Thoughts on Course Modifications and Green Commitees

[Jason Topp]

I recently participated in a green committee meeting where we met with an architect to decide whether to make modifications to a hole where some trees have recently died.

A few comments from the experience that I thought might be helpful for others:

1.  I certainly have more respect for the political side of an architect's job.  No matter what he recommends, it will be different than the input he has gotten from committee members.  Handling that will be more interesting to see than whatever happens to the golf hole.

2.  It is critical that you have input from some representatives from the club that hit the ball less than 200 yards off the tee.  A woman on our committee pointed out some issues that would never have occurred to me.

3.  Making a decision by committee would be a miserable way to determine how to alter a golf course.  This meeting was for the purpose of providing ideas, and there was little consensus in the group for what should be done.  Spending more than this idea meeting as a group would lead to entrenched positions and a rumble.

4.  If you are an architect showing up for a meeting, even if you are just being hired for a couple of hours to get input - go out and spend time on the hole before the meeting.  This architect clearly had not spent any time on the hole beforehand and he looked a little silly when he was mistaken about the location of a hidden pond.  

5.  Even if it is a meeting for getting input, I think it would have been best if the architect would have had 3 ideas on what to do with the hole (1) nothing; (2) an approach that provides more options; and (3) an approach that makes the hole more difficult.  I'm not being critical of the architect here because he was not hired to make proposals at this juncture.  It is something to consider for those hiring architects and for architects as a condition of doing this type of work.

6.  I'm not sure how master plans fit into this equation.  But it is clear that implementing a master plan is probably more difficult than making one in the first place.  

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Jason, I find point 4 distressing.  How unprofessional!

[cary lichtenstein]

Why not just pick the best architect and let him do what he does best...and tell the committe to be quiet

I think whoever gets it, should pick the architect based on the topography you have and which architect s work you love with a similiar topo

[Scott Witter]

Jason:

Glad to hear that you have participated, hope you enjoyed your experience and continue to remain involved.

While many on this site do understand what us architects must endure at times and all the hats we must wear, most don't I feel, it is much appreciated to hear you state your respect...thanks.

2. Yes, it is essential I believe, when doing master plans and other course renovations to have a good cross-representation of members on committee to provide their perspective based on their game.

3. Agreed, it is difficult to achieve results, but few of us rarely have the autonomy to make the improvements/changes without a committee, we hope however, and it is largely through our efforts, that the committee is informed and that they listen to our experience and research we gather...this makes them better at making good decisions, sometimes, any decisions!

4. Ouch! Not smooth, I'm thinking this architect won't be asked to submit a proposal

5. This would be fundamental it would seem, and while the best design solution may be immediately apparent to the architect, it often is, it is beneficial to consider and show other possibilities, at the end of the day, it isn't our course and if packaged right, the architect can still guide them to the original best solution.

6. Actually, I have found it to be the opposite, where developing the master plan was much more difficult to gain support and have the committee reach an agreement on.  Usually, if the master plan is solid, implementing it is normally smoother and only slower based on financial standing.

[Mike_Young]

Jason, I find point 4 distressing.  How unprofessional!

Mark,
Do you know the situation???
Do you know if the architect had an agreement with the committee or was it an initial meeting???
I have been to a committee meeting to speak with them...no agreement....go out and look at a hole.....say something....committee says send me a proposal.....they do this to a few guys....you later find out they have carried out some of your suggestions....no$$$$ in your pocket but members outside of the committee will be saying you said to do such and such.....
I would not look at the hole or give an opinion until we had a meeting to see if we could work together...JMO

[Scott Witter]

Mike:

Aside from Jason maybe being a bit too critical of the architect in point #4, don't you consider at least looking at the hole to be minimally informed so you as an architect could carry on an accurate discussion about a hole in question?  At that point, and if they asked you about your thoughts on the hole, you could decide whether or not if you wanted to offer any design comments, or hold your thoughts and simply have an informed discussion?  Who knows where it could lead

I know where you are coming from with your comments, but isn't this a standard risk we take to offer our thoughts...I don't think you need to give away the grand solution by any means, but being informed and offering design advise are two separate things to me

