Right Architect Can Mean Cost Savings

Any golf course architect can design a great golf course with an inflated budget. Yet a great design without cost control is also a potential failure.

Unfortunately, many first-time owners aren't savvy enough about the process to understand that controlling golf course construction costs is simpler than they might expect, yet absolutely vital to long-term health of the project.

Not many golf course architects can design a first-class golf course within a limited budget that also meets the golfer's needs. That's why a golf course architect with a proven track record of cost control, not necessarily a big name, should be at the top of an owner's wish list. The star factor and many other fallacies about golf architecture have contributed to a struggling industry.

Here are a few of those myths and the reality behind each:

Myth: A golf course architect who is cost conscious isn't creative enough.

Reality: It takes more creativity to design a golf course that fits the client's budget than designing a golf course without controlling costs. The primary tasks of the golf course architect should be to first, to provide the basic function, second, to develop a strategy for each golf hole based upon the lay of the land and, finally, to do everything in his or her power to make each golf course feature fit properly, drain properly and be maintainable.

There is much more creativity involved in the process when a strict budget is adhered to than when the budget ceiling is continually broken in the name of creativity. If an architect is challenged by financial constraints, it will take more thought and design to provide a solution than to just throw more money at the challenge.

Myth: Detailed construction documents limit creativity and result in a stale or rigid golf course.

Reality: There are two schools of thought when it comes to producing detailed construction documents. Architects who can produce such a package will - those who cannot will minimize the importance of a complete construction document package. The bottom line is that a project with a well-presented and well-thought-out construction documents package will always come in closer to budget when compared to a set of drawings which leaves many items up for interpretation.

Field adjustments are inevitable, but the more the site is considered, and the more issues that can be worked out on the drawing board (and not while the bulldozsers are running), than the more control an owner will have over the final cost and potential success or failure of a project.

Myth: The most talented architects creat golf holes in the field

Reality: In my view, the least talented architects create golf holes in the field. Anyone can spend two days straight with a shaper and bulldozer at their mercy while the golf hole evolves or slowly comes out of the ground. That costs money and an architect with that reputation also comes with a fluff factor when contractors bid on their projects (i.e. the extra percentage of money calculated into the cost of the project for hand-waving and creativity).

Myth: A golf course product is better when the architect is always on site.

Reality: I visit a project site a minimum of once a week and will stay on site anywhere from on day to a whole week. The average number of site visits I make exceeds 40 trips, so I do consider being on site very important. By the same token, sometimes an architect can interfere with progress by being on site at unnecessary points in the project.

After the best architect is selected, the most secure method for an owner to control costs is simply in quantification. The developer, architect, and contractor should all work together prior to groundbreaking to establish as many hard quantities as possible and minimize line items that are vague.

Originally featured in the August 2005 issue of Golf Inc magazine.

« By RMGA