The architect and adherence to the plan

[Brett Morris]

Six months ago I started as Super at a large private club with around 1,500 members.  The Club has alot of history being in existence for over 115 years.  The Club paid Dr Mackenzie and Royal Melbourne in 1926 for a visit to advise and produce a plan for the course.  In November (1926) he visited and did produce a plan for the layout which is still available in print.  Following consideration, and some objections from members, the plan was not implemented, however some bunker positioning were.  The annual report in 1927 stated the objections raised by the members but: "Dr. Mackenzie, however, adhered to the plan."  Opportunity missed.

In the almost 90 years following, there have been a number of architects through the doors which have left a number of different styles around the course.  There is alot of land on the course, with 21 holes currently, with no flat holes thanks to the natural rolling nature of the site.  In 2007, the Club started to work with a known architect who to date has produced 4 complete holes.  His style is that golfers should see the bunkers on each hole, which leaves alot of mounding around them, on a gently rolling site, to make them visible through a combination of raising as well as cutting into areas of the land to improve visibility.  Some of this work has been met with complaint, more-so the greens which have significant contours within them.  All of these greens are raised as well.  The Captain of the Club mentioned recently that when dealing with him it's 'either his way or the highway'.

We are currently discussing the next stage of construction due to agronomic reasons (ie. poor draining greens) which are due to start next year.  This is a short Par 4 (driver, short iron) which runs up and over another ridge line down to the green.  A straight hole which reminds me of the drive at CPC #4 with how the fairway bunkers are positioned.  You have to drive to the top of the ridge before you see the green.  The architect has produced a plan for the new hole.  Again, the land is cut into, with the fairway bunkers left pushed back and raised so they, and the new green, are seen from the tee.  In the proposed location they would in play for the second shot of the member, not the drive, and are raised.  On the plan, there is 10 foot change in height from the rear bunker down to a low point left of the green which raises up again.  Again, the land is gently undulating.  I think it's excessive and would look out of place.

I'm not out to start a firestorm with our architect, but the works don't simply sit well with the land and I don't see why the natural features should be consistently disrupted.  A client can ask an architect building their house for changes if they want more room in certain areas.  How about a golf hole?  The Board is made up of businessmen who grant autonomy to their professional staff, so it is a great place to work.  As such, I have been asked of my thoughts on the new 4 holes so far and I know I'll be asked of the proposed design.  I wish they went ahead with your plans Dr. Mac.

Is the architects decision final?

[Mike Nuzzo]

No.
Not every architect is cut from the same cloth.
Good luck

[Richard Chamberlain]

I thought he was retiring ?
Are the tees moving on 6 ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Club always has the final say, in truth.  Some architects have the strength of personality to convince clubs to do it their way, but even in the end, if the work isn't liked, it will be changed, hence, the "parade of architects."

OT, but just this week I got thinking about regional differences in gca preferences.  Do some areas accept blind bunkers more than others, because of design tradition in the areas?  Certainly, in Australia, one would think that Mac's ideas would carry some sway forever.  On the other hand, maybe these things all balance out over time, as one club tries to break the regional mode to have something different......

[Neil_Crafter]

Brett
For what it is worth coming from another architect, you should give your honest opinion of the proposal if asked and the rationale for why you see things the way you do. I would want the frank input of the superintendent if I was the architect and in fact we make sure we seek it out at the clubs we are involved in.
Neil

Here are the changes Mackenzie proposed back in 1926. As you can see once Mackenzie had left the committee got involved in modifying his proposals. Not much has changed in that regard in 85 years!

[Brett Morris]

Neil,

That's the routing, I thought you may have had a copy.

The subject of master planning/architects/reconstruction can be a sore topic at times at the Club.  I want to make sure whatever we do to the course over the coming years will be something which ideally won't have to be altered again for a very long time.

[Scott Macpherson]

HI Brett,

Firstly, I hope you are enjoying your new challenge.

Secondly, my instinct is not to seek a change in your architect (not that you necessary are). The design committee (or whomever) who selected him/her saw good reason to do so. I agree with Neil and Jeff though – it may be time to be very frank. An architect seldom knows all the minute details of a course, and you will be able to help.

In reading between the lines, do you know if the the brief to the architect before commencing work on the first 4 holes was to eventually redesign the entire course? If so, that would unify the theme change currently underway, and perhaps give greater cause to keep them and work through this situation.

Good luck,

Scott

[Ron Farris]

Read the subject line and having worked with Pete Dye, Rod Whitman, Bobby Weed, and Tom Doak I said to myself are you out of your mind........whew!

