Last week, I played a course designed by a prominent architect. It's well-known and advertised in its region.
The design relies heavily on bunkers (especially including along fairways) and on sideboards, backboards, and kickplates on and around putting surfaces.
Playing conditions and course presentation, however, meant that bunkers weren't properly maintained. Lack of firmness prevented any ground game. Lack of rakes meant that sand surfaces were heavily trafficked, which meant footprint lies abounded.
Other aspects of the experience weren't good (~6 hr. pace of play, cart breaking down, no water on course, etc.). Standards were just low across the board.
It think it's safe to assume that the golf course fails to approximate what the architect intended. Original architectural merits have certainly been neglected. As it exists now, I'm not sure I would want my name associated with it.
At what point, if any, would an architect not want his or her name associated with a course that he or she designed? Is there any instance of an architect requesting disassociation from a course or club? Do contracts include clauses that would permit this (or not)?
Once a design is submitted and built, does the architect lose control of his or her affiliation with the club or course?
Can the architect stipulate certain, minimal requirements for course presentation? If so, how would these even be enforced?
Architects on the site might not even feel comfortable responding, which I understand.
WW