[William_G]

Preserve St. Andrews
Build Old Macdonald
Restore Pinehurst #2
Fuss with ANGC

Is this all the role of an architect for better or worse?

[Alex Miller]

I would imagine that the role of an architect above all else is to help a golf course/club fulfill its purpose in the best way they know how.

Old Macdonald- build a course for everyone that can allow the golfer to see and play on some of C.B.'s great concepts based on many famous template holes and show how great width and green contours are when trying to have fun on a golf course

ANGC- was built to challenge the worlds best golfers in an invitational tournament. Heck, if they didn't tweak Augusta with this purpose in mind, it'd be weird, right? There are some things that could be changed, or changed back, but they've always seemed to make changes with this purpose.

Pinehurst #2- a championship test within the original Ross courses. Do we know how raised the greens were originally? Does it matter? It's been restored to once again champion fast and firm conditions, short grass and sand, and provide a test for all levels of player. That'll do!

TOC- defining the purpose of TOC is much more difficult than these other courses (which I probably haven't fairly summed up in 1-2 sentences). It's the birth of the game; the greatest link to golf's origins. It has many of the most copied strategies, concepts, and features that are seen in the game. The result is that it does indeed need to be preserved, but I'd imagine that for every golf course there is a unique need that the golf course architect needs to fulfill.


So the question is...is TOC starting down the road to becoming ANGC?

[Sean_A]

I expect it depends on the archie.  Some will take the idea of pleasing the client further than others.  Some will be more independent minded than others.  We may all think we know the right balance in each and every case, but few of us will ever be placed in the position to make a decision.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Preserve St. Andrews
Build Old Macdonald
Restore Pinehurst #2
Fuss with ANGC

Is this all the role of an architect for better or worse?

William,

The role of the architect is to carry out the mission he was HIRED for.

The golf course is not his property.

Architects are not granted complete artistic license or carte blanche when retained.

They are hired as the technical experts for a project that has been decided/determined by the owner.

One way they can exert their influence is to either bid or not bid on the project

[Mike_Young]

William,
People have tried to legitimize The golf architect "profession" for years but it just can't be done.  All that is required is a client that will entrust you with his project.   I do think is the most holistic golf occupation out there so all that you mention could be projects of the golf architect.  

[William_G]

William,
People have tried to legitimize The golf architect "profession" for years but it just can't be done.  All that is required is a client that will entrust you with his project.   I do think is the most holistic golf occupation out there so all that you mention could be projects of the golf architect.  

Thanks...I agree with that.

I guess when when a structure becomes historica and as such is on the Historic Register, then changes can not be made.

No such golf course exists as a museum piece.

Not sure if Falling Water is such a structure, but if not, the owner could do as he pleases with or w/o an architect.

Maybe "architect" is overstating what Hanse and others do?

Does seem that TOC is going ANGC on us, doesn't it.

[Mike_Young]

William,
People have tried to legitimize The golf architect "profession" for years but it just can't be done.  All that is required is a client that will entrust you with his project.   I do think is the most holistic golf occupation out there so all that you mention could be projects of the golf architect.  

Thanks...I agree with that.

I guess when when a structure becomes historica and as such is on the Historic Register, then changes can not be made.

No such golf course exists as a museum piece.

Not sure if Falling Water is such a structure, but if not, the owner could do as he pleases with or w/o an architect.

Maybe "architect" is overstating what Hanse and others do?

Does seem that TOC is going ANGC on us, doesn't it.

I have been doing it the same way as Gil for over 25 years and think the word architect is an overstatement.  IMHO it has always been used since the beginning to create a sense of elitist or superiority over "designer". It is what it is...

[Mike Nuzzo]

Pat
I believe the golf course architect can and should also be used to counsel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
I believe the golf course architect can and should also be used to counsel.

Mike,

I agree, my statement was made in the context of a "project"

If nothing else, the consulting architect can be the stabilizing force behind not disfiguring the golf course.