[BCrosby]

Brett -

I can't believe what I am reading. A club has a plan for its course done by, arguably, the best golf architect in the history of the game. A name so famous that his association with a course will confer instant status to it. 

And now, decades later and after MacK's reputation has gone from height to height, the club wants to redo its course...and it leaves the MacKenzie plan in the drawer.....?

The mistake the club made in 1926 might have been forgivable as simple ignorance. This time around it it sounds more like negligence. Or maybe worse. It beggars belief that a club would willingly fore-go an asset of such magnitude.   

Bob



 

[Niall C]

Brett (and Neil)

While I see where Bob is coming from and agree with him to a certain extent, would it actually be possible to implement MacKenzies plan ? In other words, do you still have the same land that MacKenzie designed the holes on and also do you think his design would stand up today without making major adaptions anyway ?

Apologies if the above is a bit off subject. Back on topic, and FWIW, I agree with what everyone else seems to be saying, the client always has final say. From what your captain is saying, the gca seems fairly difficult to work with which may be no bad thing in so much as you might get a better final result if his intent is adhered to more thoroughly. However recognising that questions are being raised 5 holes into a 18 hole redesign it might be the oppotune time to sit down and discuss with the gca the overall concept of his design to make sure everyones on the same page.

Niall

[Jeff_Mingay]

Brett,

For whatever it's worth, I also agree with Neil. I think it's your professional responsibility to offer your honest opinion along with rationale behind those opinions. I would also expect nothing less of the superintendents at clubs where I'm working.

Good luck,

[BCrosby]

I'm still gob-smacked by what Brett's course has collecting dust in a file cabinet.

But Niall's right about getting back on topic. Having lived through a number of internal debates over changes to my course, the club is in the enviable position of being able to both (a) accept or decline the implementation of an architect's recommendations, and (b) use the architect's recommendations as cover for changes the green committee wants to make but that are unpopular with the the membership. A win-win for the club.

If you think that means the club is being hypocritical, you will hear no objection from me.  

Bob    

[Adrian_Stiff]

The client is King.
Its not easy working with an existing course and members views, compromise is quite difficult and in many respects the best client is the one that knows nothing, that way you get your way and hopefully a better course.
A thing to remember is the higher profile the architect the less likely you will encounter interference from a committee or individual, also when you put forward a masterplan to an existing club there may be 40 proposed changes, so you can expect 28 'yesses' and 12 'no's'.
I have walked away more times than I have taken a job regarding re-dos, it can be annoying. Some have been great to work with and we are all still friends.

[Mike_Young]

I am a member of a course built in 1925 by one of the famous ODGs.  About 6 years ago they had a consultant come and tell the club what they needed to do to get thru the next 20 years with the first thing being they needed to pay that consultant a big fee.  He recommended that we also upgrade the golf course.  The club approved a 6 million dollar assessment for improvements to the club including the golf course and then set about to do so.  They hired a restoration architect and a modern "Fazio" type contractor. AND they decided to build nine holes each year instead of all at once.   We now have two completely different nine holes.  I don't really think it was the architect as much as the contractor having the "design committee's ear" and the committee being so enamored with the fact that the contractor had worked for one of the big names and was doing work for Tiger in his backyard.  SO I SAY NO. The architect doesn't have final say.  These old clubs today are totally dependent on the stewards they have inherited.   And when all these stewards have seen is the overbuilt modern stuff then "Houston has a problem".  I think the order of influence is something like this:
1.  Good player on the "design committee" ( why would you need a design committee when you have an architect?)
2.  The contractor's on site person who has the ear of the committee each day
3.  The general manager
4.  The architect

[Tom_Doak]

The client is King.
Its not easy working with an existing course and members views, compromise is quite difficult and in many respects the best client is the one that knows nothing, that way you get your way and hopefully a better course.
A thing to remember is the higher profile the architect the less likely you will encounter interference from a committee or individual, also when you put forward a masterplan to an existing club there may be 40 proposed changes, so you can expect 28 'yesses' and 12 'no's'.
I have walked away more times than I have taken a job regarding re-dos, it can be annoying. Some have been great to work with and we are all still friends.

Adrian:

I think you should take back your first sentence.  On a consulting job, who exactly is the client?  Is it the green chairman, or the g.m., or is it the whole membership, who are often a silent majority?

The green chairman usually thinks HE is the client, and expects the architect to yield to his view on certain holes.  This can be tough to resist, but the architect should resist it if he believes that the next green chairman might well differ and want to change the hole again.  Unnecessary surgery is against the Hippocratic oath.

