions (especially of the big names)? Pointed questions. Revealing questions. On the spot questions. What would that do  to access to the player-individuals later?

RJ, Now that's a deep article in the making. The golf architecture nomads. Wouldn't it be interesting to interview some of these nomadic laborers and learn about what they think of the business. Would be an interesting read.

[Adam Russell]

I might step on a few toes here, but haven't we established that narrowly focused golf articles with little preliminary research is a bad thing?? We ask for better golf journalism, then proceed to say that interviewing "golf nomads" would make for a great read...95% of laborers wouldn't give a damn about design other than getting paid, and those that did wouldn't have enough design training to balance out their construction expertise. Being able to drive a bulldozer doesn't make you a competent designer, its only one piece of the puzzle. The pool of qualified Mexican laborers who have in-depth design experience with a variety of projects and designers would be like, maybe ten??? And of those, I imagine all would come from the big designer camps, leading right back to the original questioning of the article- If all you interview is architects (or applied to this situation, construction laborers) in signature design practices, does that accurately represent the gca whole??? In both cases, its NO, and bad journalism to boot.

[Don_Mahaffey]

...95% of laborers wouldn't give a damn about design other than getting paid, and those that did wouldn't have enough design training to balance out their construction expertise. Being able to drive a bulldozer doesn't make you a competent designer...

I can tell you that my experience has been that if we create the right environment and if we hire the right "laborers", almost all, to the man (and woman) care very much about the design and the success of the project.
One piece of advice, you can't do it all, and if you carry an attitude like voiced above, the people you work with will smell it on you, and that will not be to your benefit.

[Adam Russell]

Listen, I'm not saying an experienced laborer couldn't come up with a feasible design, just that the relevance of creating the design to a laborer is probably way down on the priority list. Do most laborers care about the job they do... yes , because how well they do the job depends on whether they come back or not. The reason I wrote what I did is that I thought it was ludicrous to suggest that laborers would have enough relevant knowledge to put together an operation and build a golf course. But that's not a reflection on the intelligence of the laborers- its not a simple task. I couldn't get past step one, and I'm on the verge of applying for design jobs!!!   I know a gca can't do it all, it is a team, but I hate the idea that everyone around a gca can design a course. Why are nurses not doctors?? Because they don't have the complete package. Golf course design is not that easy. BTW, if anyone has respect for laborers, Mexican or otherwise, it's me. I don't pull opinions out of thin air... i've heard it on job sites, working right alongside in red clay.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adam,
I guess its all in how you view things and how you manage. I like to involve everyone as much as I can. We just built an 18-hole golf course in-house with a very small crew of people, with most never having been on a golf course before. And I can assure you they all view the finished product as their baby as they all had the opportunity, at one point or another, to do some freelancing, and most of it turned out great, IMO.
I just think we discredit the folks who do a lot of the work when we say things like, “they work just because they want to get paid” or because they “want to be asked back”. Sure, there is truth to those things, but more than that people want to be a part of doing something special. Sell that, instead of "do the work or you can't come back" and I think you'll like the results.

Good luck.

[Adam Sherer]

There are a lot of great young architects out there, and there always will be (I'm sure Tom Doak used to be called a "great young architect").

Other than the people that are talked about regularly on this site (ie Hanse, Devries, et al) there are some from the non-boutique shops that should get some recognition.  Rex VanHoose at Jacobson-Hardy Design is a hell of an architect (and a great guy) who used to work for Keith Foster, Jeff Dickson for Fazio has been a part of some great projects, and Joel Weiman (and Andrew Green) were responsible for the Best New Public Course under $75 in the country last year.

If we were in the nineties then maybe some of the comments about a young architect's potential success would have more validity, but it isn't.  Some of the best architects (not the young ones) have had to go outside of the US to stay working.

To get back to the original question of Mike's on this post: I think that it would be more beneficial for a "young architect" to go to the unemployment office as going out on their own nowadays. But, I may be wrong.

If more young architects are out there, where are they working?

[Adam Russell]

Don, point taken. I'm a realist, just always been in my nature- but how I think and how I act are two different things. I would rather think my way, but I would rather act your way. BTW, what was the name of your course... and don't you think you need a young, headstrong architect to come work for you??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()