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

Aside from Jason maybe being a bit too critical of the architect in point #4, don't you consider at least looking at the hole to be minimally informed so you as an architect could carry on an accurate discussion about a hole in question?  At that point, and if they asked you about your thoughts on the hole, you could decide whether or not if you wanted to offer any design comments, or hold your thoughts and simply have an informed discussion?  Who knows where it could lead

I know where you are coming from with your comments, but isn't this a standard risk we take to offer our thoughts...I don't think you need to give away the grand solution by any means, but being informed and offering design advise are two separate things to me

SCOTT,
YES..IF THEY HAD ASKED YOU TO COME OUT THERE AND SPEAK TO THEM ON A FEE BASIS.....JMO

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the comments.  I really did enjoy the opportunity to actually be a part of these discussions.

As to point #4, I just wanted to raise the issue for those of you doing these sorts of things rather than be critical of this particular architect.  He we asked to come out for a very preliminary, information gathering meeting and was not paid much for the work.  

I've found as a lawyer that it is easy to take things of this nature a bit too casually, and that is where you can embarras yourself.  Once, I was asked to provide input into a case that involved a company that manufactured snowmobiles.  The case involved some franchises in Arkansas.  Midway through the initial meeting, I exclaimed "Who uses a snowmobile in Arkansas?"  Turned out they were personal watercraft dealerships.

It can happen to anyone, but its better if it doesn't.  


 

[Jason Topp]

Why not just pick the best architect and let him do what he does best...and tell the committe to be quiet

Cary:

I'm in favor of that so long as he does what I want to do.  

Nonetheless, there is a basic choice to be made on this hole, which is universally considered one of the best on the course - whether it should be a potentially driveable par four with options from very conservative to very agressive, vs. restoring some of the punishment for poor shots that the old trees used to provide.  In addition, there is a question of visuals - whether a water hazard and the green should be made more visible from the tee.  

I have stong views on these issues, but others disagree.  If the architect is hired to serve a club, I do not see how an architect simply imposes his/her will on the club as to which approach is appropriate.

[Dean Paolucci]

Jason - Having spent the better part of the last three years on just this issue, I would offer the following after retaining an architect.  

First, having the green committee involved may be problematic.  Specifically, creating a subcommitte which defines a cross section of the membership is a more efficient model.  Ron Forse suggested 2 Board members (one being the Chair), 2 men with a high and low handicap, two women with a high and low handicap (possibly a club champion type), a present or past Club Champion, a senior member, and an ad hoc member which brings an interesting twist to the point of view.  

Next, a master plan is essential, even if you only plan to do one hole at a time continuity is a must.  Walk the course with the architect and sub committee to determine the existing conditions.  Offer ideas for the architect to capture and make part of his report.  

Next step is to reduce the on site and the conversations to writing to be reviewed.  Once you have reviewed the written report you can discuss the relative merits of these ideas in the context of the whole plan.  Remember the architect is the subject matter expert.  

Further, the architect will come back to you with recommendations as a whole.  Review them again and you will be suprised how many good ideas make it on to the plan in some form or another.  

Now the fun starts!  Selling it to the Membership.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently participated in a green committee meeting where we met with an architect to decide whether to make modifications to a hole where some trees have recently died.

A few comments from the experience that I thought might be helpful for others:

1.  I certainly have more respect for the political side of an architect's job.  No matter what he recommends, it will be different than the input he has gotten from committee members.  Handling that will be more interesting to see than whatever happens to the golf hole.

Jason,

I doubt that design by compromise produces the best architectural product.  Unfortunately, it's a way of life at clubs in the U.S. today.

2.  It is critical that you have input from some representatives from the club that hit the ball less than 200 yards off the tee.  A woman on our committee pointed out some issues that would never have occurred to me.

I disagree.

If you can't understand the game of the broad spectrum of golfers, irrespective of your game, one would have to question your qualifications.

Architects forge a disinterested challenge, they neither favor nor penalize any particular segment of the membership.

You must think in that same "disinterested" context and not in the context of your own game.

The broader the spectrum of golfers you introduce to the committee, the worse the product usually is.
Design by consensus or majority vote impedes and/or dilutes the creative process and the end result.

