The True Value of Design
设计的真正价值 By Tom Doak 作者 汤姆 多克 Allan Zhang 翻译 张旭 Printed in Golf Course Architecture Magazine, Europe, January 2006
发表于高尔夫球场设计杂志，欧洲版，2006年1月 When I first got the opportunity to work alongside Pete Dye, I would have worked for free just for the experience -- but back in the summer of 1981, I was paid the princely sum of $4.50 per hour to work on the crew at Long Cove. As skinny as I was back then, I probably wasn’t worth it.
当我第一次得到与皮特戴一起工作的时候，我是没有薪水的，仅仅是为了获得工作经验；但是若回到1981年的夏天，当我在long cove球场任职的时候，我的薪水是4.5美元每小时，现在看来，那时我可能并不值这个价钱。 To this day, I seldom think about the money when I’m actually working on a routing or out on a site. (I told my son when he was small that I design courses for free, but I get paid to travel.) I certainly never thought about it when I had the chance to work on my first solo design, or any day I spent on site at Pacific Dunes in Oregon; I felt like it would have paid for me to design those courses for free, because of the recognition they might bring and the opportunities they would create. Yet, I’ve got eight associates doing outstanding work who deserve to be rewarded for it; and as a more informed business person today, I now understand that we brought much more value to those jobs than I would have dared to ask for back then.
今天，当我去访场时，我很少考虑钱的问题（当我儿子小的时候，我告诉他我给别人免费设计球场，我就可以免费旅行）。当我第一次独立设计球场的时候，我从来没有想过钱的问题，在俄勒冈Pacific Dunes球场工作的时候，我更没有考虑过钱的问题，我想其将不会付给我设计费，因为他们会冒一定的风险，同时也会创造一定的机会。现在我已经得到了8个机构颁发的杰出奖项；如今作为一名更正式的商务人士，我终于明白了从过去那些工作中获得的价值比当时所想要要多得多。。 The pricing of design services is one of the most complex problems I have tried to puzzle out. We all know that golf architecture is a very competitive business, yet the designers who charge the highest fees are by far the busiest, and everyone else scrambles for the leftovers. Prices vary tremendously from one region to the next because of local competition and local costs: for example, designers in the western USA tend to charge higher fees than those in the east or midwest, because those projects tend to entail bigger irrigation systems and more engineering and overall higher costs, and it only seems fair that designers are paid more to put in the time to deal with more details.
设计服务的价钱曾经是我最为迷惑的一个复杂问题。我们都知道高尔夫球场设计师一个非常具有竞争性的行业，那些要价最高的设计师多是那些最忙的设计师，其他的那些人（普通设计师）就去争抢那些残羹冷炙（低成本的高尔夫项目）了。由于当地的竞争和当地的成本，某个地区和其他地区的价格是天壤之别的。例如：设计师在美国西部的设计费要价通常比在中东部要高些，因为这些项目必须要求更多的喷灌系统、工程和总体成本，唯一看起来似乎合理的是：给设计师支付更多，他们才能花更多的时间去处理细节问题。 In early days, some of the great designers were amateurs who refused to take a fee for their labors, while others based their fees on a percentage of construction costs. The latter method makes sense from some perspectives, but since it also creates an incentive for the designer to add frills to the design and drive up his own fees, it is frowned upon by the professional societies and by some clients.
早期，一些伟大的设计师都是将设计作为其业余职业，他们不接受劳务费，而其他人的收费则是按照建造成本的百分点收取的。从某些角度来说，后者更合理些；但是这样以来，使得一些设计师在设计里面加入更多的花拳绣腿以提高自己的设计费，但是一些专业协会和一些客户却对此必以为然。 Today, a select few designers are paid fees amounting to more than a million dollars, not all of which is directly attributable to their design work. Part of their fees are justified by the value of their reputation toward selling memberships or real estate, and we should all be grateful, because their high prices have enabled the rest of us to make a healthy living while still appearing to be reasonably priced. (The irony is that the big names are priced out of competing to design on the best land for golf, because their name brand is of little value if the property is good enough to attract golfers without it.)
