What is the absolute minimum an architect should achieve?

[Alex Miller]

If given a site that has NOTHING to work with, be it too flat or too severe, too rocky or too wooded?

What is the least that can be expected without calling it a failure by the architect, and what would constitute a failure?

Is it easier for an architect to fail at his job on a wonderful site by screwing it up than it is to make something from nothing?

[Joe_Tucholski]

If given a site that has NOTHING to work with, be it too flat or too severe, too rocky or too wooded?

What is the least that can be expected without calling it a failure by the architect, and what would constitute a failure?

Is it easier for an architect to fail at his job on a wonderful site by screwing it up than it is to make something from nothing?

I first read this and thought it was a tough question.  Then thought about it came to the conclusion that if a site has nothing to work with the least they can do (and what they should do) is tell the developer the course has nothing to work with and a golf course should not be built on the land.  Therefore I guess it would be a failure for an architect to build on a site with nothing to work with unless the developer has the funding and is willing to dramatically alter the land so that it is fit for a golf course (not sure exactly when it will transition from failure to success or how much money would be required).  I would guess others will say it would be a failure if they build on the site.

I have no experience with the second question but would guess it would be easier to screw up a good site.  I assume there is a significantly greater chance that I screw up a good site than I make something good from nothing.

[David_Elvins]

Anything less than 9 holes is a failure IMO. 

[Sean_A]

If we are talking about what the architect has done success or failure depends on the brief and for the owner to decide. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Making something from nothing is difficult, or at least, fairly expensive.  But, that's not to say you should never try.  Take The Rawls Course as an example -- I don't think it is one of my best courses, or even necessarily some of our best work, but to have a good course on campus was a noble goal, and we'd have had to go twenty miles out of town [or more] to find a site with any real character, so I think it was worth doing.

The "minimum" you should achieve on a project is up to the individual; I have high standards for myself.  But I would say that the minimum any architect should achieve so that the project is worthwhile is that the course drains well and is fun to play.  If it's not fun to play, somebody else should have done it.

Screwing up a good site is easy.  I don't even know why that would be a part of this discussion.  Doing the best possible job on a good site is not as easy as it looks, but if you are really good, you'll make it look easy.

[Ian Andrew]

If given a site that has NOTHING to work with, be it too flat or too severe, too rocky or too wooded?

Flat is fine by me - you have to be very creative - but the canvas is completely clear too.
I don't think architects mind this type of site unless the water table is very high.
We get those sites a lot.

Too rocky is very expensive and very limiting - you need to import, blast or use large equipment to build.
The problem is is it's hard to make a good economic model out of this situation if you want good golf.
Playability can be an issue is money is tight.

Too severe is the one that on occasion you must refuse to do - there are sites that are not meant for golf.
All the horrible courses I can think of were built on severe sites.

Too wooded is never a problem, it's just a different build.

[Melvyn Morrow]

"Respect"

[Anthony Gray]

  FUN....you can still add unique and memorable features and greens with interest even if it isn't minimalism. Just make it fun.

  Anthony

[Adam Clayman]

The most amount of pleasure to the greatest number of people.

[Kalen Braley]

I think what we deem as the biggest failures are those sites which have a lot of a promise, yet turn out to be duds.

If a site is flat and featureless, then perhaps expectations are low going in.  So if the product is a yawner, then at least the bar was set low.

Compare this to a site that exist in Oregon, starts with a "S" and was done by a certain architect that shall remain nameless.   

[Philippe Binette]

Do all he can to make the course possible with what he is given.... he's paid to do exactly that.

If an architect is not giving you that... no matter what is his name and what he has done in the past, change the architect.