3.  Making a decision by committee would be a miserable way to determine how to alter a golf course.  This meeting was for the purpose of providing ideas, and there was little consensus in the group for what should be done.  Spending more than this idea meeting as a group would lead to entrenched positions and a rumble.

If you have to hold a meeting to look for ideas you've already lost your way.

Another way of saying this is, if you don't know what you want at the outset, surely you'll end up getting what you didn't want.

4.  If you are an architect showing up for a meeting, even if you are just being hired for a couple of hours to get input - go out and spend time on the hole before the meeting.  This architect clearly had not spent any time on the hole beforehand and he looked a little silly when he was mistaken about the location of a hidden pond.  

I disagree with your perspective.
How was the architect supposed to gleen what the committee wanted to do if the committee didn't know what they wanted to do ?

The architect should have listened to what was said, determined and developed a mission statement, and, with approval of the mission statement, embarked upon rendering a plan.

In life you tend to get what you pay for.
Would you entertain brain or heart surgery if the job was going to be done by the lowest bidder ?

If you hire a professional, pay him well, even overpay him, but, never, never underpay him.

5.  Even if it is a meeting for getting input, I think it would have been best if the architect would have had 3 ideas on what to do with the hole (1) nothing; (2) an approach that provides more options; and (3) an approach that makes the hole more difficult.  I'm not being critical of the architect here because he was not hired to make proposals at this juncture.[/color]

But you were being critical of the architect.
You're contradicting yourself.
Sometimes we learn more by listening than by talking.

If he was hired NOT TO MAKE PROPOSALS AT THIS JUNCTURE, why are you chastising him for not making one of three proposals ?

It is something to consider for those hiring architects and for architects as a condition of doing this type of work.

6.  I'm not sure how master plans fit into this equation.  But it is clear that implementing a master plan is probably more difficult than making one in the first place.  

It depends upon the culture of the club, the strength of the leadership and if the leadership supports the plan.
AND, it depends upon the financial strength of the club.
Things on paper translate into dollars and that single issue, funding, tends to be at the core of almost all decisions to implement.

[Jason Topp]

Patrick:

Despite your blunt style, I appreciate your unvarnished perspective.  Here is my response:

I recently participated in a green committee meeting where we met with an architect to decide whether to make modifications to a hole where some trees have recently died.

A few comments from the experience that I thought might be helpful for others:

1.  I certainly have more respect for the political side of an architect's job.  No matter what he recommends, it will be different than the input he has gotten from committee members.  Handling that will be more interesting to see than whatever happens to the golf hole.

Jason,

I doubt that design by compromise produces the best architectural product.  Unfortunately, it's a way of life at clubs in the U.S. today.

 I never suggested design by compromise was appropriate.  I do think it would be important however to have support of the committee responsible for the course.  Hopefully that will be accomplished not through compromise but through a decision people can support because it is the best way to deal with the issue.  

2.  It is critical that you have input from some representatives from the club that hit the ball less than 200 yards off the tee.  A woman on our committee pointed out some issues that would never have occurred to me.

I disagree.

If you can't understand the game of the broad spectrum of golfers, irrespective of your game, one would have to question your qualifications.

Architects forge a disinterested challenge, they neither favor nor penalize any particular segment of the membership.

You must think in that same "disinterested" context and not in the context of your own game.

The broader the spectrum of golfers you introduce to the committee, the worse the product usually is.
Design by consensus or majority vote impedes and/or dilutes the creative process and the end result.

 You are probably right that an architect will take that perspective into account, but I did not when thinking about the hole.  It opened my eyes as to how much I see a course through my own game as opposed to the majority of players that cannot hit it 200 yards.  

My guess is that most people who comment on architecture do the same thing.  

3.  Making a decision by committee would be a miserable way to determine how to alter a golf course.  This meeting was for the purpose of providing ideas, and there was little consensus in the group for what should be done.  Spending more than this idea meeting as a group would lead to entrenched positions and a rumble.

If you have to hold a meeting to look for ideas you've already lost your way.

Another way of saying this is, if you don't know what you want at the outset, surely you'll end up getting what you didn't want.