今天，少数设计师的设计费动辄百万美金，并不是所有的钱都花在他们的设计工作上。一部分费用用于他们（设计师）声誉所带来的商业价值—为了更好的销售球场的会员和房地产。我们（指设计师）应心怀感激，他们（业主）的高价钱会让我们的下半辈子能过上更富足的日子，然而这仍然也是看似合理的价格。；（有点可笑的是，大牌的设计师往往不会去竞标那些最合适做高尔夫项目的地块，因为如果球场本身的条件既然没有有名的设计师也能吸引球手，设计师名望的附加价值就显得无足轻重了。） For the rest, fees are decided in a relatively uninformed open market, and competition from other designers ensures that few really get what their efforts are worth. Design fees are based vaguely on name reputation, but not really on value.
其他的设计师（不同于那些百万美金设计费的）的设计费，是由圈内的开放市场、以及与其他设计师的竞争共同决定的，他们中少数人拿到的钱与他们的设计水平相称。而大多数设计师的设计费大体上也是基于他们的名誉声望，而并非是真正的设计价值的体现。 My first solo design, High Pointe in Michigan, provided a great lesson about the realities of the business of golf course development. My client at High Pointe was a novice in the golf business [or he probably wouldn’t have hired a rookie designer!], and when we talked dreamily about building a high-quality but affordable public golf course, I was enthralled with his good intentions. However, by the time the project was growing in, he was more of a realist about all the non-golf costs of getting a course opened, and he was being told by outside observers that his course would be better than those down the road. So, in the run-up to opening, the business plan changed from $45 green fees to $80, simply because it was thought that was what the market would bear. That price wasn’t sustainable in what is now a very competitive market, but because the costs of construction were not high, the original client still owns it 18 years later. My lesson was that golf course architects are not the only ones whose fees are determined by a competitive market; our clients are equally at the mercy of their competitors, because green fees and membership fees are determined not by cost of construction, but by the course’s place in the market and by the price the golfer will bear, which are hard to predict.
在密歇根的High Pointe球场，是我的第一次的独立设计，其将高尔夫开发行业的真实情况给我好好的上了一课。High Pointe的业主，是高尔夫行业的新手（他极不可能请一位刚入行的设计师）。当我们做梦似地谈到要建造一座高质量的高尔夫球场，而且还要让公众消费的起，我对他的意图很是迷惑。然而，到了球场草坪快要长好的时候，他对那些要使球场开业的非球场成本变得更加现实，外面的人告诉他，他的球场将会比街道对面的球场要好。就这样，在开业的准备阶段，果岭费从原先的45美金涨到了80美金，因为他们认为这个价格在市场上是可以接受的。那个价格（果岭费）在如今竞争激烈的市场上并没有维持太久，但是因为建造成本不高，原先的业主在18年后还拥有这家球场。从这里我学到的是：不但设计师的费用由竞争激烈的市场决定的；连我们的客户也是受制于竞争对手，因为果岭费和会员费不是由建造成本决定，而是由球场所在地的市场、球手可以负担的起的价格共同决定的，这个又是难以预测的。 Ultimately, none of the pricing systems in place are good for the game of golf. In America, most developers now choose a high-end private-club model so they can sell out sooner and minimize their risk, instead of keeping the course public and taking a long-term chance on its economic future. By insisting on our fees up front, we designers share the responsibility for that trend.
不幸的是，所有地方的价格体系都对高尔夫运动本身不利。在美国，多数开发商现在都是选择顶级私人会员俱乐部的模式，这样他们就可以尽快销售完（会籍），将风险降到最低；而不是选择将球场公众化，通过长期的机会来获得收益。由于我们的设计费涨在前面，我们设计师也应对这种趋势承担责任。
Surely, our clients assume most of the risk and so they ought to reap most of the reward. The client has a hand in how the course is run and how it is marketed, and it is enormously important to make good decisions on what property to build on, and how much to invest in an appropriately-sized clubhouse. What we as designers bring to the table is experience – more specifically, our perspective on the cost vs. benefit of the decisions we make in our designs. If golfers are willing to pay more because they love a course, and the cost of construction was relatively low, the client makes a windfall; but if the course is only perceived as average and the cost of construction was higher than the competition, then the owner will eventually sell the course at a loss, or go through bankruptcy.
