[Scott Wicker]

I have often wondered if architects receive too much credit and/or criticism when one considers the fact that there may be some more subtle aspects of a course's design that are simply "accidents" during a course's construction.  I especially think this concept comes into play with subtle contours on greens.  These subtleties often give a specific green additional character and their fate lies in the hands of a finish shaper and/or grow in superintendent. Can anyone pinpoint any notable design features that may have been incorporated during construction without the architects input?  

[Brian Phillips]

Scott,

That is a good question.

I know my shapers don't always follow the design drawings perfectly and they do adapt the green shaping to what is natural but the architect ALWAYS, ALWAYS has to sign off the shapeing before we start with drainage.

It is exactly the same all over the construction.  If the architect is lucky enough to be working with a team of constructors that actually love golf then it does make his job easier.  However I don't think an architect would sign off a green that he/she didn't like or didn't think would work.

Kingsbarns was shaped by the magician McShane and a lot of credit has been given to him but Kyle Phillips still had to agree to the ideas that McShane had.

So no I don't think architects get anywhere near enough credit for the final result.  It is amazing how many people jump on the bandwagon of a good design (the owner designed one hole, the greenkeeper another, some member helped redesign a hole...) but you can't find a soul to stand by an architect when a design has gone tits up...

People don't realise how much responsibility these men and women have so .....

....they deserve a hell of lot more credit than they get..

Brian

[Mike_Young]

Scott,
A good question.... I know where you are coming from and I guess I would compare it to one of the coaches and teams left in the NCAA.  The coaches are definitely good, they set up the game plan and tell the players what they want.  As good players they are responsible for executing the coach's plan.  They may be a step or two out of position or above the key more than he ask but in most cases they have implemented the coaches strategy.  At the end of the game...the coach always talks to the press.....win or lose....he praises or protects his players....different players always speak but always the same coach.

It is my opinion that an architect excels whenever he can keep the same team together.  It is up to him to make sure that all are noted and given credit but as far as keeping an identity; it is the architect that will be noted good or bad.

There will always be little differences in the greens, shaping bunkers etc. but the architect should have the final say on whether these are acceptable or not.  

[RC_Stanfield (Guest)]

I think your topic is a valid question when it comes to the accidents etc.  I think where the architect does not receive the needed praise is in the routing of the golf course.  Most all of the GCAers are very aware of the routings that are good and the strategy of the game c/o shot quality etc.  The average golfer buying a home in a golf development is not even aware of the routing.

Positive accidents happen during construction and yes the shapers need to be given cudos for their imagination etc.  But I think if you ask any shaper, and I may be wrong for generalizing, they would rather have the architecct relay to them in detail exactly what the idea and final product should be.  Then the architect gives a little license to the shaper within that idea.  Instead of saying "make it happen" and then leaving for a month.

I guess accidents happen all the time in art, gardening, nature, etc.   I think that many of the quality designs we talk about on GCA are done by architects/designers (thought I would try to be correct after previous threads) that dont care about name recognition.  Sure they have to be able to get the next job, after they finish, but hopefully their work is their name.

They care more about the design and the final product...the good ones allow for the accidents to evolve on-site during the construction....even if the accidents/ideas come from a summer intern with a shovel in his hand....that person may have a valid point....I think thats when you have a good architect.  Thats when it doesnt matter whose name goes on the project cause the project will hopefully be a passion for all.

I do think that these architects are rare to find and many are on this site often in discussions.  I also think many designers start out small and eventually grow too large losing the golden touch but, hey thats when their names become more valuable than their designs.

You have to bear in mind I am young to the industry and have grand ideas of what "should" make a great designer.  I understand that the large corporation designers live and die by name recognition.  (To cut to the chase all designers do in every design field or any field)

But it has been nice to see what the smaller firms are doing with the more hands on approaches to design...so that they are there when the accidents occur, many times on the machines making those accidents happen.

I guess we will start to see more designers with shovels in their hands that want to help create their visions.  But there will always be the others that will show up with their white shirts at a red clay jobsite once a month with the wind blowing dust.  Then jetting off to project P, Q, R, and S in four different corners of the world.

Hopefully in time the public will demand from the developers  quality designs...not just a market name sake.  I think we will eventually get there.

[ian]

Scott,
There is a great sculptor in Vancouver (can't think of the name, sorry) who produced the sculpture that currently sits in the Canadian Embassy in Washington. He concieved the idea, sketched the concept, created a small (clay?) working model. He could not possible build it all due to scale. Additionally due to his health, his apprentices actually carved the entire sculpture. Is he the artist, are they all the artist? Since the instilation only hgas his name, did he receive too much credit? Same question as yours.

Yes accidents, or room to stray, creates many subtle features not in the plans. The shaper always blends and creates better than any plan could instruct. These blends and changes help make a course better, but the architect has final approval on what goes in the ground. Most architects I know like to share the credit with all the construction and green's staff when ever they get a chance. Golf is a huge collaboration.

Should a golf superintendent get all the credit? He gets all the praise when its good, but is often fired when things go bad.

[JohnH]

I feel architects and superintendent's don't get ENOUGH credit for the job they do.  People in general don't have any idea what it takes to take on these projects and see them through.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ian, You bring up a great point.

Maybe you might remember a few years ago the group that had the actual plans to build Leonardo DaVinci's humongous equine statue that he never saw built.

It certainly seemed to be a great effort, although not being actually DaVinci's work or at least under his direction--the passion was there.

BUt lets not forget how many Hockney's are out there in the world that he hasn't even seen!