P.S.  When I typed "HE" above, it occurred to me for a second that I shouldn't assume the green chairman is always a man; but, on second thought, I have never met a woman who was greens chair at a club.  Does anyone here know of a club that appointed a woman in the role?  Anywhere?  Ever?

[BCrosby]

Tom -

The reason for the virtual absence of women as Green chairs is that only members (not spouses) can serve on committees at most clubs. There are very few women members. That will change someday.

Bob

[Ian Andrew]

I have never met a woman who was greens chair at a club.  Does anyone here know of a club that appointed a woman in the role?  Anywhere?  Ever?

 I've worked with three (and possibly more). I've also had six club Presidents (two currently) and I work with three female superintendents now. I don't think we have the same hang-ups.

[Tom_Doak]

I have never met a woman who was greens chair at a club.  Does anyone here know of a club that appointed a woman in the role?  Anywhere?  Ever?

 I've worked with three (and possibly more). I've also had six club Presidents (two currently) and I work with three female superintendents now. I don't think we have the same hang-ups.

Ian:

That's fascinating.  I will honestly be surprised if anyone in the States comes up with an example of a prominent club with a female green chair.  It is a hang-up, a big one.

I have met several women who are superintendents, but not at any of the clubs where we have done consulting work.  The long-time superintendent at Riverdale Dunes is a woman, but we haven't had any in charge of one of our own courses -- so far.

[Bart Bradley]

Tom:

Grandfather Golf and CC currently has a female Green Committee Chairperson.

Bart

[Jeff_Brauer]

On the public side, had a meeting the other day, and there were no female committee members, but they said they had advertised extensively to try to find one.  We theorized that they feel the men probably wouldn't listen to their concerns anyway, and who can blame them?  One guy on the committee was taking furious notes, and said his wife wanted input, so he had to keep her informed.  Said she didn't join because she thought two from the same family might be "too much" but in reality, what is the difference if she tells hubby what to say and vote for?

Yes, TD is right.  As gca's, we often don't know exactly who is pulling the strings from either the actual committee, or the behind the scenes politics.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom -

The reason for the virtual absence of women as Green chairs is that only members (not spouses) can serve on committees at most clubs. There are very few women members. That will change someday.

Bob

My goodness Bob!!! What backward part of the globe are you living in 

Jon

[BCrosby]

Tom -

The reason for the virtual absence of women as Green chairs is that only members (not spouses) can serve on committees at most clubs. There are very few women members. That will change someday.

Bob

My goodness Bob!!! What backward part of the globe are you living in 

Jon

Jon - Let me count the ways.....

Bob

[GBoring]

Johns Island Club in Vero Beach used to have a Women Green Chair.  I dont know if that is still the case. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tom - I suppose I am speaking from a UK perspective the client in my mind is a)owner or b)the person or persons given the authority to run the project. My point is after the initial meeting I have a good idea if my ideas concurr with theirs and if they dont, how much common ground do we have and how much of things I dont believe in am I prepared to put up with. I have found that often there is not much common ground within the working party itself sometimes.....at the end of the day the client chooses the architect so I still believe they are 'King' or the paymaster. I did one job that I did enjoy and everything went well except I was assured on completion the course would be renumbered to flow better, but 15 years on it has not been changed, I heard someone say afterwards "why didn't he remunber the holes" referring to me, it was not my call but I got the blame. I have not had a 100% authority on a redo. Do they exist?


Adrian:

I think you should take back your first sentence.  On a consulting job, who exactly is the client?  Is it the green chairman, or the g.m., or is it the whole membership, who are often a silent majority?

The green chairman usually thinks HE is the client, and expects the architect to yield to his view on certain holes.  This can be tough to resist, but the architect should resist it if he believes that the next green chairman might well differ and want to change the hole again.  Unnecessary surgery is against the Hippocratic oath.

P.S.  When I typed "HE" above, it occurred to me for a second that I shouldn't assume the green chairman is always a man; but, on second thought, I have never met a woman who was greens chair at a club.  Does anyone here know of a club that appointed a woman in the role?  Anywhere?  Ever?
[/quote]

[Tom_Doak]

I have not had a 100% authority on a redo. Do they exist?

No, that doesn't exist.  What I've done at a few clubs is tell them I will carry out all the work that they want us to, which we have agreed upon, but I won't make changes that I don't agree with.  One or two of those clubs have made further changes in-house, but others have respected my opinion and not made the changes where we dissented.  Again, the "unnecessary surgery" analogy works well in such instances.