Golf architecture and ethics

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Based on those ethical criteria, I doubt many of the golf architects of 20’s, who regularly debated and critiqued one another, would have qualified. I am convinced those critical exchanges helped to elevate the art.

In the 13th C. St. Thomas Aquinas examined ethics in his Summa Theologica – perhaps better than anyone before or since in the West. He believed there was a relationship between ethical integrity and the ability to create a strong and beautiful artifact. He said that pure technical command of one’s craft was not sufficient; one must also love one’s craft and the community where he builds. “Having craftsman’s skill doesn’t make one good…any actual good depends on the doers having good will.”  Aquinas believed loving one’s work – which includes its heritage – is essential, and that craftsmanship and citizenship are linked, “A craftsman will not act well unless he acquires a love for the good pursued in the exercise of his craft.”  

Wouldn’t golf architecture be better off if the ASGCA included all golf architects (or nearly all golf architects)? Wouldn’t the code of ethics be more reflective of what’s in the best interest of golf architecture and less influenced by protective/competitive issues? And wouldn’t ASGCA's code of ethics be more meaningful if the entire industry was held accountable?

[Tony Ristola]

I have heard references to the ASGCA as a "small group"...but if they were out to identify and pull in those qualified, the group would be larger, less controllable, and more apt to separate the wheat from the chaff.

That 9-holes do not count...nor redesign or restoration seem to be articifial barriers to keep the group small.  Is the work refective of professional skill...certainly, but not in the ASGCA's mind.

Keeping the ASGCA narrow and mute doesn't help the industry.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

Your passion astounds me, your logic escapes me.....

No one is stifling your rant here.  Do it all you like.  If and when you apply to a professional society, don't be surprised that they will question iwhy you want to be a member, after public statements you have no intention of following their principals.

The founders of our country did guarantee freedom of speech, but also warned about using it responsibly, and did put some limits on it - Yelling fire in crowded theater, (public safety issues) and slander - using your words to damage others, among them.

The type of behavior and freedom of speech you seem to advocate is well below the slander level, but professionals  have found that critiquing other professionals or exaggerating their own qualifications is not a great sales tool!  The code just formalizes what most adhere to out of common sense.  You mention lawyers ethics, but in any courtroom or government proceeding there is a high level of decorum, as they try to uphold the dignity of the proceedings/profession, even if there is some ugliness, as you mention.

It really doesn't do you any good, when competing for a project, to sell how bad the other guy is!  The owner will decide to use someone else for the project!  It really is more the place of, and more effective for the Golf Club Atlas', Ron Whittens, and Brad Kleins, et al to do the architecture critiquing, as independent third parties.  You can critique my work publicly all you want, but it usually comes off as self serving, not public serving.

Speaking of which, Tom, do you have any written examples of public critiques among other architects?  I don't recall any off hand, (except some of the MacKenzie stabs at socialism, etc.) and current ASGCA members, and others, do discuss others work in private for the benefit of learning.....

I loved the Tommy Aquinas references.....takes me back to college when Philosophy 101 -2 were the only electives I could fit in a busy landscape architecture curricula.  I think you will find most golf architects passionate about design, and it is sad for the few I know who have lost the zest for the art.

I'm not sure about your point about competitive issues.  Based on my 22 years experience, we get together to discuss issues of common interest, not how to limit competition, ever!  FYI, I suspect that the number of applicants who succeed in joining versus those rejected is well over 90%, hardly making the group closed.  Some people just don't apply, including Kelly Moran, Baxter Spahn, and Tom Doak.  Some can't, because we would not accept an associate before the principal came in.  

And, just a few more questions for this dumb Texan:

Who are you suggesting the industry should be accountable to?  

You weren't talking about restorations in this whole thread?  Or are there some courses you know have never changed, and can be preserved, w/o any work?  Or, would the issue ever come up at an important club if they were not making any changes?

Lastly, if we agree that the most important historic courses should stay as close to original state as possible do you have a postive plan for doing that, and one that could do it w/o dictating to the onwers of the courses?  Read Mike Young's post.  He is 100% correct.

The founders of this country also advocated private property rights, in addtion to free speech.  That seems to be the crux of the problem, no?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
From 'The Spirit of St. Andrews':
"I have great admiration for JH Taylor. Winner of five British Open Championships, he is one of Nature's gentlmen, is exceedignly well read, has original and common sense views on health, politics and many other subjects, and moreover is a born orator and writer. On the other hand he not a success in designing golf courses."

Taylor and Tillinghast traded barbs. Taylor criticized Colt and MacKenzie. Simpson and Behr argued. Hutchinson criticized Braid. Croome criticized Fowler at Westward Ho!. MacKenzie criticized Thomas. Hutchison and others criticized MacKenzie's freekish greens. MacKenzie said PVGC was too penal - a slap at Colt, Crump and Alison. Macdonald criticized the LI courses he observed while driving. And everyone criticized Tom Dunn. The criticism and debate was always well-stated and almost never personal. I take it that MacKenzie, Hutchinson, Simpson, Behr, Croome and Tillinghast would not qualify for ASGCA membership.