Why is that true?  I know what I want - to do nothing or make changes that allow multiple strategies rather than forcing players to attack the hole in the same manner every time.  Trying to ramrod that perspective through the committee would not have even been feasible at this point and the concerns some people have about the hole as it exists now are valid, even if I disagree with them.

When this issue came up in the committee, rather than try and resolve differing perspectives from a lay perspective, a committee member suggested we consult with an architect for suggestions rather than make a decision as a committee.  I think that it is laudible that the committee recognized that it did not have the expertise to devise a solution on its own.

If we had already decided what we wanted, I doubt we would need an architect and just could hire a contractor directly to do any needed work

4.  If you are an architect showing up for a meeting, even if you are just being hired for a couple of hours to get input - go out and spend time on the hole before the meeting.  This architect clearly had not spent any time on the hole beforehand and he looked a little silly when he was mistaken about the location of a hidden pond.  

I disagree with your perspective.
How was the architect supposed to gleen what the committee wanted to do if the committee didn't know what they wanted to do ?

The architect should have listened to what was said, determined and developed a mission statement, and, with approval of the mission statement, embarked upon rendering a plan.

In life you tend to get what you pay for.
Would you entertain brain or heart surgery if the job was going to be done by the lowest bidder ?

If you hire a professional, pay him well, even overpay him, but, never, never underpay him.

 I think a golf architect could reasonably be expected to know where a pond is.

I find it humorous that you would prescribe precisely how this project should be tackled without having an understanding of the context.  We have a master plan for the course.  We had 2 trees die.  The issue is whether the loss of 2 trees should alter that direction in any way.  Much of the process you suggest has taken place and this is one of a myriad of issues that arise along the way.  It was my first exposure to this sort of process.  

5.  Even if it is a meeting for getting input, I think it would have been best if the architect would have had 3 ideas on what to do with the hole (1) nothing; (2) an approach that provides more options; and (3) an approach that makes the hole more difficult.  I'm not being critical of the architect here because he was not hired to make proposals at this juncture.[/color]

But you were being critical of the architect.
You're contradicting yourself.
Sometimes we learn more by listening than by talking.

If he was hired NOT TO MAKE PROPOSALS AT THIS JUNCTURE, why are you chastising him for not making one of three proposals ?

 I did not contradict myself at all.  My reaction after the meeting is that perhaps we should have asked for proposals to focus discussion rather than a free ranging brainstorming session.  That would be the fault of the committee rather than the architect.  I'm not sure on that point and am interested in input from those with more experience in this process.

I agree that "sometimes we learn more from listening than talking" but have no idea whether you are throwing a criticism at me or supporting the role the architect took in the meeting.  

 

It is something to consider for those hiring architects and for architects as a condition of doing this type of work.

6.  I'm not sure how master plans fit into this equation.  But it is clear that implementing a master plan is probably more difficult than making one in the first place.  

It depends upon the culture of the club, the strength of the leadership and if the leadership supports the plan.
AND, it depends upon the financial strength of the club.
Things on paper translate into dollars and that single issue, funding, tends to be at the core of almost all decisions to implement.

Agreed but my point is that I have more appreciation for the challenges associated with implementing a master plan and the importance of keeping after it for the long haul, particularly when you are spending money out of people's pockets.

[Jason Topp]

Next step is to reduce the on site and the conversations to writing to be reviewed.  Once you have reviewed the written report you can discuss the relative merits of these ideas in the context of the whole plan.  Remember the architect is the subject matter expert.  

Further, the architect will come back to you with recommendations as a whole.  Review them again and you will be suprised how many good ideas make it on to the plan in some form or another.  

Now the fun starts!  Selling it to the Membership.

Dean - thanks for the input, we have a master plan in place and I believe we will get proposals at some point in the future.  I look forward to seeing how the architect deals with the competing ideas discussed.

It is interesting to go from the pie in the sky discussions we have here about what architecture should be to getting in the trenches a bit on the political front and be involved in this process.  The architectural ideas we discuss are not all that complicated.  The process of actually accomplishing those ideas is, and to me appears to be the more difficult part of the process.

