Should Architects Pay no Heed to Members' Ideas?

[Mark_F]

How many architects, whether renovating a course, or 'adjusting' something new, would actually take on board members' suggestions?

I realise it is an area fraught with danger - after all, how would you decide which and how many members to listen to - but surely some members, and their regular guests, have some ideas worth listening to?

After all, golf architecture is an art, and it is all too easy for artists to get caught up in the brilliance of their own creations.

Has this happened?

[paul cowley]

Mark....quite to the contrary, there are many wonderful minds here that are not in the 'business' and that is why I participate.....its certainly not to read my brilliant musings.

A cross section of our little fraternity of golf designers would probably be similar to one of members of this DG....as designers, all of us have a very different story to tell about how we got here.
....and for every one of us, I am sure there thousands of equally talented persons who will never get their break.

Some probably even lurk here .

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I think Paul has it right.  

I don't think it comes down necessarily to which members or how many members, you arre constantly absorbing what is being said without regard to who it is or that would be showing some bias to one or more members because of something other than the integrity of the idea.  To determine which ideas you use really it starts with the attitude of what you feel is best for the golf course without regard for who gets the credit.  So many things we all do including local volunteer work included people whose sole concern is getting credit for their ideas.   Once you get beyond that and mature then it matters little whose idea it was as long as it mkaes the right kind of improvement in the course.  When you want the best for the course I think you begin to take everything personally as if it is your course that you are a deeply invested member or owner which I think is good, as I told one member when we were having debates about tree clearing I told him that I cared more about his course than probably 95% of the members and I really believed that.  So when you listen to suggestions and take them to heart without any regard for who gets the credit I think you begin to formulates the ideas and plans that are best for the course.  Also taking things personally you are more inclined to debate the merits of the ideas, and if you feel strongly debate them with passion, not as some guy that is just collecting a fee and moving on, but as a guy who believes he will be around this course until he dies or retires.  Of course the debate must be civil but you must do everything you can to make people see the merits of the idea.  Of course in the end you don't own the place   so you must always keep that in mind.

[SL_Solow]

I certainly do not have the experience of our architect brethren but as the former Pres. of a classic course that underwent significant work during my tenure I have some insight into the issue.  The problem is not with the quality of some of the suggestions, although many made by members are incredibly bad.  Rather, the difficulty lies in maintaining a "vision" for the course if too many "consultants" are brought on board, each with their own preferences.  Additionally, if one person or faction is pereceived as having too much influence, political problems will ensue.  Thus, while as Pat Mucci reminds us, the members own the course and have the final say, the best practice is to have the club sign off on the plan and then leave it to the architect to accept or reject advice as he sees fit.  Professinals who are secure in their identity will know where to draw the line.

[paul cowley]

.....obviously I confused 'members' of this board with members of clubs....but I am going to leave it because I don't always have Kelly suggesting I got something right .
...it feels good and I'm am going to build on that as my days inspirational!

[cary lichtenstein]

I have seen boards select architects and so overly influence them that it is a joke.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I have seen boards select architects and so overly influence them that it is a joke.

I have seen architects so overly influence boards that it is a joke

Paul,

It probably isn't a good thing to have me on your side.  that may not be good for your position on this website

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

The very first consulting job I interviewed for was at a great, historic course, and I learned a valuable lesson.

I wasn't quite sure what to expect in the way of suggestions from the committee, but as we were walking the course, the green chairman told me about the architect they had interviewed the week before, who had asked him what changes they most wanted to make so he could agree with those, hoping to win the job by being the most agreeable candidate.  The green chairman told me succinctly that was the end of that candidate, and that the club was looking for someone who could tell them the right thing to do, not the other way around.

Of course, the members of a club know their course better over time than any architect will ever know it, and it's very important to listen to them about how the present course works in play -- filtering out, of course, their own personal prejudices over certain features which cause them the most trouble.  Personally, though, I would prefer if they waited to offer their ideas of design solutions to these issues until I had a chance to think about it for myself for a while.  My value as a consultant is partly because I'm an outsider with a fresh perspective on the situation, who isn't stuck in the same rut they are.

I don't disagree with Paul and with Kelly that members sometimes make great suggestions, and it's important to keep an open mind to good ideas no matter where they come from:  I learned that from Pete Dye a long time ago.  But, we architects sometimes make great suggestions too, and I've been to more than one club where they were unwelcome because they differed from the green chairman's idea.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Well said Tom.