Golf architecture should be accountable to themselves. And accountable to the those who came before and those who will come in the future. They should take measures to preserve their heritage.

You were claiming that some of the AIA codes sounded politically correct, it seems that the ASGCA has their own 'human rights' code - unfortunately no code on preservation. All courses evolve and change, what I object to is golf architects designing over important works of architecture. Ethically they should decline.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Obviously golf clubs are free to do what they want, but if the don't have architects cooporating with those changes you will prevent many and the ultimate effect will be more enlightened golf clubs. Aquinas also said that the ethical craftsman..."to be a good citizen, you must love the good of your city." For me 'your city' is interchangeable with society. In my mind one of the responsibilities of golf architects to educate the client and the greater public.

[Mike_Young]

I agrre with your last post.  Well put.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Thanks for reminding of some of the critiques.  And, yeah, I guess we all get bit by the PC bug.....

I just reread Scotlands Gift, and MacDonald was critiquing home made efforts, as I recall.....so he probably gets a free pass!

There still is  discussion critique and feedback in the profession today.  Again, I would have to go look, but findiing someone saying he differs with someone who designs courses that are too tough, or difficult to maintain, etc. in general, wouldn't be too hard to find.  As to how far we can go, as the AIA documents say, much of this is a matter of common sense.  I doubt that any of the gentleman you name would have been excluded from the society based on only the comments you mentioned.

I also doubt that any of them enjoyed getting pot shots taken their way, and would tone it down after joining, if only because coming together lets you know you have more in common than  differences, even with close competitors.  

I also question just how much those specific criticisms advanced the profession, but it really isn't important.

I also believe today's practitioners are carrying on the great tradition of golf architecture, and setting good examples for the future.  We also educate the public, through our current spate of books, and articles, etc. but ASGCA has not taken official postion on your "hot button" issue of preservation. You are entitled to a different opinion, and if your sole criteria for judging ASGCA is the preservation of golf courses, I understand your frustration.  

But, judging though a narrow prism does not give a true picture, outside the narrow view of "yes, ASGCA could do more on preservation."

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
All the British guys were members of the International Society of GCA, which was the first orgnanization of its kind. It obviously didn't stop them. I strongly disagree that the critiqueing, debating and articulating, was not a very positive influence on golf architecture and golf architects at that time.

MacKenzie expected criticism, most involved in the arts know that criticism comes with the territory.

I don't judge the ASGCA by a single issue. I'm looking at your site and I can't find the organization stated purpose (or its code of ethics). As far as judging the organization, there are number of issues that are important: slowing technology (which the ASGCA addressed last year), Affordable public golf (I see under 'trends' there is an article on CCFAD as a continuing trend), the proliferation of carts, Environment (obviously a major hot button with the ASGCA), a system to certify golf architects, the history of golf architecture, preservation and restoration of important works. There is no shortage of information on renovation and remodeling. In fact I'd say those are the hottest topics on the site!

I believe that the great majority of todays practioners are carrying on the tradition. I'm not a fan of all their work, but there is no doubt in my mind that the great majority are all professional and produce well constructed/very solid designs. But that is also true with the majority of non-members.

The most read modern books on golf architecture were written by Cornish (ASGCA), Whitten, Doak, Klein and Shackelford. They are all involved in design and they all should be members, the organization would be much stronger for it - only one is a member and only two are eligible. It is unfortunate that the ASCGA doesn't open up its membership and as a result there seems to be a polarization. Many of the brightest young architects are not members. And what does it say when two of the ASGCA's 13 founding members wouldn't even qualify today?

Do you think remodeling and redesigning important works of golf architecture is setting a good example for the future? Why doesn't the ASGCA address the issue of preserving its heritage - protecting its most significant designs?

[Tony Ristola]

PART 1

We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIANABLE RIGHTS, that among these are life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.”
The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.


“NO MAN, NOR corporation or ASSOCIATION OF MEN have any other title to OBTAIN ADVANTAGES OR PARTICULAR AND EXCLUSIVE PRIVILIGES distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public…”
Mr. John Adams; framer of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1779.  He is also recognized as a Founding Father, 1st Vice-President, and 2nd President of the United States of America.


 “Who would voluntarily choose…a rigid culture of orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity?”
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan, HOW AN ORDINARY MAN BECAME AN EXTRAORDINARY LEADER, Dinesh D’Souza.


Jeff, you labeled my post a “rant” and “below the slander level” in an attempt to discredit it, yet you didn’t use one example of my scrambled logic, of slander or rant to disprove my words and illustrate how your rules help the investor, the community…and the golf architecture industry.

My posts were scrutinized to ensure they stuck hard to the facts and were free of anything which could be loosely interpreted as slanderous.  A false accusation I will vigorously challenge and correct.

The post above points out rules contrary to the Constitution, and illustrates contradictions within your very own ASGCA rules, the freedom robbing aspects of architects' association's code,  and the historical consequences of such restrictions. This is slanderous?  Is censorship going to work in the golf industry when it has failed in every case except national security?  Of course not.

