[Patrick_Mucci]

take their marching orders from a committee or an individual ?

Left to their creative talents, would they produce bolder designs ?

[David Stamm]

Pat, I think generally speaking, they would be better off. Provided they don't abuse a budget given them and the membership expresses form the outset what they generally want, the arch can then provide the details.

[John Moore II]

I suppose it depends on the committee or the individual really. If these people were very educated on golf course architecture, it may be that the project turns into a near joint project and may be better than the individual architect's work would have been. However, if the people adding in to the design have no clue about design, then the project would likely end up much poorer than it otherwise may have been.
-In a general situation though, I would say that the design would be better given no interferance.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

my club is dealing with this exact dilemma right now.  we've hired an accomplished architect to redesign one of our courses.  since the club has admittedly messed up some of their recent big projects, the board has actively asked for input on design features from the membership.  so far, its a hodge podge with the vast majority asking for easier characteristics which in turn could mean less variety and shot values.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick -

I'm not sure the courses would be any better. It seems to me that creativity and talent flow as they must. If an architect has let others stem that flow in the past, the tap might not so easily open wide again.

But I also think that narrow parametres (like a specific and limited site, or the marching orders from a committee) can sometimes sharpen and direct the flow instead of stifling it.

Peter 

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, while I don't know for sure, but suspect the pecking order at the new Wolf Pointe by Mike Nuzzo, the collaboration of owner, superintendent and actual archie/designer is very close and somewhat unique.  As that course progresses, and people begin to play and evaluate it, it might be interesting to see how that model of relationships worked out from a quality standpoint.  There were minimal fingers in that pie.  So, will it be pure as it could be, and clearly show? 

[Phil Benedict]

This is the Howard Roark theory of history - give the creative talent total control.  It might result in a few better designs but you could also get a lot of crap. 

[archie_struthers]

 


How about if they didn't have to design to return to the clubhouse LOL!

[Matthew Mollica]

Patrick and others,

Crump's autonomy at Pine Valley and the quality of the result is a good exhibit A in the case for allowing one to design free of incumbrance from committees.

Doak's recollections of working at Barnbougle Dunes would be interesting in the context of this discussion. Great site sure, but the fact that Richard Sattler was a non-meddling owner no doubt allowed Tom creative control seldom enjoyed in this day and age, with a great course resulting.

What other courses serve as examples where designers have been allowed to do their thing free from influence? Obviously, Sebonak was not...

Matthew

[paul cowley]

Patrick...it depends.....there are always needs, factors...basically the "givens", that come with any site and their owners or membership, and as such need to be taken into account and become part of the design equation/solution.

Its how one meets these needs is what largely determines the success of the design.

Its rarely a design in a vacuum scenario.....nor should it be.

The best designs are when form follows the needed functions.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - always nice to see a post from you. That one was particularly good. Actually, your answer could probably be part of EVERY post..."It depends".

Yes, indeed. It does depend.

Peter 

[paul cowley]

 

[Mike_Clayton]

Matt.

I am not sure if Tom was there at the time but we were in Richard's kitchen and we  had bought a contract down for him to sign.He took a cursory glance at it and said ' Do you trust me?'
'Yes'
'Well I trust you blokes so there won't be any need for this' and the crumpled bit of paper found its way into the rubbish bin.

His only instruction I am aware of was 'Don't screw it up" and Mike Kesier told Richard to 'let them do whatever they want.'

Which begs the question 'Is the perfect client one who doesn't play golf or know anything about it - and who doesn't have plans to smother the land in houses?

Partick,


We did a masterplan for an existing  - and quite good - 1920s course and the 1st hole clearly would have been better for the removal of a lot of trees on the inside of the dogelg.
We never suggested their removal because we knew it wasn't even worth going there with the committee.
A new Captain took over the club and I mentioned how much better the hole would be wth the trees removed.
He asked why that was not in the plan and I explained why.
'Well, the rules have changed now and if you think it will be better do what you need to.'

The hole was significantly improved - but not all established clubs work that way.

[Joey Smith]

worry about the 97 one acre lots that the deveolper wants to sell...

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

Is there a top 30 course in the world which hasn't had some input from an amateur, whether individual or committee?

Maybe a committee or an individual are needed to keep an architect's ego in check.

After all, golfers have a right to the best possible course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Is there a top 30 course in the world which hasn't had some input from an amateur, whether individual or committee?

Mark,

I think you'd have to quantify and qualify the imput to determine if it was meaningful and/or relevant to the finished product.  And then, incrementally, by how much[/color]

Maybe a committee or an individual are needed to keep an architect's ego in check.

A Committee is a dangerous entity, often counter productive because the end result is usually a compromise.

A single visionary, historically connected to golf, knowledgable and wise is usually the best additive.

Far, far too many golf courses have been altered/disfigured by committees

Design by consensus stifles the creative process.

Collaboration is a compromise at best, especially when design philosophies and styles differ.

Perhaps Tom Doak could comment, but, I wouldn't imagine that many individuals or committees swayed Pete Dye from his intended goals.
[/color]

After all, golfers have a right to the best possible course.


If you think a committee will produce the best possible course, I've got several bridges nearby that I'd like to sell to you.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()