....does an architect have an ethical responsibility...

[paul cowley]

.....does an architect have an ethical responsibility to design a course within a clubs or clients ability to maintain it properly.

.....should someone design something that they feel can't be properly maintained over time....even if they reap initial benifits.

.....does this ever occur ?.........  

[A_Clay_Man]

Paul- i cant answer your specific wuestion but I can kind of turn it around on you.

At Wild Horse, the green surrounds are fescue. While the climate isn't perfect for the sustained healthy growth of this type of turf, the added maintenance, both in cost and care, is justified because it is so integral to the playability of the golf course.

Relating back to your question, if a designer designs a feature that requires extra care and cost, the decision to neglect it, may not be unethical, it may just be ignorance on the part of those still around after the designer is long gone..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

.....does an architect have an ethical responsibility to design a course within a clubs or clients ability to maintain it properly.

How can an architect predict the capabilities of future superintendents ?

.....should someone design something that they feel can't be properly maintained over time....even if they reap initial benifits.

Can you provide a specific example, rather than a vague generallity ?

.....does this ever occur ?.........

Extremes do occur.  I have advised individuals to remember, that long after the architect has left the building, they'll have the long term responsibility of maintaining the course/features and defending the design work, and to avoid radical departures.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Patrick,
Who is responsible for the proper maintenance, the members or the superintendent? We all know that the supt. is responsible for the methods required to achieve the desired conditions, but is he really responsible for determining how the course should play?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good question.  I happen to feel I do, but of course, as Pat says, I am no damn good at predicting the future.  History repeats. The 20's and 90's may be similar, with more bunker removals, fairway narrowings, etc.

If the past is a guide, cost pressures will raise their head at some time.  I have told the story about seeing fairway bunkers well in the woods at Shoreacres, with the fairways narrowed through the expense cuts of the depression and gas rationing of WWII.

I have heard of two of my local courses now filling in bunkers to cut costs.  I never thought those were extravagant, but the owner's of these courses now need to cut costs in every way to pay debt and expenses.

I know some architects who do design features, knowing full well that in a few years, those features (gingerbread bunkers, steep slopes for shadows) will be changed, but they don't care, as long as they get their marketing pictures.  Even that may be ethical in a higher sense, assuming the owner knows, and also wants the great marketing pictures at the expense of some possible greater maintenance costs, which will be borne by someone else.  (kind of like our long running federal deficits, huh?)

Sometimes its a tough call - do you want the best theoretical design, or the one that has a chance to last, albeit, not as spectacular?  I have always felt that any feature that was hard to maintain would get changed at some point in the future. So, I lean to asking the current superintendent about his maintenance programs, and being a bit conservative about future maintenance.  I won't get famous, but my courses will stay less altered than many in the future.  At least, that's my hope.

[SPDB]

This is a little bit like the point I was trying to make on
the "This day in Dig it or Dig it Up History." I don't think the
architect has an ethical responsibility, but perhaps he should not be surprised if extraneous hazards built for the sake of aesthetics, which do not have just bearing on the play of the course at some point get compromised because of budgetary/maintenance concerns.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

Patrick,
Who is responsible for the proper maintenance, the members or the superintendent?

Each club has its own dynamic, but in general, the membership should set the conditions of play, and the superintedent should agronomically implement them, where possible.

We all know that the supt. is responsible for the methods required to achieve the desired conditions, but is he really responsible for determining how the course should play?

He certainly controls how the course can play, but in the ultimate, the membership should decide.

Unfortunately, at many clubs, this may vary from President to President, Board to Board, regime to regime, and this is why I like dictators, especially those that hand pick their successor.

[paul cowley]

...good answer jeff , and more to my point.
   time permitting ,i will try to expand on the question [can't now].....

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

I think our first ethical duty is to try and spend the client's money wisely in building a course -- to discuss the costs and whether they are reasonable in the market.

This can and should include ongoing maintenance issues, but in most cases, "high cost" maintenance items can be allowed to get a bit scruffy if times are tough, can't they?

A great example of a design which included a lot of high-cost eye candy bunkers is Pasatiempo.  There were quite a few wild bunkers that were difficult to maintain in 1929 and impossible by 1935.  Now they're having us restore some of them with bunker liners to hold the sand, as I'm sure Dr. MacKenzie intended.

[abell]

Good question.  I happen to feel I do, but of course, as Pat says, I am no damn good at predicting the future.  History repeats. The 20's and 90's may be similar, with more bunker removals, fairway narrowings, etc.

If the past is a guide, cost pressures will raise their head at some time.  I have told the story about seeing fairway bunkers well in the woods at Shoreacres, with the fairways narrowed through the expense cuts of the depression and gas rationing of WWII.

I have heard of two of my local courses now filling in bunkers to cut costs.  I never thought those were extravagant, but the owner's of these courses now need to cut costs in every way to pay debt and expenses.

I know some architects who do design features, knowing full well that in a few years, those features (gingerbread bunkers, steep slopes for shadows) will be changed, but they don't care, as long as they get their marketing pictures.  Even that may be ethical in a higher sense, assuming the owner knows, and also wants the great marketing pictures at the expense of some possible greater maintenance costs, which will be borne by someone else.  (kind of like our long running federal deficits, huh?)

Sometimes its a tough call - do you want the best theoretical design, or the one that has a chance to last, albeit, not as spectacular?  I have always felt that any feature that was hard to maintain would get changed at some point in the future. So, I lean to asking the current superintendent about his maintenance programs, and being a bit conservative about future maintenance.  I won't get famous, but my courses will stay less altered than many in the future.  At least, that's my hope.

[abell]

Good question.  I happen to feel I do, but of course, as Pat says, I am no damn good at predicting the future.  History repeats. The 20's and 90's may be similar, with more bunker removals, fairway narrowings, etc.

If the past is a guide, cost pressures will raise their head at some time.  I have told the story about seeing fairway bunkers well in the woods at Shoreacres, with the fairways narrowed through the expense cuts of the depression and gas rationing of WWII.

I have heard of two of my local courses now filling in bunkers to cut costs.  I never thought those were extravagant, but the owner's of these courses now need to cut costs in every way to pay debt and expenses.

I know some architects who do design features, knowing full well that in a few years, those features (gingerbread bunkers, steep slopes for shadows) will be changed, but they don't care, as long as they get their marketing pictures.  Even that may be ethical in a higher sense, assuming the owner knows, and also wants the great marketing pictures at the expense of some possible greater maintenance costs, which will be borne by someone else.  (kind of like our long running federal deficits, huh?)

Sometimes its a tough call - do you want the best theoretical design, or the one that has a chance to last, albeit, not as spectacular?  I have always felt that any feature that was hard to maintain would get changed at some point in the future. So, I lean to asking the current superintendent about his maintenance programs, and being a bit conservative about future maintenance.  I won't get famous, but my courses will stay less altered than many in the future.  At least, that's my hope.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wow,

Now board members are quoting me without comment, apparently because my prose speaks for itself.....

Oh wait, I see the nasty following comments may have been edited out.....

[paul cowley]

jeff
tis a shame as it would have been interesting to hear what abell [or cain ] had to say...........