Its interesting that on this day I get chided for considering maintenance in design in one thread, and in another, several particpants chide gca's in general for lack of attention to same!
And in one day on golf club atlas, we have Bradley Anderson advocating government intervention in topsoil stripping, and now Kyle thinks golf course architects need "competent oversight?" Yeah, thats all we need is another government program that helps absolutely on one.
Speaking for my fellow gca's, I think that we get the right amount of oversight from the client, their management companies and their superintendents. And the industry is so small, that the idea of registration and state supervision of the qualifications and work of same wouldn't be cost effective for any state.
BTW, the ASGCA, GCSAA and GCBAA, of which Mr. Shapland is the current president, all endorse having supers on board as soon as possible. I can't think of any individual in the industry who doesn't endorse that idea, and of working together, and within reason, trying to accomodate the super and work within the management companies guidelines.
While there are cases of design teams not meshing together, it can be the fault of any of the many components. When there are problems with superintendents, they stem from them not understanding construction contracts, and demanding that the contractor to put any material or design in the project, not originally called for. In other cases, they know what they want, but are cowed by the big names and depth of experience of their gca or contractor. Sometimes they make reasonable requests, but just too late to be implemented. Its all in the human side of getting a golf course built.
A typical example is situations where budget has forced us to use cheaper California greens instead of USGA. The super comes aboard, and lobbies for the more expensive USGA type. Most courses are built on too small a budget anyway, and sadly, if the money isn't there, it isn't there.
Most make a plan to work with what they are getting, and its really a matter of degrees as I pointed out on another thread. However, a few complain that 'there is no way to maintain this golf course", and not coincidentally, absovling themselves (at least in their own mind) about any later turf problems. Luckily, the supers like that are few and far between, and most continue to do more with less.
I know Tom Shapland, and he is a class act and very accomodating, perhaps more than most Contractors. For example, they just contacted us to go back to Newton, KS for a one year check up, when getting most contractors back to a project to fix settled trenches and the like is a chore. I think his point, perhaps not well made, was that supers do have other chores, and clubs somehow expect them to be in two places at one time during construction. I have known them to get so interested in construction (it is a fun change) that they do neglect their other responsibilities. He was just drawing on some similar experiences he had when answering those questions.
Kyle,
If golf course architecture malpractice doesn't exist, why do I pay over $10K per year on malpractice premiums?