Should architects engage in rebating ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Today I played a golf course that touts itself as a one of a kind in the State of its domicile.

The golf course used to be a dairy farm.

The pro shop and dinning facilities are in a converted barn.  The barn is a stone structure and really quite elegant.
It's really a great structure, and great use of a structure, and it fits in quite well with the surrounding land and vistas.

After I plalyed the golf course I was thinking about what a  great deal the cows got.  I was also thinking about how much it would cost to convert the golf course back to a working dairy farm.

There must have been environmental problems, because the number of heroic forced carries was inordinate.  If there were few or no environmental problems, then I think a rebate on the rather large design fee should be in order.

In addition, Tom Paul would probably become visibly ill at the almost bog like conditions, and I noticed what I perceived as long term drainage problems inherent in the architectural presentation.  This caused me to revise my thinking on the amount of the rebate.

Have there been cases where a portion of a design fee was returned due to unacceptable or inferior results ?

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'm always curious about posts like this one.

Are you asking whether rebates are ever justified?  Or are you suggesting that a rebate is in order in this case?

If it is the latter, why not name the course so that anyone who has seen the course can intelligently comment?  For instance, it might be that the project sponsor favors forced carries and the architect delivered exactly what he asked for?

Also, your perception that there may be long term drainage problems may or may not be true. Wouldn't it make sense to disclose the location so other people more familiar with the site can share their experience on this point.

On the other hand, if you are just asking a general question, why not just do so without referring to one specific site and spending so much time on discussion of the dining facilities?

By the way, I do have some experience with this question at Sand Ridge. About a year after opening, the area surrounding a large drainage pipe on #16 gave way. My understanding is that the contractor (Landscapes Unlimited) rather than the architect (Fazio) covered the cost of repair.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I think you may have missed the point on the dinning facilities.

Mansion Ridge.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Obviously, I did miss the point as I still don't get it!

Anyway, I'm not familiar with Mansion Ridge and one can't get much from their web site to address the question you raised.

It sounds like you have two concerns about the course: forced carries and drainage issues. Assuming someone signed off on Nicklaus' design, I can't imagine how a rebate would be in order based solely on forced carries. Issues like that should have been addressed long before construction even started.

The drainage matter might be different, but we would have to know a lot more before taking the position that a rebate was in order. We would need to know the contract terms. We would need to know whether permitting authorites placed any restrictions. We would need to know whether any other restrictions were placed on the design or construction firms.

The bottom line: your question is fair, but without lots of inside information I don't know how we would answer it. At least, not in the case of Mansion Ridge.

If you truly are asking a more general question, I'm still inclined to think we would very quickly have to go back to detailed, inside information about any project. I'm sure you know, we aren't likely to find that many cases where the parties involved are going to want to discuss their problems publicly. I would sure want to quietly work them out (like Sand Ridge and Fazio/Landscapes Unlimited did) before going on GCA to do so.

[Joel_Stewart]

A number of years ago Pete Dye admitted that Carmel Valley Ranch was terrible and came back to try and fix it.  Its still not that great considering its surroundings but at least he admitted to his original mistakes.

Pat: You behond all people have suggested that owners or green committees or clubs themselves have the last word and/or final decision on the golf courses.  Since we don't know what goes on behind the scenes perhaps this was the best Nicklaus could do and no rebate is warranted?

[Tom Doak]

Pat:

In many cases it works just the opposite way:  a club pays an architect to come back the second time and fix his own mistakes!  I have heard this in several instances of clubs rebuilding their greens only to have them go bad shortly thereafter ... and calling in the same designer to try again.

I don't think that poor surface drainage design could be found to be malpractice, unless it washed away a green or the whole side of a hill or something like that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The title of the post, and some of its content were meant in a humorous tone.  But, what truth there be in jest.

I indicated that I was unfamiliar with the environmental/permiting issues the club had to deal with, and certainly that may have had a lot to do with some of the carries, but I was shocked by what I observed.

I say shocked in that I believe the designer has a four tier design schedule and this course/project was on the upper end of that schedule.  Yet, it's hard to believe the resultant golf course was the best that could be done, especially when the size of the fee is factored in.

The containment mounding which most on this site object to was significant.  I think there were twelve (12) or more forced carries, and I would consider many of them heroic.  
The golf course was very wet, with absolutely no roll, and I attributed a good degree of that, on certain holes, to the design and handling of surface water.

When I see some of the work done by other architects, and I compare it to what I experienced the other day, I couldn't fault anyone for feeling that he overcharged his client, based on the finished product.

TIm Weiman,

Both Matt Ward and Geoff Childs commented unfavorably on their experience playing this course, perhaps they could add a few words in the context of this post.

[GeoffreyC]

Pat


I played Mansion Ridge a couple of years ago. It was expensive, wet/overwatered and totally uninteresting.  I have no desire to go back even for free.  The course is one without much strategy and offers "progressive punishment" the further off the expected line of play your ball winds up. As you said, there are clearly wetlands problems that caused quite a few forced carries although as I recall not many are around the greens. One par 5, I believe is named "Marshland".

[Tim Weiman]

Geoffrey Childs:

I'll assume that you, Matt Ward and Pat Mucci are correct that Mansion ridge isn't much fun to play.

Does that shed much light on Pat's rebate question?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

The question was based more in humor than in reality.  
I doubt the architect will be returning any portion of his fee.  I thought that the client was overcharged for what he got, almost to the extreme, and that perhaps someone else might have been too embarrassed to take the check.  

[Sandy Barrens Jr.]

Yes, absolutely! Rees Jones should rebate the owners of Sand Pines in Florence, Oregon. So should Tom Fazio at Riviera and Merion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sandy Barrens Jr,

Have you been to and played Merion this season, since Fazio's work has been completed ?

Didn't FAZIO give the club EXACTLY what they wanted ?

Therefore, why should he return a portion of his fee.

Is FAZIO giving Riviera what he was told to give them ?