[JESII]

Is it just me or does it seem a bit odd for a club to go to the effort and expense of hiring a professional golf course architect only to try and force your own ideas on them. Maybe I'm a bit idealistic on this, and surely the guy writing the check should have some say as to what happens but a good architect client relationship should seemingly entail the club providing their list of goals and objectives and the architect attemting to accomplish those very goals and objectives.

Obviously each of the architects participating on here have multiple stories of where this relationship went off the tracks a bit, so let's here some good ones guys.

[paul cowley]

I agree with Tom and Kelly although in this round robin I'll stay away from ditto heads .......I am curious Kelly, what you would consider my position is on this website....I've always felt I had little to lose here, but then again "all those who wander are not lost" .....and at least I am learning to type.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Doak, In the last case you referenced, do you tell the green chairman 'thanks but no thanks'. Or, do you try to illustrate where his ideas are less desirable?

I had the opportunity to walk with a green comm. chairman and their consulting architect when the chairman asked the architect what he would do to help this one hole. Basically the green chair wanted some type of containment left of the green, because OB loomed so close. I opined contrarily due to the short nature of the hole, and reducing the opportunity to go OB was a bad idea. I dont think they saw it the same way.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

but a good architect client relationship should seemingly entail the club providing their list of goals and objectives and the architect attemting to accomplish those very goals and objectives.

I don't think that is an absolute goal because the architect and client may differ on the goals even after the architect is hired you may find that the general statements by club members seemed in line with your philosophy actually are not, so at that point you may spend considerably time dissecting their goals and objectives and trying to bring them more into what you think is the proper approach.  In the end it might be best to split.  Or hopefully you work it out.

Paul,

You are one of the main guys on here, the big boys, so your position is a lofty one.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

Kelly answered your question, too.  Sometimes we are already on the payroll before we find out what the club's true goals are, and then it's a professional matter whether to continue with the work as the club wants it done, or whether the differences are so substantial that we cannot do that with a clear conscience.  I've only walked away from one consulting job where I had been hired to do a master plan, and it later became clear that the green chairman just wanted me to do his bidding.

If you are really busy, you can take the position that you will only do what you think is right and no more, and take the chance that someone will think you're an ass for taking that stand.  If you are an icon in the business, there does come a point where the members dare not say anything to you and you just do whatever you want, and then maybe you're at the point which Mark was trying to describe in the beginning of this thread.

[JESII]

That makes sense Kelly, my point is that you are the guy that does it for a living so your opinion (once I've committed to accept it by hiring you) should carry the weight in the course of work, not every time, but the vast majority of times. I understand the end result must seem like a moving target sometimes but if I, as the club decision maker, give you a specific end target I should be able to trust you on the specific details of the route to get there. Otherwise how can I justify your fee, and how could you claim the work as yours? I guess you addressed this last part up above (claiming the work) and understandably managing a collaborative effort has its own responsibilities and benefits as well so don't think I'm knocking that, I'm not.

[Tim MacEachern]

I'm just a course member, not even a member of the "new course" committee, but I looked at this design and had some thoughts, the chief one I'll list below.  Perhaps you can guess before I list it.



The clubhouse is red in the middle, #9 comes down from the upper left (Northwest), #18 is the par-5 around/over the water finishing below the clubhouse.  #17 is the island green.

Spoiler/my thoughts:

Why not leave some room between #9 and #18 green for lake access -- it's ideal there, close to the clubhouse, overlooks the island green, good for tournaments.  Make up your mind before spending $100,000 on #9 green.

[corey miller]

Consider a classic era course designed by a famous Architect that has been tinkered with beyond recognition but the membership does not know it.  Because of engineering incompetance the twelve year old bunkering needs to be fixed.  This bunkering is the golf equivelant of the powder blue leisure suit.  We have two plans.

1.  Hire an agreeable guy and give him a laundry list of things we want changed, problems with the course and the need for length at every possible tee.  Tell him what we want the bunkering to look like and compare the negatives of the course to Caves Valley and Hudson National and Trump National.  Of course the agreeable architect will say all the right things because who would not pay homage to the original designer?  

OR

2.  Hire someone and say "we now realize this course looks and plays nothing like it should, what do you suggest"?

Which do you think produces a better product?  

After seeing the plan it may be appropriate for members that have been involved in the process to interject some help with things that may not be readily apparant.  