[Dean Paolucci]

Jason - I think that the idea of flushing all of the ideas and have the architect respond to them as a whole is more effective than one off discussions.  

In our case we did not have a master plan and that was the genisis of our discussions.  You are fortunate to have one and I hope that it was adopted by the Membership at your Club.  

In light of the changing conditions (loss of the trees)  I think it is reasonable to reaccess the hole in context.  Having the original architect rethink the possibilities is most desired.  Replacing the trees is an obvious possibility as well.

We found great success in the town meeting approach.  Ron Forse presented our plan and discussed the merits of the committees findings with the Membership at large.  Out of the hundreds of changes in our plan, only two significant proposals were not adopted.  The reinsertion of a bunker complex and the resurfacing of one green site renovated prior.

Good Luck with the project!

[TEPaul]

Jason:

In my opinion, the best thing for any architect to do in a first meeting like you describe is to try to figure out first what the club or the committee thinks they are trying to accomplish.

To do that he should spend most of that first meeting asking them what they think they'd like to accomplish or what problems they think they have. Once he's done that it can be pretty amazing to hear from a competent architect just how much and why a club or committee doesn't even know what they're trying to accomplish or just how much they may be going about percieving problems in entirely the wrong ways.

Part of this process and question period is to listen carefully to the committee about how the course or any hole plays for them--all of them. No matter how good an architect is, in my opinion, he can never know the nuances of how a course or holes of a course play for a general membership as well as they can.

Once he's gotten that necessary input from them most of the time the committee will be amazed what kind of recommendations and solutions a competent architect can arrive at to steer them in the right direction and solve whatever problems they have or think they have.

[Jason Topp]

Tom:

Thanks for the perspective.  It sounds like we did exactly what you suggest.  I am interested to see what he comes up with.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Despite your blunt style, I appreciate your unvarnished perspective.  Here is my response:

Jason, I don't have time to beat around the bush and as such, try to get to the point ASAP[/color]

I recently participated in a green committee meeting where we met with an architect to decide whether to make modifications to a hole where some trees have recently died.

A few comments from the experience that I thought might be helpful for others:

1.  I certainly have more respect for the political side of an architect's job.  No matter what he recommends, it will be different than the input he has gotten from committee members.  Handling that will be more interesting to see than whatever happens to the golf hole.

Jason,

I doubt that design by compromise produces the best architectural product.  Unfortunately, it's a way of life at clubs in the U.S. today.

 I never suggested design by compromise was appropriate.  I do think it would be important however to have support of the committee responsible for the course.  Hopefully that will be accomplished not through compromise but through a decision people can support because it is the best way to deal with the issue.  

If you're looking for unanimity, it's doubtful you'll find it.
Enter compromise, stage left.[/color]

2.  It is critical that you have input from some representatives from the club that hit the ball less than 200 yards off the tee.  A woman on our committee pointed out some issues that would never have occurred to me.

I disagree.

If you can't understand the game of the broad spectrum of golfers, irrespective of your game, one would have to question your qualifications.

Architects forge a disinterested challenge, they neither favor nor penalize any particular segment of the membership.

You must think in that same "disinterested" context and not in the context of your own game.

The broader the spectrum of golfers you introduce to the committee, the worse the product usually is.
Design by consensus or majority vote impedes and/or dilutes the creative process and the end result.

 You are probably right that an architect will take that perspective into account, but I did not when thinking about the hole.  It opened my eyes as to how much I see a course through my own game as opposed to the majority of players that cannot hit it 200 yards.  

My guess is that most people who comment on architecture do the same thing.  

Agreed[/color]

3.  Making a decision by committee would be a miserable way to determine how to alter a golf course.  This meeting was for the purpose of providing ideas, and there was little consensus in the group for what should be done.  Spending more than this idea meeting as a group would lead to entrenched positions and a rumble.

If you have to hold a meeting to look for ideas you've already lost your way.

Another way of saying this is, if you don't know what you want at the outset, surely you'll end up getting what you didn't want.

Why is that true?  I know what I want - to do nothing or make changes that allow multiple strategies rather than forcing players to attack the hole in the same manner every time.  