If you could sit in board meetings and hear the incredibly wild design theories being espoused by board members, you wouldn't believe it.

At a club I'm familiar with a board member wanted to introduce a waterfall, within 10 yards of a green, on a rock formation, in order to drown out the noise of traffic from a street about 50 yards away.

You can't make this stuff up.

[paul cowley]

Preserve St. Andrews
Build Old Macdonald
Restore Pinehurst #2
Fuss with ANGC

Is this all the role of an architect for better or worse?

William you pretty much nailed it!

[Frank Pont]

I estimate that I spend between 20-25% of my time convincing clients and prospective clients not to do things that would damage or destroy essential parts of their classic courses.

We are talking about wanting to change or move classic greens, changing the routing, changing bunker locations, changing the strategy of a hole. Almost always it is instigated by the desire to add length, to make the course tougher, often driven by low handicap players with a very limited knowledge of GCA, sometimes in an attempt to get into favour with the authorities to host a major tournament.

It obviously is a major time commitment, but one that I think is essential and one I am happy to invest because I feel it is worth it if it in my working lifetime saves a couple of classic Colt or Simpson greens and/or the strategy of their holes etc. That is part of the reason I am so upset with the golf architects involved in the current mess.

[Tom_Doak]

William,

The role of the architect is to carry out the mission he was HIRED for.

The golf course is not his property.

Architects are not granted complete artistic license or carte blanche when retained.

They are hired as the technical experts for a project that has been decided/determined by the owner.

One way they can exert their influence is to either bid or not bid on the project

It's absolutely true that our designs are no longer ours once we are finished.  It takes a while to truly understand this.

Architects ARE sometimes granted complete artistic license.  Not as often as their clients claim it, but it has happened.

I believe we are more than technical experts.

[Tom_Doak]

I estimate that I spend between 20-25% of my time convincing clients and prospective clients not to do things that would damage or destroy essential parts of their classic courses.

We are talking about wanting to change or move classic greens, changing the routing, changing bunker locations, changing the strategy of a hole. Almost always it is instigated by the desire to add length, to make the course tougher, often driven by low handicap players with a very limited knowledge of GCA, sometimes in an attempt to get into favour with the authorities to host a major tournament.

It obviously is a major time commitment, but one that I think is essential and one I am happy to invest because I feel it is worth it if it in my working lifetime saves a couple of classic Colt or Simpson greens and/or the strategy of their holes etc. That is part of the reason I am so upset with the golf architects involved in the current mess.

One of the main reasons I got involved in consulting work at classic courses was that after seeing so many courses through my years in college and just afterwards, I could not believe how many great courses had been changed, and how many features of the original designs had been lost due to neglect or deliberate change.

A lot of the time, such features do not require any elaborate restoration ... all they need to do is be cleared out again and mowed properly, and maybe put sand back into the bottom of a bunker.  You only need to dig things up if they were filled over when they were changed.

However, I must say that it gets harder and harder to invest the time Frank is talking about, when you have to go back to the same clubs over and over again and explain the same stuff, and wait for years for them to understand it.  Most of the important stuff that needs to be done is blindingly obvious if you've been able to see an old aerial photograph of the course, yet most architects now manage to turn it into a 100-page report. 

[William_G]

I estimate that I spend between 20-25% of my time convincing clients and prospective clients not to do things that would damage or destroy essential parts of their classic courses.

One of the main reasons I got involved in consulting work at classic courses was that after seeing so many courses through my years in college and just afterwards, I could not believe how many great courses had been changed, and how many features of the original designs had been lost due to neglect or deliberate change.

Most of the important stuff that needs to be done is blindingly obvious if you've been able to see an old aerial photograph of the course, yet most architects now manage to turn it into a 100-page report. 

The 100 page report may be a prop to justify fees.

A master plan can be done on just a few pages.

A new course obviously is different these days, if you are lucky enough to have the work.

[Ian Andrew]

.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()