An article on it--

 
" of the Horse, I shall say nothing,
because I know the times... "
Leonardo da Vinci, circa 1497
Leonardo expresses his regret on not    
being able to complete the great horse






DAVINCI'S HORSE
   Speaking of Leonardo Davinci.. five hundred years ago he planned on casting a 24-foot-tall bronze statue of a horse for his patron, Duke Ludovico Sforza of Milan. Unfortunately French troops had to invade and ruin everything. They saw DaVinci's full-size clay model of the horse and thought it a grand idea to use it for target practice, reducing it to rubble.
    
The construction of DaVinci's horse was the pet project of Charles Dent (who died five years before its completion). Based on the plans discovered in Spain in 1966, the 24 ft. horse was cast and assembled in Beacon, New York. It was then broken into seven manageable pieces and flown to Milan.

On September 10, 1999 Leonardo's horse was unveiled in Milan at the Cultural Park, 15 tons of magnificent bronze exactly to his proportions. The $6 million gift to Milan acknowledges the legacy of the Italian Renaissance, an equine version of the Statue of Liberty. Personally I would be wary of any giant gift horse.

A month later the second casting called the American Horse ($2.4 million copy) was sited trotting through the Frederik Meijer Gardens in Grand Rapids Michigan.
  
It is sad and ironic that neither DaVinci nor Charles Dent lived to see the fulfillment of their monumental dream.

[Paul Richards]

Scott:

I have often wondered the same.  Do you then also think they get too much of the blame?

[Scott Wicker]

Probably so Paul.  I suppose what inspired my initial remarks was that IMO many aspects of architecture can often be the victim of over the top philosophical analysis.  I once heard Bill Curry say while commentating during a college football game, "a good offense should be like a good religion.  It ought to have an answer for everything".  Do you suppose that good architecture should follow suite?

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Oh, no we got somebody quoting Bill Curry!  Thats a stectch..he was a crook if crook ever needed a definition.  Look out Curry is invited to the party put up the china and if you know any poor atheletes dont let him write a check! NCAA on the prowl....oh they gotcha this year!  Seems to be a problem!  I mean the guy went 10-0 and then lost to Auburn( War Eagle) then to Miami for the tiltle...why does he desrve to be in the talk unless its threaded under Phil Mickelson choker thread...shoulda won.  I mean the guy started his carrer at UA witha brick thru his window by the gutless Universiy of Alabama at Tuscaloosa fans.  We Auburn people always say UA at Tuscaloosa...really pisses them off since there is a University of Alabama at Birmingham that at least produces grads that save lives(Docs) other than pump gas!  Ha sorry folks been away from SEC too long and cant wait to talk trash this year that includes the UGA losing streak!

Oh to answer Paul, Curry said that because he had to pray alot for his job after that season.  He should have won the title.

War Eagle!

[Scott Wicker]

I never would have thought I could stir up "Iron Bowl" emotions on this website.  Congrats to the Plainsmen for no ties on the record in 2001.

Go Vols

[Paul Richards]

Scott and RC:

Who is Bill Curry?  Never heard of him.

Is he related to that pro-basketball player Dell Curry?

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Scott,

Yeah its kinda funny that the Iron Bowl got brought up.  Funny how that topic can find its way into random discussions.  Good to see a fellow SEC fan.  As for no ties to the title in 2001....I know we should have sealed the deal last year but went on a losing rollecoaster ride for the last couple of games.

Paul,

Curry was an Alabama football coach and like all Alabama football coaches after the Bear, you cant trust them with anything including your daughters and liquor cabinet.

Cheers,

When does AU play Vols next...is it this year?

[Jeff_McDowell]

Somewhat to play devil's advocate, but also because I believe it - I think the architect gets too much credit when things go well and too little criticism when things go poorly.

When a project turns out great the architect did their job. Do they deserve praise, adulation, and exaltation for doing their job? They were one of many people that worked together to create something nice. Everyone deserves the credit.

When something turns out poorly, the blame goes to a poor contractor an abusive owner or poor grow-in, but I think the blame should go squarely on the architect. They are the only person hired by the owner that should understand the big picture.

Jeff

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Mant times understanding the big picture and convincing the owner to let you handle it become different matters.  Especially on lower budget courses.
Mike

[Jeff_McDowell]

Your point is a good one. Many times the owner trumps the architect, and there is nothing an architect can do about it. Do you have a specific example in mind?

[Scott_Burroughs]

I never would have guessed that little-known NBAer Dell Curry would get a mention on this site.  Dell was a senior when I was a freshman at VT, and is still my fave in the NBA, though he's near the end of his career.  And no, no relation as Bill C is white and Dell C is black (along with other famous Curry's, Michael, also of the NBA, and the two-sport Ronald from UNC.

Here's a question.  Do certain architects get too much credit when a course is well-received, versus when it's not?  And vice versa, do they get too much flak when when it's not?

[Tom Doak]

Well, you can't have it both ways ... you either have to give us the credit, or take away the blame.  

Personally, I'll take both.  I'm glad to acknowledge that to build an outstanding course takes a lot of help from a host of people -- the client, contractor, shapers, design associates, superintendent, and others.  But, I doubt they'd have done it without my input.  As Brian Phillips says, the architect does approve every piece of the puzzle that someone else puts in place.  And, I don't think many people realize how many decisions an architect can make in 30-40 days on site.

I DO agree with the sentiment expressed in the question, that some architects get away with taking all the credit and none of the blame.  When a big name produces a dud -- and there have been a lot of them in the past ten years -- no one pays any attention to it.  The magazines aren't going to write negatives, so they're just allowed to print the same p.r. drivel that the better courses do about "the owner's commitment to quality," etc.

No one should have it both ways.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()