But, you contradict yourself again.
You don't know what you want, you even said so above, you want either A or B, but, don't know the answer and so you're looking for advice.[/color]

Trying to ramrod that perspective through the committee would not have even been feasible at this point and the concerns some people have about the hole as it exists now are valid, even if I disagree with them.

When this issue came up in the committee, rather than try and resolve differing perspectives from a lay perspective, a committee member suggested we consult with an architect for suggestions rather than make a decision as a committee.  I think that it is laudible that the committee recognized that it did not have the expertise to devise a solution on its own.

If we had already decided what we wanted, I doubt we would need an architect and just could hire a contractor directly to do any needed work

This is where I think you went wrong.  First, reread your above three paragraphs.

You should have simply presented the problem to the architect and let the professional you hired come up with the solutions.[/color]

4.  If you are an architect showing up for a meeting, even if you are just being hired for a couple of hours to get input - go out and spend time on the hole before the meeting.  This architect clearly had not spent any time on the hole beforehand and he looked a little silly when he was mistaken about the location of a hidden pond.  

I disagree with your perspective.
How was the architect supposed to gleen what the committee wanted to do if the committee didn't know what they wanted to do ?

The architect should have listened to what was said, determined and developed a mission statement, and, with approval of the mission statement, embarked upon rendering a plan.

In life you tend to get what you pay for.
Would you entertain brain or heart surgery if the job was going to be done by the lowest bidder ?

If you hire a professional, pay him well, even overpay him, but, never, never underpay him.

 I think a golf architect could reasonably be expected to know where a pond is.

I find it humorous that you would prescribe precisely how this project should be tackled without having an understanding of the context.

It's simple.
I'm not tackling the specific problem.
It doesn't matter what the specific problem is.
I'm attacking the process you employed.

First you say that the architect looked silly, and they you say that you weren't critical of the architect and then you said that you didn't contradict yourself.  Are you sure about that ?[/color]

We have a master plan for the course.  We had 2 trees die.  The issue is whether the loss of 2 trees should alter that direction in any way.  Much of the process you suggest has taken place and this is one of a myriad of issues that arise along the way.  It was my first exposure to this sort of process.  

The ISSUE isn't important, it's the PROCESS that's important and, based on what YOU presented, your PROCESS appears to be flawed.[/color]

5.  Even if it is a meeting for getting input, I think it would have been best if the architect would have had 3 ideas on what to do with the hole (1) nothing; (2) an approach that provides more options; and (3) an approach that makes the hole more difficult.  I'm not being critical of the architect here because he was not hired to make proposals at this juncture.[/color]

But you were being critical of the architect.
You're contradicting yourself.
Sometimes we learn more by listening than by talking.

If he was hired NOT TO MAKE PROPOSALS AT THIS JUNCTURE, why are you chastising him for not making one of three proposals ?

 I did not contradict myself at all.  My reaction after the meeting is that perhaps we should have asked for proposals to focus discussion rather than a free ranging brainstorming session.  That would be the fault of the committee rather than the architect.  I'm not sure on that point and am interested in input from those with more experience in this process.

Reread my comments above.
You've contradicted yourself again.[/color]

I agree that "sometimes we learn more from listening than talking" but have no idea whether you are throwing a criticism at me or supporting the role the architect took in the meeting.

I'm trying to provide you with a path that will lead to a positive outcome, as I think the current one, as described by you, is full of pitfalls.[/color]


It is something to consider for those hiring architects and for architects as a condition of doing this type of work.

6.  I'm not sure how master plans fit into this equation.  But it is clear that implementing a master plan is probably more difficult than making one in the first place.  

It depends upon the culture of the club, the strength of the leadership and if the leadership supports the plan.
AND, it depends upon the financial strength of the club.
Things on paper translate into dollars and that single issue, funding, tends to be at the core of almost all decisions to implement.

Agreed but my point is that I have more appreciation for the challenges associated with implementing a master plan and the importance of keeping after it for the long haul, particularly when you are spending money out of people's pockets.

That's probably the most difficult task, the ongoing committment to the master plan and its ongoing implementation.

I think the answer to that lies within the political continuity of the club.[/color]

[Jason Topp]

Patrick:

I'm tired of the rhetorical chess match, but am interested in understanding what you are suggesting.

