A "hands off" clause

[TEPaul]

So, Pat, judging from your post #5 your answer is "it depends..."

Wonderfully decisive answer there Pat!

I see your purpose seems to be preventing spontaneous knee jerk decisions with the course on the part of the membership.

Don't worry, even if all that was in the contract and worked as planned I'm sure you'd find something else to blame the entire memberhip for.  

[SL_Solow]

Pat;  Actually a good idea but it likely won't work except as a deterrent.  How would you propose that the architect enforce the clause?  Spend money on lawyers to bring an action seeking specific performance to return the course to its original design?  Seek damages?  How would the damages be calculated?  Harm to reputation as in a defamation suit?  Nobody would want to go near that one.

But I do agree with you that clubs should try to limit the ability of members to alter course design.  I wonder how many of those questioning this central question have spent any significant time serving on club committees involved in this process.  I know Tom Paul has done so, but I'd like to hear his opinion when his tongue has been removed from his cheek and he doesn't spend the time jousting with his friendly foil.

As for me, I am no architect but I have been a greens chair/club president for about 15 years and oversaw a major renovation.  I also consult as a board member of our regional association with other clubs considering renovations about the process, not the substance, of course remodelling.  Based on that experience, I think your concerns are well founded.  But except in very rare cases, the days of benevolent dictatorships are over.  Hence the search for structural means to prevent club members from exercising their ownership rights to the detriment of their golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Who is to say that people other than the architect don't have good and valid ideas?[size=4x]

HISTORY[/color][/size]

Architects surely evolve, and their ideas change over time - who is to say they will ever get it right in regards as to a particular site ?

They'll get it right more often than committee members who have an agenda that relates to their game or what they've seen on TV[/color]

Architects are surely no different to other artists - occasionally it takes someone else's ideas to make something as good as it can be.  

Once you expose the golf course to alterations, ad hoc, chaos reigns and the distinctive life begins to be squeezed from the orginal design.

How do YOU differentiate as to which members idea is hair brained and which is valid ?

If your position is valid, then why have so many, many clubs embarked upon restorations ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, Pat, judging from your post #5 your answer is "it depends..."

Wonderfully decisive answer there Pat!

It's essentially the same answer that Tom Doak gave.[/color]

I see your purpose seems to be preventing spontaneous knee jerk decisions with the course on the part of the membership.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing ?[/color]

Don't worry, even if all that was in the contract and worked as planned I'm sure you'd find something else to blame the entire memberhip for.  

Yes,  I would.
I'd blame them for accepting you as a member. [/color]

Ally,

Could you cite just five (5) clubs in all of America where an architect has done that ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, the original contract is usually (??) between and developer/owner and an architect.  As you say, the membership comes later and there are many ways to structure memberships.  

Do you propose a contract between owner/developer and members that would pass-on a no-touch clause?  

Many contracts are perpetuated to successors or assigns.
I don't see a problem in that area.[/color]

Do you think it would impede sales of memberships in any way?

No, not in any way.

Think what you're saying.
You're saying that the golf course is so attractive that members want to join it, but, once they join, they want to alter it.

Remember, changes can be made, with the approval of the architect.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wow, Pat, you wrote a lot. To answer a few of the questions...

1. Do you know of a single golf course where a full membership paid their money up front, before the golf course was designed and built ?  Yes, Eagle Point in Wilmington. They had about 50 people go in and built a golf course, as far as I know, they still have no more than the original 50 members. (This answers another one of your quesitons as well)

NO, it doesn't answer either question.

Eagle Point is a SEMI-PRIVATE golf club open to the PUBLIC.

You may have your facts wrong.[/color]

2. Then, why have an architect? Because one is still needed, if only because of the logistics of planning.

What logistics ?[/color]

And your original post only specifies that the contract EXTENDS 5-10 years.

That's correct, that's what I wrote.
The "hands off" clause would only remain in effect for 5-10 years from opening day.[/color]

While the architect is still bound by that contract, suppose something is wrong that the members don't like but he doesn't want to change?  What then?

It's simple, the terms of the contract prevail.
The golf course doesn't get altered.
And, the architect, the creator of the golf course must have a prudent reason for refusing to make the change.[/color]

Or suppose the architects ego gets in the way and he alters the course a bit from orignal plans and the club does not like it.

Let me see if I understand you.

The architect, is going to come onto the property, bring construction crews with him, spend his own money, and alter the golf course ?   ?  ?

You can't be serious.[/color]

They contractually can't change it.

In the construction phase, contractually, the architect can't change it without the approval of the owner.[/color]

-As I have said, owners should get what they want and should not be potentially bound to accept something that is not 100% of their expectations.

Johnny M,  please READ what's posted before you type.

The OWNER gets what he wants, it's contractually specified.

