Architects relationship to their redesign

[tmb]

After having served on my course's green committee for over three years, I've become frustrated with the cost involved with any minor changes or improvements that we wish to implement. Our architect is involved in the replanting of existing flower beds, minor tree plantings or even any enlargements of too small tee boxes. This means we have to pay dearly for flights and consultations that run to the thousands of dollars. I fully understand that an architect wishes to protect his redesign...to protect his reputation.
But surely local members should be able to have some leeway
on minor things without incurring such costs. Any ideas or suggestions.

[SL_Solow]

tmb,  you are embarking down the first step of a slippery slope.  While it sounds attractive to do "minor" changes, the door is opened for an expansive definition of "minor" by greens' committees with an agenda or with a lack of understanding.  A few trees planted from time to time in the wrong places can wreak havoc.  Alteration of an "unfair" bunker etc.   Better to take the conservative approach assuming you have something worth preserving.

[tmb]

I couldn't agree with you more. However. to paya fee of $2000 to a firm that says it's okay to plant flowers in an existing bed of 75 years seems ridiculous.

tmb,  you are embarking down the first step of a slippery slope.  While it sounds attractive to do "minor" changes, the door is opened for an expansive definition of "minor" by greens' committees with an agenda or with a lack of understanding.  A few trees planted from time to time in the wrong places can wreak havoc.  Alteration of an "unfair" bunker etc.   Better to take the conservative approach assuming you have something worth preserving.

[TEPaul]

tmb:

I have a single idea and suggestion! I'll give you one guess what it is!

[SL_Solow]

tmb,  I'm with you on the flower beds.  Tree planting and tee alterations are tougher.  By the way, I'm not in the bsns (therefore no pecuniary motive), but I was the lead in the "sympathetic restoration" of an old Colt & Allison course and now serve on a "watchdog" committee to protect it.

[tmb]

get rid of the flower beds...

tmb:

I have a single idea and suggestion! I'll give you one guess what it is!

[SL_Solow]

always looking for the easy way out.

[TEPaul]

tmb;

Oh well!

I sort of had in mind getting rid of the architect!

You get rid of the architect--and I'll get rid of the flower beds for you!

[TEPaul]

tmb:

I don't know what's gotten into me today! I take back everything I've said above!

I think you'all should continue paying your original architect all that money for all that extraneous stuff!

Don't forget architects have to eat too and they have wives and kids and they have to buy the little kids special "tyke-size" polo shirts that are actually the same price as XXLs!

[SL_Solow]

Tom; the problem with removing the architect is that it is the architect's qualifications and expertise that allows him to override some of the misguided ideas of committee members intent on tinkering.  If the committee "gets it " and will continue to "get it" over the long term, removing the additional expense is a great idea.  I fear that given the nature of greens chairmen, change will come quickly and inconsistently as soon as the architectural shackles are removed.

[TEPaul]

SL:

I see! So the tinkering architect should not be removed because of the green committee's potential ability to tinker!

That would seem logical enough, I suppose! But in this case I think what that club and green committee and architect need is added dose of humor!

[tmb]

Gentlemen,

I have experienced green committee chairs doing stupid things to our course. My whole point is this. Assuming that a green committee gets it. Is it unreasonable to say to the architect, enough is enough? We are not going to do inane or major changes to the course. We are only trying to be fiscally responsible. We trusted the architect...the architect should be able to trust us.

[TEPaul]

Not unreasonable at all!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

tmb,
Sounds like the architect's sister married the owner of the club, or at least the GM.  
Please post a copy of the contract (names changed to protect the guilty) as the clauses it must contain could be extremely valuable to others in the same profession.  
We must be talking about a very high powered architect if he/she has creative control over the "script"  sold to your club.  

I hope it doesn't sound like I am implying that an architect shouldn't have a working relationship when it comes to the course but it sounds overworked, or you guys screwed up big time, if you are charged an architectural fee to change your flower beds.

