[Dave_Miller]

Dave Miller,

As I indicated, from a practical perspective, making monthly meetings is more than a chore, but, I like the concept.

If an architect produced a good to great product, why wouldn't you want him on the green committee.

I wonder where Von Hagge got that idea ?

Tom Doak,

I think the architect's presence on the green committee eliminates a good deal of the nonsensical complaints regarding the golf course.

I can't see an architect wanting to attend green committee meetings when architectural issues aren't on the table.
But, having the right to attend when architectural issues are up for discussion seems like a good investment on the clubs and the architects part.

Chris Kane,

When did these clubs first discover that they were getting inferior products ?  On opening day ?

Didn't they review the architectural plan/design BEFORE approving it ?

Patrick:
The problem that has arisen is that the Von Hagge group is insisting on maintaining certain cutting heights in certain areas that are extremely penal and the bulk of the membership simply cannot play these areas.
The course just re-opened at the end of November so there are no current architectural issues on the table.
Best
Dave

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Miller,

It's been my limited experience that most members take exception to certain features in a remake, especially features that may initially challenge or befuddle them.

I found Bob very reasonable to work with.

Ask him WHY he feels those areas should remain as he designed them.  I'm sure he has his reasons.

Pete Dye revels in the complaints of the PGA Tour Pros.
I get the impression that he thinks he's gotten it right if they complain.

[Dave_Miller]

Dave Miller,

It's been my limited experience that most members take exception to certain features in a remake, especially features that may initially challenge or befuddle them.

I found Bob very reasonable to work with.

Ask him WHY he feels those areas should remain as he designed them.  I'm sure he has his reasons.

Pete Dye revels in the complaints of the PGA Tour Pros.
I get the impression that he thinks he's gotten it right if they complain.

Patrick:
These are not design issues.  There will be no change to the design.  This is a conditioning issue and the bulk of the membership simply cannot play certain areas on the sides of mounds that are very steep and have 6 inches of Bermuda Grass.
There is no problem with any of the design.  
Best
Dave

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

I suspect that the 6 inches of Bermuda on those mounds is to give a "textured" look to the golf course.

Where aesthetics conflicts with playability, I usually choose playability.

Ask for an alternate solution.  If none is offered ........

Get out the fly mowers  

[Chris Kane]

When did these clubs first discover that they were getting inferior products ?  On opening day ?

Didn't they review the architectural plan/design BEFORE approving it ?

Opening day?  These are consulting architects at prominent established clubs.  Yes, I'm sure they reviewed the plans before approval.  Once a few holes were done, it became clear that they were getting an inferior product, and the architect's tenure was ended.

While a club has a consulting architect and is making changes, there needs to be constant scrutiny of the results.  At some point a club might decide that they wish to go in a different direction (I could list several more prominent clubs in Australia where this has happened).  This is difficult when the architect sits on greens committee.

[Bill_McBride]

A MacKenzie was a board member, green committee member, and architect of Alwoodley in 1907 - that one worked out pretty well, and is relatively unchanged 100+ years later.

[Patrick_Mucci]

When did these clubs first discover that they were getting inferior products ?  On opening day ?

Didn't they review the architectural plan/design BEFORE approving it ?

Opening day?  These are consulting architects at prominent established clubs.  

That's NOT what this thread is about.

It's about a NEW course, not an existing one.

Please reread the opening post.

Thanks[/color]

Yes, I'm sure they reviewed the plans before approval.  Once a few holes were done, it became clear that they were getting an inferior product, and the architect's tenure was ended.

See my comment above[/color]

While a club has a consulting architect and is making changes, there needs to be constant scrutiny of the results.  At some point a club might decide that they wish to go in a different direction (I could list several more prominent clubs in Australia where this has happened).  This is difficult when the architect sits on greens committee.

See my comment above[/color]

[Chris Kane]

Should consulting architects be given a seat and a vote on the green committee and/or board of the club they consult with, with the vote limited to matters pertaining to the golf course ?

Would this act as a stabilizing factor ?

This is your opening post Patrick - could you please show me where you've limited the premise to new courses?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

It was meant to tie into the "hands off" thread.

But, let's let it apply to new and existing clubs.

I still don't see how the club gets surprised by the end product.

Didn't the club approve the plans ?
Didn't they fund a specific project, the one manifested in the plans ?

Perhaps the club had a specific agenda when they brought the architect in, in that case, I can't imagine him deviating from the club's intent.

How does a product turn out to be vastly different from the concept and the written plans ?

[Paul Stephenson]

Dave:

Whose idea was it for Bob von Hagge to sit on the committee for three years -- his or the club's?

Having to defend what you've done for three years could be unconstitutional.

That was my underlying question while reading this post: "How many architects would want to sit on the Greens Committee of a client?"  I'm glad my thinking wasn't that off base.  How many would like a seat and a vote?

From the perspective of a Greens Committee member, I would say no.  A Consulting Architect is just that, a consultant.  His/her recommendations should be seriously considered, but the vote must lie with the members.

[Bruce Katona]

If he is a member in good standing, he gets a vote and a chance to speak at the event to discuss the merits of course changes....in good standing means no dues or fees are outstanding to the club.

[JohnH]

I fail to see the need for a board of directors to give an architect a vote in issues regarding the building of a new (or remodeling an existing) layout.  If the board was smart enough to see this was the architect they wanted, and respected him/her enough to hire him, then why wouldn't they be smart enough to implement the recommendations?  It is the ultimate decision of the board of directors or owner to decide what is to be implemented or shelved.

Twelve years ago, our club hired a well respected architect to come in at the cost of $10,000 to construct a remodeling plan.  A special meeting was scheduled for the entire membership to meet the architect, hear his proposals, and ask any question -- the meeting lasted three hours.  End of story.  The architect made himself available to the board for any subsequent issues or questions that arose.  We have implemented some of the recommendations over the years, as all was not feasable to the club to do over a two or even a five year timespan.  Everything went smoothly and his plan is a continuing model of our meetings to this day.  I don't think there is any reason why this wouldn't hold true for a new course or existing layout if the respected architect made his intentions known form the start.  Keep the politics to the directors and chairmans of the various seats.  We are paying the architect for the expertise and knowledge regarding the golf course - he is in essence voting for himself with his body of work, no need to rehash in a board room.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()