I would hope the every architect has walked away from a project because of owner meddling  at some point in their career.

[JESII]

Agreed with your last sentence Corey.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

JESII,

I misinterpreted you.  This format is hard because you can't clarify and expound like in a conversation.  

Corey,

Had yu not dated the bunkers at 12 years I would have thought you were writing about a course I am becoming very familiar with.  I would definately pursue the spirit of #2.  

I would hope for an architects sake the owner has enough respect for his work, and having interacted that respect grows to a point where the architect would never have to walk away from a job.  I not certain if walking away from at least one job says something all that positive about an architect, but I understand the intent of your post.

[tonyt]

When a lawyer is a committee member and starts meddling with the archie, it would pay to remind this member that he wouldn't let the archie represent him in court, no matter how good his understanding of a particular field of law and his interest in it. The architect is hopefully a professional in his field.

Yes, members are often members because they love the game and their course, and some have a vastly better knowledge or understanding of design or issues pertaining to their course than other members will. Thankfully, a good architect will normally be able to identify in conversation which members are up to it and which ones are closer to being just ignorant.

This is not the problem. The problem is when the member who has little clue doesn't recognise his shortcomings and makes as much or more noise about the architect's ideas negatively as a productive member makes in the positive. Worse still is when that member has significant influence.

[JESII]

So Tony, how would one properly handle this last instance?

[tonyt]

Excellent question. I'm not an architect, so I can't answer.

I'm in fine wine marketing and retail and my role is very specialised around product knowledge, so I guess my equivalent is when a patron seeks my advice but also has the ideas of someone back at their office "who's into wine" and gave suggestions, or when they take advice and then ring a friend for approval of my suggestions.

You see a lot of unfortunate and unknowing decisions being made as a result, but when the patron is at least relying on me partly, they'll use my input as part of piecing together their puzzle, so the clever route is to make what I think is a good suggestion from those products which fit the aims and ideas of the suggestion made by their acquaintance.

Its small scale stuff with rarely these decisions costing more than a few thousand dollars, and the number of patrons served per day means my public reputation is not there for all to see based on the result. so I can only sit in wonder at the process when seven figure sums may be at stake and the resulting work may become a common reference for the architect for future work!

I'm hoping that since this process is a lot longer than a retail exchange, then the architect has a stage for quite some time upon which to portray their ideas and show their aims and reasoning very thoroughly. They too will have the ability I'm sure to be able to listen to what the ignoramus' key reasons are and therefore be able to attempt to show why his plans work by either addressing the alleged problem or by showing that the problem doesn't really exist in the form the member believes it does. Diplomatically, it must feel sometimes like being an ambassador to Japan having to discuss the subject of whaling

[Kelly Blake Moran]

JESII,

I was in a very similar situation, we add many meetings on iste and the negative person was very personable and did not challenge things in front of me, other issues he questioned we discussed in a cordial manner, but once I was gone reportedly he was stirring up a lot of negative energy.  Ultimately, through a lot of meetings discussions and so on, and ultimately once we got underway with construction, my approach won out. I nt certian if there was any prescribed way to make it go more smoothly, I think we had to go through the long drawn out approach, the many meetings the many presentations and so on.  I just saw a quote recently that may describe it somewhat:

"Thou shalt not" might reach the head, but it takes "Once upon a time to reach the heart", so through the process I had to reach the heart of many of the influential members and that takes time, you have to tell the story. Once I reached the heart then it became overwelming and the negative guy lost influence.

[JESII]

Diplomatically, it must feel sometimes like being an ambassador to Japan having to discuss the subject of whaling

I think that statement might get some agreement from Kelly, Tom, Jeff Brauer and the rest of the architect contributors here.

By the way, don't you think your consulting experiences might be very similar to those of the GCA if we were to take the dollar figures out of the equation? Wine certainly seems to be a subject in which many amateurs percieve a particular self-expertise and are very happy to distribute their opinions quite cheaply.

[Ian Andrew]

No, an architect should listen, it still doesn't mean they should take direction.

It all comes down to the members knowledge of golf architectecture and the original architects work. Some are very knowledgable and you choose to colaborate with them to find the best direction for the club. I love working with club historians in particular, I have yet to meet one who didn't improve the process and the direction of the work.

The problem comes from someone solely focused on themselves. They see the golf course as an extension of what they like and how they play. They are dangerous and difficult to deal with.