We're talking about the golf course FROM opening day forward.[/color]

[John Moore II]

No, Eagle Point in Wilmington is not semi private. It is not open to the public. I am a PGA member, and I cannot get access to Eagle Point. That course is as private as any club in America. Do you even know where Eagle Point is exactly? Have you ever played there? Nay, Sir, you have your facts wrong.
http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.asp?course=1705856
That is a link, just read the description, Private Equity.
-You never said until later that the hand off clause extends and does not start from the first. However, if the final product turns out differently from what the owner first envisioned in the plans, what then?

[Jeff Goldman]

I'm with Shelly on this one.  However, many clubs undergoing restorations have put the master plan produced by the architect in their bylaws, and stating that no material changes may be made to the golf course not in accord with the master plan.  That may get Pat at least some of where he wants to go because usually you need to go to the membership to change the bylaws, which is a big enough pain that people either drop the idea, or consult the architect.  Of course a committe chair or club president that is powerful enough can probably just do what he wants, which, ironically, is one strike against dictatorships at clubs.

  We consulted Mark Mungeam, who did the work on our North Course, when we finally took the plunge on the tree issue, so we could assure the membership that the architectural integrity of the course was not being compromised.

[Pat Brockwell]

The first years in the life of a golf course are very dynamic.  Maturation of the turf/native interface undergoes a succession of vegetation types and patterns of play will create opportunities and reveal weaknesses.  At Black Mesa this is still ongoing six years after planting.  I won't do anything that can be undone without consulting Baxter though.

[Bob Jenkins]

Is it typical that an architect's retainer continues on after the course is opened, or renos are completed, as the case may be? I would have thought that the retainer should continue for a period of time (maybe a few years) as it would not be unusual that there may need to be some "tinkering", some changes necessitated or caused by outside factors etc. It would seem to make sense to have the same architect deal with those types of changes.

[Bill_McBride]

Not getting involved in this brouhaha, just wondering if any architect has ever included that clause in a contract (and if so, is willing to discuss it!)........

[Patrick_Mucci]

Johnny M,

I've quoted my original post, the one that started this thread.

It couldn't be clearer with respect to the time and start date of the "hands off" clause.[/color]

Should an architect insert a "hands off" clause in his contract that would extend 5 to 10 years from opening date.

A clause that states that NO changes to the golf course can be made without the architect's written approval ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I've understood your premise and position right from the get go. I think it is as unlikely to happen as it is to think golf courses would ever accept brown grass over green grass.

Matter of fact, why don't we have the club sign off on all maintenance issues unless approved by the architect too? If it was designed to be firm and fast, should that fall under the supervision of the architect as well?

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

No, Eagle Point in Wilmington is not semi private. It is not open to the public. I am a PGA member, and I cannot get access to Eagle Point. That course is as private as any club in America. Do you even know where Eagle Point is exactly? Have you ever played there? Nay, Sir, you have your facts wrong.

Is this the golf course encapsulated in the residential community ?

My newest staff assistant just moved from Wilmington, NC.
I plan to be filled in on the club tomorrow.[/color]

http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.asp?course=1705856

That is a link, just read the description, Private Equity.

-You never said until later that the hand off clause extends and does not start from the first.

My original post was crystal clear.

I've re-quoted it by re-posting it above.[/color]

However, if the final product turns out differently from what the owner first envisioned in the plans, what then?

What does that mean ?

Does it mean that the owner can't read plans ?

If the owner signed off on the plans that are part of the contract and the architect designed and built according to those plans, and the owner didn't like the finished product, the owner messed up.

If after receiving the product the owner contracted for, the owner isn't satisfied and wants to redesign the golf course, I'm sure the architect would be delighted to do so for an additional fee.

Have you heard of a case where that's happened ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Hancock,

Mother Nature can have far more influence over conditioning than man, and in fact, many contracts have exculpatory clauses due to "acts of god" or "Mother Nature"

Man on the other hand, almost always wants to tinker to serve his particular needs, especially when it comes to a golf course.

My question to you and others is:

Why wouldn't you want to insert that clause ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

My own perspective on this isn't so much about why one would or would not want that clause, it is more about how realistic it would be to think any modern day board, by and large made up of business professionals, would relinquish the decision making process. Most of these people make a living making decisions, so it would be very unnatural to expect them to give that up.

If the architect is supremely and solely capable of deciding what's best, then sure....write the clause into the contract. But no board in the USA will ever see any architect in that regard.

Joe

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

I don't think you are missing the point here, I really don't..but in case you have, you asked:

Why wouldn't you want to insert that clause ?

This is along the same lines of, why wouldn't I want to insert my own clauses like:

Never getting fired from my job.
Getting a 50% pay increase every year.
Having 3 months per year of paid vacation.
etc, etc, etc.