Others suggest that the process we are going through may be the best approach - have the architect get the perspective of a representative sample of members and then make a proposal as to the best approach to take.  

I'm not sure what you are suggesting is much different other than somehow knowing before the architect arrives what we want to do with the course.  If more than one person is involved in that process, I do not see that as realistic.  

Am I understanding your suggestion correctly?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm tired of the rhetorical chess match, but am interested in understanding what you are suggesting.

It's not a chess match, I'm trying to help you from drowning despite your resistance to accepting aid.[/color]

Others suggest that the process we are going through may be the best approach - have the architect get the perspective of a representative sample of members[/red] and then make a proposal as to the best approach to take.  

There in RED, lies the flaw in your process.

You even admitted that you only viewed the issue in the context of your game.

Do you think that the representative sample of the members will view the issue in any other context.

A representative (whatever that means) sample of the membership is a biased group, each advocating their own interests, based on their games.

THE ARCHITECT ALREADY KNOWS THAT.

HE WILL FORGE A DISINERESTED CHALLENGE.

One that neither favors nor penalizes any contingent of the representative sampling of the members.

Every hole, every architectural feature can't please every member or every "representative sampling" of the members.

That's the formula for disaster.

Tell the architect the problem.
Let him come up with the solution/s

If you were having surgery would you tell the surgeon which surgical methods you'd prefer, or are you going to let THE PROFESSIONAL make that decision ?

Pick the best professional, describe the problem, and let him draft the solution/s[/color]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting is much different other than somehow knowing before the architect arrives what we want to do with the course.  If more than one person is involved in that process, I do not see that as realistic.  

Am I understanding your suggestion correctly?

Jason, the key to success is a small committee, not a large one.

Lack of leadership and/or lack of knowledge usually lead to the appointing of large committees, that way, those in charge can always say, this is what the "representative sampling" of the members, and the membership wanted.

This is how most golf courses got disfigured in the first place.

Designing by consensus is a horrible idea.

It's a defensive strategy with political objectives, rather than a strategy whose objectives are the solution to the architectural issue.

Having said all of that, you may be in a situation where the powers that be want as many people involved as possible.

If that's the case, you have a difficult road ahead of you.

I've always favored relying on select members who have the interest, the time, the knowledge and the passion for the project, rather than relying on a broad base of committee members who form a "representative sampling" of the membership.

But, that may be beyond your influence.

If so, I'd suggest hiring the most qualified, most expensive architect available.

In my limited experience, I've found that people tend to listen more to people who they pay handsomely, rather than those who are paid minimally or not at all.

I hope that helps.

If not, call TEPaul, he's a great believer in getting the entire membership involved on every little detail of the project
[/color]

[Jason Topp]

Patrick:

Thanks for your perspective.  I'm new to the club and certainly not in a power position, other than a demonstrated passion for the quality of the course.  I'll keep your advice in mind as this plays out.

Nonetheless, here is an article that describes a process that makes sense to me.  It looks like this club got the kind of input that was given by our committee.

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2006/060726.pdf

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Not much to add except for a few observations.  If the gca had any inkling of what hole was under discussion when the green chair, pro, or super called him for a one day consulting deal, it probably would have been better to get there early and grab a cart to view things with the pro.  For that matter, with information gleaned from the club web site, window live local and google aerial photos covering much of the country with aerial photos, not much reason to not have some inkling of the course - its just professional to come to the meeting as prepared as possible to give them the most bang for the buck (and not coincidentally, set yourself up to get the work)

However, if everyone is really interested in getting to a solution, there is no substitute for a site walk.  I am always amazed at how many discussions take place in the clubhouse rather than on site, or for that matter, how often a group starts talking about one hole while on another, but won't walk or ride over to the hole in question to finish the discussion.

[Jason Topp]

Jeff:

Thanks.  Our entire time with the architect was spent on the hole.  One thing that was interesting was that one of the suggestions was to expand the existing pond.  Someone suggested that people stand where the edge of the pond would be after the expansion.  Even though I thought it was dumb at the time, it really made clear how much the hole would change.