Jason,
Well said. And, of course we extend services to our dues paying members, but some of the industry wide things we do help all architects/designers, etc. For that matter, owing to some complaints, we have been doing a better job of reaching out to non members (or so I hear, not really as involved as I was 20 years ago as President) and some things are open to all.
While there are a few ASGCA standard documents, like the RFP, which I actually happened to write, that say things like respondents must be ASGCA members, I have literally never seen it enforced. After all, mostly cities issue RFQ and RFP documents, and cities try to cast as wide a net as possible.
You don't join ASGCA thinking it gives you some wild competitive advantage, you join for the experience it gives you in meeting with other architects, seeing/playing great courses, and hearing some education that you might not get elsewhere.
Ben,
While Olmstead practiced earlier, and was 78 at the time (and died in 1903), ASLA was formed in 1899, by 11 New York landscape architects - most of them associated with the Olmsted firm. One outgrowth occurred in 1900, when Olmsted's son, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., organized and taught Harvard University's first course in landscape architecture. Again, they saw a need to promote the benefits of LA and LA education, a generally noble thing.
I was just pointing out that I am aware that there was some worry that golf architects were not considered professionals and they wanted to be. I was trying to give a longer view of how things went, rather than a current view with no background.
And, plans are involved, perhaps even more now than then. I do believe they wanted to be recognized as planners over building in the dirt guys, even though many did, as MY points out, also have construction crews. Not sure I can say I have ever seen anything that Ross or others wrote on the subject to express exact views and I could go back and find out exactly where that impression comes from. Perhaps the caddy shack reference was as unfortunate as your spelling and generally inane point.......
Of interest, since MY seems to think they had limited viewpoints, of 14 members, 5 had some LA training, 4 came from construction backgrounds, 3 were golf professionals, and 2 were simply businessmen turned architects, so I don't think they were trying to limit competition to certain types of people, just recognize those who were truly active.
I somewhere have a real detailed Xerox book of the old meeting minutes, as well as Paul Fullmer's history of the ASGCA Presidents. Odd to note, that Ross addressed the first meeting, talking about how bulldozers were shortening green construction time from 15 to 2 days each, which he liked (similar quote ended up in Golf Has Never Failed Me)
First topic discussed? Richard Tufts of Pinehurst was made the first complimentary member, and opined that longer tee shots were killing Pinehurst. The ASGCA made a motion to reach out to the USGA, proving some things never change.
Also of interest, RTJ shared his experiment in building two distinct holes at each par 3 location, which in his opinion, would reduce the bottle necks par 3 holes produce. It does not seem that this idea caught on.
As MY mentioned, there is evidence to support both the lofty goals of the group, as well as some concern that they do what they could to keep fees as high as possible. That said, I would bet fees at that time were sort of like the purses at PGA and LPGA tournaments, very low and maybe not enough to make a great living. It might have seemed much more necessary than evil to them.
Mike, just saw your last post. I would challenge you to find the words "sanctioning body" anywhere in any ASGCA document. I could be wrong, but we never held ourselves out as that, at least in the 34 years I have been a member.
The only reason that ASGCA has set up minimum qualifications is that it doesn't have thousands of degreed and licensed as required by law professionals like AIA and even ASLA, which sort of set the bar. The qualifications of five courses was only to make sure we were allowing recognized and practicing architects in. I agree there is not really a "rookie" program. On the other hand, since so many have gotten to five courses without membership, that along sort of shoots down the idea that you can't practice if you aren't ASGCA, as does your career!
Anyone can choose to focus only on the negative, but this is clearly not a society of choir boys. The only real truth in all of this is that the industry is, and always was, hyper competitive. Feelings get hurt. Blame always seem to get placed on the winner of any competition having some sort of inside track, from both in and outside the ASGCA. Like, working hard to get an inside track, sometimes for many years, is evil! If I happen to beat you out on a job next week, it would be hard to say only ASGCA was the difference. It would really come down to who they liked, references, past work, and the presentation itself, and who did the homework, etc. IMHO, and I listen to these gripes all the time, the winner had some combo of all of the above, and the four losers simply didn't put the work in. (For an example of a great presentation overcoming supposedly greater name value, experience, etc. please refer to the Olympic course!)
If ASGCA has set any rules, they are broad and only to keep the completion as civil as possible, at least between members! (and, this is an ongoing and perhaps somewhat futile process, although it does seem to have worked for the most part)
BTW, I ran into a potential client who had designed a few courses, and has a similarly negative opinion of ASGCA. I think that bias will certainly cost me any chance of a job there, but then, I kind of wondered why he chose to visit with me.....it is what it is, which is sometimes a bit confusing.