Castle Course - a non-GCA insight

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

I thought of you when I was making my last post.  However, whom do you consider to be the ultimate judge of "fit for purpose"?  Yourself?

You also have to consider the other side of the equation.  You have been more critical than anyone of Mr. Kidd's work at the Castle Course; therefore I think you should make a point of going to see his work at Machrihanish Dunes (on land I think you would say was "fit for purpose" and see not only what he built there, but what restrictions exist on such land nowadays.  It would be a good idea to see what you're up against before you propose this as the standard for new development.

[Melvyn Morrow]

No, certainly not myself.

I take your point, but I also believe that the duty of any designer is to stick his/her neck out from time to time and advise the client of the suitability of that building, site or section of land for a his business or golf course. There are also times to cut and run if the designer's advice is not accepted.

The reason why, is simple it’s the designers reputation that is ultimately on the line, not the clients. The designer when he leaves the site leaves his name forever connected to the project.

I have the utmost respect for golf course designers, I wish them well. Nevertheless, beware the client and his changing brief because after all you name is what you trade upon and should be most precious to you. Now, what's your next lesson?

Melvyn

[Lyne Morrison]

  Lady's traditionally enjoy putting more than the driving...

  Anthony

Anthony – a statement such as this suggests you have little or no experience playing golf with capable women golfers.

Lyne

[Adrian_Stiff]

No, certainly not myself.

I take your point, but I also believe that the duty of any designer is to stick his/her neck out from time to time and advise the client of the suitability of that building, site or section of land for a his business or golf course. There are also times to cut and run if the designer's advice is not accepted.

The reason why, is simple it’s the designers reputation that is ultimately on the line, not the clients. The designer when he leaves the site leaves his name forever connected to the project.

I have the utmost respect for golf course designers, I wish them well. Nevertheless, beware the client and his changing brief because after all you name is what you trade upon and should be most precious to you. Now, what's your next lesson?

Melvyn

Melvyn- We continue with this same arguement and it is tedious. I cant speak for other architects ( I am sure they do) but I do discuss the whole economics quite thoroughly with a potential client and it has cost me jobs, I have designed and built 10 golf courses none have every gone bankrupt, a couple are not big financial winners but more than half are good business'. As a smaller or regional architect I don't get great pieces of land to work with, I have even been given a 180 acre parcel of completly flat land and I had to mould that into a course whichsome may say is a complete fake, however 7 years on 99% of customers do not know it was a landfill site, the fish breed happilly, the birds nest, we have a dozen deer that live on site, the trees are growing, we got rated 113 in the 2006 GB & I best golf courses. It worked although a few on here have rubbished it. In my area we are on clay and we have no pefect land. Land by your definition would not be fit for purpose, are you saying that we can't have golf courses, if yes then golf is denied to many millions of common people on logistics. Land can be made into a golf course from a flat field, it can be interesting for golf and all matters ecologically and work in harmony with nature. Clay might not be the best but it is not a death sentence