[SL_Solow]

Don't want to beat this one to death but the problem of a "tinkering" architect can be solved by the club deciding not to make changes.  The value of retaining the architect as a consultant with respect to continuing changes is that it can thwart well meaning but misguided greens' committees from making "improvements" that are anything but.  This is not to suggest that every architect is useful, we all lament certain renovations, or that all greens committees are misguided.  However I submit that the vast majority of overplanting, removal of strategic hazards, creation of redundant hazards and the like have been done by the amateurs.  Accordingly, if an architect has done satisfactory work for the club I believe it is adviseable to continue to consult with the architect in order to avoid changes that will dilute the work already done.

[TEPaul]

SL:

I don't even know what course you're talking about or the architect or greens committee people either but the way you seem to be rationalizing this whole process (particularly since including the things you've (or tmb) already told us about what that architect is already doing and charging for--flower beds etc), it seems to me you're trying to figure out how best not to unproductively "tinker" in the future on that course, no matter who might be doing it--architect or anyone else. It certainly is possible for the original architect to unproductively tinker with the golf course--it surely wouldn't be the first or last time that happened! Who really knows why an architect makes future recommendations (tinkering) unless you specifically ask him why! But it's the members who play the course and need to appreciate all things about it that's the ultimate and ideal goal!

But it sounds like your architect just may be as apt to unproductively "tinker" on his own course as any future greens committee person may be!

What that club needs is someone reasonable who understands that tinkering can in many cases be unproductive to the golf course, period!!

It sounds a bit to me like the club might be trying to  use the fox to guard the henhouse!

[Patrick_Mucci]

tmb,

Something doesn't seem right.

Whose idea was it to plant flower beds ?
What other ideas have sprung from your chairmen and committee ?

Is the architect being asked to bless items that the club has decided to implement, without his prior imput.

The relationship between the club, committee and architect seems uncomfortable, at best.

And, it seems to be coming from the club, rather than the architect.

Is this the architect who originally designed the golf course ?

We need more information.

[TEPaul]

tmb:

I see you're new on the website! Just a word of warning! When you discuss things with Pat Mucci you need ALL the FACTS! You need FACTS you never heard of and may never be aware of!!

You need FACTS you never even dreamed of--because Pat demands all the facts to even discuss something as mundane as why the green chairman decided to take a sip of his soup with his left hand instead of his right!

So my suggestion to you is come armed with ALL the FACTS if you want to have a discussion with Pat--and if you don't know ALL the FACTS--JUST MAKE SOME UP!

[tmb]

Patrick,

Thanks for your comments. I used the flower beds as an example of an outrageous fee was totally unwarranted. The architect did a redesign of our course. The flower beds have existed for years before the redesign. A staff member had to approve types of flowers going int the existing beds. While I understand an architect's desire to make the sure his work remains true to his designs...to protect the integrity of his work and reputation. I don't understand the micromanaging that has cost us thousands of dollars years after the redesign.
There have been other examples that I wish not to mention. Our board seems happy with this extra expense. Though there are many members who feel otherwise. I realize we can change the board. My purpose in starting this thread was to gather information so that in the future we as a committee and a club can be more fiscally responsible. The redesign is terrific, by the way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TMB,

What I don't understand is, if the architect did the redesign recently, why all the changes ?

Where are these ideas coming from ?

If you pay the architect a retainer fee, some of the proposed modifications can be discussed over the phone, without the need for onsite visits.

Also, onsite visits can be used to discuss a variety of changes, rather than have the architect visit to discuss each and every idea, seperately.

Something just seems to be missing.

[Tom Doak]

tmb:

I've heard of a couple of architects whose consulting contracts specify that they get paid on a percentage basis of all architectural work done to the course.  I suppose that could be a good thing, if it was done to discourage needless tinkering with the course.  But it could also be used to generate fees, as some stockbrokers do.