我们的客户承担了多数的风险，因此他们的收益也应该最高。客户已经有了球场将如何运转、市场状况的报告，接下来觉得在什么样的地块上面建造球场是极其重要的，当然还要觉得准备投资多少钱来建造合适大小的会所。那我们设计师应该将我们的经验拿出来---更准确的是：我们决定采用什么样的设计，以及将来的投资和收益。如果球手愿意掏更多是因为他们喜欢一个球场，同时球场的建造成本又相对较低，那客户就见了大便宜；但是如果球场仅仅让大家觉得很普通，并且建造成本又相对较高，那么最终业主会便宜的卖掉球场或是最终倒闭。
From that perspective, the current lump-sum fee structure used by most modern designers is poorly designed. I am now experimenting with a different protocol, whereby some part of the fee would be made as royalty payments, based on the success and profitability of my courses. It’s a perfect model for a project in a remote location, where the client has to be pessimistic about the potential for profits because success depends on people coming from afar. If the course isn’t critically successful, it won’t be commercially successful either, and I won’t get paid extra for the design; but if it is very successful, the client will owe me more, and he’ll be happy to pay because it will come out of the profits of operation.
从这点来讲，当代设计师设计出这种一次性付款的的模式相当糟糕。我现在正在尝试一种不同于以往的付款协议，一部分设计费用作为特许使用金（感觉像奖金性质），这个钱是基于我设计的球场是否成功及球场的盈利性而定。这对于偏远地区的项目是一个完美的模式，在那些地方，业主对于球场的潜在盈利都是持悲观态度，因为球场成功与否是由将来这里打球的人员决定的。如果球场将来不成功，那么其在商业的收益也不会成功，那么我也将不会因为我的设计而拿到奖金；但是如果球场将来非常成功，那客户欠我的将会更多，那时他也乐意付我这笔钱，因为这个钱是从多出来的利润里来的。 To make such an agreement, you have to have enough faith in your ability to be willing to bet on yourself, and you have to trust the client to live up to his end faithfully. But the potential reward is substantial: annual royalty payments from a handful of courses would be enough to fund one’s retirement. In the process, you just might help to make a great project happen which would otherwise never get built.
若是想要达成这样的协议，你必须对你的实力有足够的信心，并乐于和自己打赌；同时，你还必须足够信任你的客户他会一直守信。但是潜在的奖励也是丰富的：每年大把的球场都会给奖金，很容易就会攒够养老金。这个过程中，你或许仅仅是想帮助做出一个伟大的球场，不然还不如不建。
I would also urge everyone to think about the real value of a great design. We all know that a golf course raises property values, but a great golf course raises them more. We’ve recently done projects where the land costs far exceeded the cost of golf course construction … but the client’s ability to charge sky-high membership fees to pay for the land still rests in large part on the success of our design. There is a big picture here, and we are the ones who are painting it.
我同样也鼓励大家考虑下伟大设计的真正价值。我们都知道一个高尔夫球场会让其地块增值，但是一个高尔夫球场给他们带来的会更多。我们最近完成的几个项目，其土地费用远远超过了球场的建造费用，但是我们的可以用天价的会员费来支付土地费用，很大一部分都是依赖于我们设计的成功。哪里有一副巨大的景象，我们就是在哪里正在绘画的人！
Why am I telling you all of this? As someone once said, “a rising tide floats all boats.” The more other designers make for their creative efforts, the more we will make for our own.
为什么我要告诉你们这些，就像有人说道，“水涨船高”。其他设计师创造性的付出越多，我们自己赚的也就越多！
转载请注明来自高缘网！ | 
