Well put, Ian. A great way to explain it, as its hard to draw a line in the sand, especially considering most courses have evolved (often for the better, but again, that's a judgement call) over the years. I will try one more.....
Artists and designers of all kinds value freedom of design expression just as citizens value freedom of opinion expression. And, just as you may disagree with what I say, but defend my right to say it, designers will defend another architect's right to design expression, whether they like it or not. That right is a big picture issue for designers, a constitutional issue versus an individual (in which preservation of golf courses falls) law issue, . Few professionals would go serve on an ethics board to disipline another for so called design transgressions.
Tom,
I think all kinds of preservation is very political! There rarely is one right answer to any issue, only shades of gray perspective. Getting your idea (as greens chairman, or whatever) pushed through is politics!
And preservation in all fields is some about style, and even more about designs true meaning, which is function! And even as much about politics. (as in what city district do we spend federal funds) Yes, it was sad to see old buildings torn down, but if they couldn't be made safe, or found no economic value, like converting train depots and old factorys to restaurants, offices, or lofts, or living museums (most with public subsidy) they did not get restored.
Yes, golf courses still serve the same function, but we spend lots of time and typing here discussing just how much the game has changed. So, it makes sense to SOME people that the courses must change, especially since they won't get any public museum subsidies. In essence, I understand your passion for preservation, but you may feel differently about footing the bill for it!
I agree preservation should be part of our heritage. I just don't know that it has to be all inclusive, nor do I think it should necessarily be the focus of ASGCA. In the last few years, we have focused on affordable golf and environmental protection, which, it can be argued, does far more for golf than had we put all our energy into preserving a few old courses, even if we could be effective. (Our track record as a small group really is symbolic more than substantial)
BTW, calling the ASGCA a closed organization, or suggesting it is unethical is simply not so. As to ethics, you know 4 members, who you think are honest men, so do you think we are the exceptions?
As to openess, any practicing American golf course architect meeting our minimum qualifications (which have changed little since 1947) and successfully completing a rigorous (yet standard) screening process, gets a democratic vote. While there may be a few mistakes over the years in that process, equal treatment of applications and the democratic process is correct in the very, very, large majority of membership votes.
You may champion the case of non-members, and that is your right. But, if an architect is not in, believe me, chances are overwhelming that she/he either doesn't have yet the experience we require, doesn't practice in an ethical manner as best as we can determine, (at least as we or AIA define it) or has never applied.
The A.I.A. model of accepting any one with a degree, a few months experience as an associate, and someone willing to pay his dues serves a profession of thousands well, but the membership requirements for ASGCA works well for our small profession. The people who are not in ASGCA - and some quirks in the system, which are inevitable (ie, needing 5 courses leaves out renovation specialists) may be magnified by the having such small numbers in the profession.