"Otherwise, golf course design would be reactionary instead of proactive".
Keith, this statement could lead to a whole other topic, but in reality, GCA is both. I have always felt that I do what I can with the approximate 90% reactionary design responses to allow myself the joy of the proactive 10% that is really fun. And in some cases, reactionary is proactive at the same time, as in Ross wondering what he might do with all the new capacity of bulldozers, or modern architects realizing that HDPE drains were cheap enough to use more extensively. Both changed the nature of design reactively and proactively.
Don,
I agree with you. Having been the guy who has had a hand in writing the "industry standard" design agreements, standard builders specs, etc. I see the trend of more specialists and don't particularly care for it either. At one point in writing the ASGCA sample agreements, I made the comment that we could easily have more pages saying what we won't do than saying what we would do. It didn't end up that way in the final draft, of course, but I had requests to specifically say the GCA won't design irrigation, cart paths, drainage. While I see irrigation design as being a separate component (although I used to do it myself) I fail to see how you can design a golf course without figuring out paths and drainage as you go and integrating it into the plan.
IMHO, too many designers rely on the contractor to figure out the little details, as well. Since I think I am better than most at those little details, I hate it when they do that, making others look better than they may really be.
There are compromises in every design, but as you say, making it functional and a good design is what we get paid the (formerly) big bucks for. In reality, I have encountered very few situations where I felt it was an absolute design compromise. Maybe I lean too much to the function side at times, but I know if I put a sand bunker between path and green, there will be worn spots on both sides. I know I am not changing human nature, so I usually figure a way to move the bunker to a more functional location, knowing there are many ways a bunker can make for a good design.
BTW, I have had golfers comment on a course draining well enhancing their enjoyment - no wet shoes, getting out on the course the minute rain stops, etc. So, they don't recognize it as part of the function, but as part of their enjoyment of the game, from their own prism. But, its functionality at its best. Like most of human nature, they usually comment when it negatively impacts them, LOL.