USA vs British Clubs and Reliance on Golf Architects?

[Carl Johnson]

My thread title might not be the best, but I taking off from Richard Fisher's reply #24 on https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,73301.0.htm  Here's the heart of it, referring to clubs that turn to an architect for every little course change:

". . . we should perhaps remind ourselves colleagues that the proportion of (say) British golf clubs currently 'working with an architect' is absolutely tiny, certainly in the sense in which I think this thread is constructed. Professional colleagues may know better, but I would guess perhaps 5%, maybe 10% tops, and very largely in and around a generalised 'top 200'.? The US may well be the global outlier here, if an 'architect' is as prevalent as seems to be assumed?"

Discuss.  I'll come back with more later, but my initial reaction is that British clubs probably don't have as many activist green committees from whom the integrity of the course needs to be protected.  That's simplistic, I know, but just for a start.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think it’s just about money. Most British clubs would implode if told they had to spend a hundred grand on their golf course.

[Richard Fisher]

Complete agreement Adam. £50K would send many over the edge, if charging between £750 and £1000 per annum for c 50 weeks of golf.

[Simon Barrington]

My thread title might not be the best, but I taking Discuss.  I'll come back with more later, but my initial reaction is that British clubs probably don't have as many activist green committees from whom the integrity of the course needs to be protected.  That's simplistic, I know, but just for a start.

Sadly, that is far from the truth in some cases.

There has been a sea change in some courses due to newer members joining post a downturn pre-COVID (so moved from newer accessible modern courses/clubs that closed down) and post-COVID with increased demand from newer or returning golfers (many younger sportsmen discovered or re-discovered golf during this time as it was the first Sport to open up, and they realised they loved it!)

These new members have become emboldened and are very engaged in Club politics, but they have little to no knowledge of Golf Architecture nor heritage.
 
I know of some Clubs where they have loaded the Board and have an open "Modernising" agenda (whatever the hell that means) that has been steamrolled through, without appropriate scrutiny/protocols in some cases.

These clubs will remain nameless, but the result is commissioning of local Architects for expensive, some may say wasteful, and damaging work to some heritage courses.

Some Architects seem happy to go along with their requests as the money is there and they can get a open opportunity to stamp their mark.
There are commercial aspects/linkages to (EIGCA Partner) suppliers that encourage over-specification of solutions.
There is a lack of historical care and research too as these Architects simply have too many projects on their roster already, so speed is the  essence and damn the results. Some will damage their reputation and portfolio.

IMHO this period will go down to be as damaging as the tree-planting frenzies of the 1960s & 70s to UK courses.

Homogenised pastiche bunkering is the most visible aspect, but the relocation of bunkers and hazards without care (to adjust courses for the <5% of golfers who hit it >250yds) has severly damaged both strategy (for the majority of amateur players) and the aesthetics of courses. Bland unexciting predictable golf results...the long-term effects will be very interesting...

But at least in 10-15yrs there may be an opportunity for the next generation (of hopefully better informed) Architects to rectify this work for the "better"...Here's hoping...

[Chris Hughes]

My thread title might not be the best, but I taking off from Richard Fisher's reply #24 on https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,73301.0.htm  Here's the heart of it, referring to clubs that turn to an architect for every little course change:

Discuss.  I'll come back with more later, but my initial reaction is that British clubs probably don't have as many activist green committees from whom the integrity of the course needs to be protected.  That's simplistic, I know, but just for a start.

That really is problematic and an incredibly slippery slope, isn't it.

I think it’s just about money. Most British clubs would implode if told they had to spend a hundred grand on their golf course.

Heck one just spent almost $200K to get a few sheep and majestic Highland cows off of it!

My thread title might not be the best, but I taking Discuss.  I'll come back with more later, but my initial reaction is that British clubs probably don't have as many activist green committees from whom the integrity of the course needs to be protected.  That's simplistic, I know, but just for a start.

Sadly, that is far from the truth in some cases.

These new members have become emboldened and are very engaged in Club politics, but they have little to no knowledge of Golf Architecture nor heritage.
 
I know of some Clubs where they have loaded the Board and have an open "Modernising" agenda (whatever the hell that means) that has been steamrolled through, without appropriate scrutiny/protocols in some cases.

These clubs will remain nameless, but the result is commissioning of local Architects for expensive, some may say wasteful, and damaging work to some heritage courses.

Jeez I hate to hear this... 

[Thomas Dai]

One of the great scourges at some U.K. golf clubs has been the introduction of ‘Beautification’ committees usually comprising the likes of Miss Scarlett, Colonel Mustard, the Rev Green and Mr B Ollocks.
“Marigolds behind the 4th green would look so lovely” and all that kind of …….
Atb

[Simon Barrington]

One of the great scourges at some U.K. golf clubs has been the introduction of ‘Beautification’ committees usually comprising the likes of Miss Scarlett, Colonel Mustard, the Rev Green and Mr B Ollocks.
“Marigolds behind the 4th green would look so lovely” and all that kind of …….
Atb

Anyone who suggests such a thing should of course plant whatever they wish, not on the golf course where they play, but in their own garden!

I am afraid the old Berckman's Nursery influences the uninformed, and it is notable that its own "beautification" occured several years after the course was built too...hence a number of hole names changed over time...it's a beautiful and special place, but it is and should be unique and not mimicked.

[mike_beene]

Having an architect approve any change is a defense against a committee making changes.

[Simon Barrington]

Having an architect approve any change is a defense against a committee making changes.

As is the role of a consultant in so many fields, often the fields that committees may have made their careers.
They provide "air-cover" for personal or collective committee whims.
 
When the resulting work is so far away from the Architect's initial concept Audit/Masterplan for the project it reveals this.

Unfortunately memberships don't get to see the various iterations, so the committee's desire simply gets presented as the "Architect's plan". There are not enough informed members to fight against such inappropriate change, given the niche of passionate GCA nerd-dom we speak in is so very small.

A weak consultant allows themselves to be so directed, a good architect would; educate, influence towards thorough researched work, or step away.

[Simon Barrington]

Jeez I hate to hear this... 

Appreciate that, I would say of course this is in SOME instances.

But the social media feeds indicate it might be more prevalent, often in the less-lauded clubs/courses that are part of our deep and varied architectural heritage.
#stophomogenisinggems #keepthequirk #nomorepastichebunkers

[Tags:]

Tags: