GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group
Most important element of a consulting architect's role
Matthew Mollica:
What do we think is the most important element of a consulting architect's role at a Golden Age course?
Pragmatic approach to periodic course work
Respect of original design intent
Construction quality & style which matches the original build character
Strict control of members who might otherwise see their course suffer
Something else?
Matt
Mark_Fine:
Education!
Chris Hughes:
--- Quote from: Matthew Mollica on December 22, 2024, 10:04:29 PM ---What do we think is the most important element of a consulting architect's role at a Golden Age course?
Pragmatic approach to periodic course work
Respect of original design intent
Construction quality & style which matches the original build character
Strict control of members who might otherwise see their course suffer
Something else?
Matt
--- End quote ---
D. Keep the members fools who think they know better from screwing it up. :-\
All joking aside, the job of keeping the fools at bay mostly falls on the shoulders of club leadership but the consulting architect absolutely should impress upon them how incredibly dangerous "meddling" can be/become.
By chance, I recently stumbled upon Joe Sponcia's "Green Committee Primer" post from 9-years ago, here:
Green Committee Primer - Golf Club Atlas
Great read.
It's a slippery slope... (might start with something as simple as changing fairway mowing "lines"nod to Craig Sweet without consulting the Architect of Record)
A great course I've played a lot has one particular green that, let's say, very frequently attracts outsized attention from the armchairs...my name for the hole is Mesa. (follows Java, precedes Mirage)
Regularly as we walk onto the green a playing partner will start whingeing about the design and usually suggest how it should be changed, in their opinion.
My response is to state the green for Mesa is "Hands Down one of my two favorite on the golf course" (along with Mirage), and then I invoke a question learned from a brilliant Super I am fortunate to know -- "what will you change next"?
This usually stumps them...
...again, it's a slippery slope.
Chris Hughes:
--- Quote from: Mark_Fine on December 22, 2024, 10:36:14 PM ---Education!
--- End quote ---
This too... ;)
Simon Barrington:
Education is key especially of those who Tom Simpson famously called "the Invincibly Ignorant".
There are exceptions of course, but the level of knowledge on Boards and Committees in some Clubs is (very sadly) incrediby low, and the lack of openness and debate can be even lower.
The responsibility of a good architect in these circumstances is to protect and enhance what remains of an ODG's intent, style and philosophies. Resisting change should be the starting position if genuinely important architecture is present. Recovery of what has been lost the next consideration.
They should work closely with the club historian/archivist, and preferably external researchers who know the ODGs work, to ensure they have a extremely good perspective on what remains and what may have been lost (and why) over the years. I have known Clubs actively to disuade or prevent that happening to target "modernisation" (whatever that nebulous justification means) the detriment of the result.
Recent work across the UK does not give me great hope that architects understand this, or are prepared to resist unnecessary and damaging changes to classic courses requested by the unknowing people in charge. They need to protect them from themselves.
The US seems far more advanced in this regard, the UK is behind (with some notable exceptions)
N.B. These courses don't have to be only "top-ranked" to deserve protection from those in charge, there are many examples highlighted by numerous tours on here (by Sean, Dai and others) that show genuinely interesting architecture worthy of preservation/protection can be found in all corners of GB & I
I also think architects (who I have huge respect for) have a responsibility to their own CV/Resume in terms of every project they put their name to.
Bowing to a poor client (Board/Committee) and allowing their name to be on poor and inappropriate work is in my view a career limiting downslope they should not get on.
I think architects, like golfers, are only as good as their worst efforts.
Great projects need both good architects and good clients, the latter needs the former to help them be so.
BTW -
I ran a similar question to this post on another place back in January:
"If a Board at a historic course laid out by a noted designer (ODG) asks an architect to ignore the heritage and ethos in a "modernisation" masterplan and make wholesale changes, what should the architect do?"
Vote results:
Refuse to do the Plan 7%
Educate the client 85.9%
Suggest another architect 5.6%
Do the Plan and take the £ 1.4%
These results were telling to say the least, and somewhat reassuring that those who engaged have the same concerns.
So perhaps there is hope, but only if the architects listen...and educate
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version