So while you ask, why wouldn't you want this?  Of course I would want the above things, but getting them is an entirely different matter.  I can think of a hundred different things I would like to have...but living in the real world, those things are fantasy land for 99.99% of the people.  

Sure perhaps a Doak or a C&C are in a great position to demand such a thing because they have other opportunities... but for the vast majority of course architects I would suspect they are nowhere close to being is such a position.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

On a few contracts that I've read cover to cover,  the architect retained artistic license over the design.

I haven't read any of Tom Doak's or C&C's contracts, but, let's assume similar clauses exist in their contracts.

Why wouldn't you want the architect to retain artistic license beyond opening day ?

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

I will agree to your premise in an "idealistic" world that it doesn't appear to be a problem, and could be a good thing in many cases.

My only appeal is to how many architects could actually get an arrangment like this and how often. While I don't doubt you have seen contracts that spell this out,  I would suspect the percentage of course owners that would agree to this arrangement is in the far far minority as compared to those that wouldn't.  

All this being said, it would be really interesting to have the architects weigh in on how often they have been able to get such an agreement for at least 5 years after the course is open.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

Tom Doak indicated that it's "client" dependent, and that would seem to make sense, and be practical.

I can't imagine an architect being happy to learn that his recent creation is being altered/disfigured by the membership.

People buy expensive art work and preserve it, they don't alter it to their liking, but, because a golf course is a field of play, and "members", with different games, each want to alter the golf course to suit their particular game.

In the art world, altering a precious painting is sacreligious, and, essentially renders it worthless.

Why shouldn't the same general thinking hold true with golf courses deemed "precious" ?

[John Moore II]

Pat, you speak with your assistant all you want, he will also tell you that Eagle Point was entirely funded by members only from the start. Tom Fazio designed it and it is still fully private and member owned. No, it is not part of a residential development at all, its a stand alone golf course, if I recall, homes are only in view on 2 holes, and even then, they are far in the distance. For the rest, I am simply bowing out. You will never be convinced of anything different and neither will I. Perhaps we can have such a spirited and extended discussion again sometime. (and I mean that in all seriousness)

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

Could you cite just five (5) clubs in all of America where an architect has done that ?

Pat,

Unfortunately not. America isn't my first concern.

However, if it hasn't been done, then a trick is being missed.

In my opinion.

[Sean_A]

Kalen,

Tom Doak indicated that it's "client" dependent, and that would seem to make sense, and be practical.

I can't imagine an architect being happy to learn that his recent creation is being altered/disfigured by the membership.

People buy expensive art work and preserve it, they don't alter it to their liking, but, because a golf course is a field of play, and "members", with different games, each want to alter the golf course to suit their particular game.

In the art world, altering a precious painting is sacreligious, and, essentially renders it worthless.

Why shouldn't the same general thinking hold true with golf courses deemed "precious" ?

Pat

Dodgy argument to be sure.  IMO, a golf course is not primarily a work of art.  You have some wierd hangups about expecting people to pay for club memberships yet not expecting them to have a say in how the club is run.  That works fine if here are a few owners who seek like minded members, but many clubs are owned by all the members.  It doesn't make much sense to me to have a four legs bad two legs good attitude.  

I could be persuaded to add a clause to the contract which you suggest if I was just joining a new club because I am presuming there is a reason I decided to join this new club - mainly the course.  If at an existing club, I certainly don't want to relinquish any rights I have to a chosen few and an architect.  This is exactly why left a club this year - I didn't trust the folks calling the shots.  Oddly, it is my opinion that many changes were made (imo for the worse - hence the reason I left) that would not had the membership voted on each item.  Its often tough to convince a membership to change and many will feel it ain't worth the effort.  It was a chosen few who decided to plant trees, grow rough and narrow fairways.  I would guess this is the same for a great many clubs.  

I can symphasize with you concerning some courses which should be preserved or at the very least modernized with a view to the original intent of the architect.  But at the end of the day, it really isn't any of my business unless I am willing to foot the bill.  

Don't forget, a great many courses have been drastically improved on the original.  Some of these improvements are examples of the greatest creations of the Golden Age.  To a large extent, change is inevitable.  The crux of the question is to what end will changes be made and how will they be managed?

Ciao

[JESII]

Would any of the architects on here stand behind a proposal like this by taking less money up front and pro-rate the remainder over the "hands-off" period?

[Jason Blasberg]

Pat, seems to me you'd prefer an archie licensing the use of their work to their clients as opposed to their clients paying them for a work for hire.

I'm embarassed to say I don't know the answer but have any gca's copyrighted and licensed their plans to others, say in the way that residential and commercial architects license their plans to developers/builders?

Short of owning the underlying dirt, can gca's develop lasting intellectual property rights in their courses that would give them a say in whether derivative works could be created later on?

I would think Jay Flemma has written about this, Jay?