Is the golf architecture industry immune from the bad effects of restricted speech?  Exempt from human nature?  Not from my experience or “the lessons of history”.  Restrictions on free speech have proven consequences and it is proven they strengthen the group at the expense of the individual.  Considering the content, the Founding Fathers must have had this foremost in their minds when framing the documents which form the backbone of the American experiment.  

Extraordinary “privileges” are proven to breed an air of entitlement and intolerance, and can result in heavy handed actions.  In a free society this can be prevented or answered with more speech….but you want less!

The following letter from an architects association member to and independent architect illustrates the negative consequences of special, self administered, “absurd and unnatural” protections:

Dear _____,

…  

“I will send the (architects association) a copy of this letter to pass it on to the associated colleagues.

(The) papers enclosed with your letter of application in which “the great benefits of “hands-.on design” versus the “usual” supervision of construction by golf course architects as described are a competitively distorted black-and-white portrayal with numerous non-objective, misleading misrepresentations about the allegedly usual working method.  Such application documents – inconsiderate towards colleagues – are certainly not suitable for supporting (your) admission to the ESGA.

Yours Sincerely,

Member “X”
END

Read my website and you’ll see what this member deems “non-objective misleading misrepresentations”, and “black-and-white distortion”.  He also has no reservations sending this letter to his membership, feeling comfortable about their position on such matters!

What is the fertile bed propagating anti-free speech, anti-competitive behavior? Could it be the freedom restricting rules I posted earlier?

Is it impermissible and “inconsiderate” to inform potential investors or the public of a different, conscientious manner of designing and constructing golf courses and comparing this to industry norms?  Is it “inconsiderate” to exploit a decades old niche in the golf architecture industry?  Perhaps such advertising doesn’t put competitors in the best light when services are compared and conclusions drawn, but whose fault is that?  Is it the committed competitor honestly selling his distinct advantages in layman’s terms?  In this case…yes!  

Another architect association’s member on the other side of the pond worded his censorship attempt a little more diplomatically, but is the end message really any different?

”IF YOU WERE APPLYING TO THE (ARCHITECT’S ASSOCIATION), I WOULD TELL YOU TO RELAX YOUR STRONG OPINIONS A LITTLE, BECOME FRIENDS WITH SOME MEMBERS…IF YOU WANTED TO ENHANCE YOUR MEMBERSHIP CHANCES.”

I thought membership was based on skill, not whether you are buddies with your competitors, saying things they want to hear, or censoring important issues to enhance your chances like a cunning politician…compromising principles by disposing of your rights, thus weakening your position.  The main messages above, from both architect associations members to an INDEPENDENT ARCHITECT is disturbing…conform, or else.  


”THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY DID GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT ALSO WARNED ABOUT USING IT RESPONSIBLY, AND DID PUT SOME LIMITS ON IT - YELLING FIRE IN CROWDED THEATER, (PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES) AND SLANDER - USING YOUR WORDS TO DAMAGE OTHERS, AMONG THEM.”  Jeff B.

Jeff…the architects’ associations words were used verbatim to illustrate a serious concern and to substantiate my point.  Conclusions were drawn based on historically proven consequences.  This is equivalent to yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater”?  This is a threat to public safety, and is slanderous too?  

If the words of the association wound the association and the investor…change them, don’t attack the messenger…a tactic perfected by The Clintons.  Embrace freedom and its messiness, knowing the greatest good is served over the long term.  The investor.  The member.  The community.  Focus on a “square deal” for all, especially the MOST VULNERABLE by really celebrating, not smothering our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.  The rest will take care of itself, strengthening your hand in the process.  Restrictions on freedoms illustrate weaknesses and are proven breeding grounds for the worst rather than the best.


”THE TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU SEEM TO ADVOCATE IS WELL BELOW THE SLANDER LEVEL, BUT PROFESSIONALS HAVE FOUND THAT CRITIQUING OTHER PROFESSIONALS OR EXAGGERATING THEIR OWN QUALIFICATIONS IS NOT A GREAT SALES TOOL!”  Jeff B.

“The TYPE of…freedom of speech”?  Analyzing a situation I believe stifles the industry and is undemocratic, against basic human rights, The First Amendment, and contradicts your very own rules “is well below the slander level”.  You have a high regard for free speech.  

If free speech is not accepted, how will issues be resolved?  How will the investors get the best information?  They won’t because your rules prevent it. The loser is the investor.  

Consider the following:

“You can’t win by…being everything to everybody.
To win in today’s competitive environment, you have to go out and make friends, carve out a specific niche in the market.  Even if you lose a few (friends) doing so.
TODAY THE PLEASE EVERYBODY TRAP MAY KEEP YOU AFLOAT IF YOU’RE ALREADY IN OFFICE OR ALREADY OWN A SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF MARKET.  BUT IT’S DEADLY IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A POSITION OUT OF NOWHERE.”

Positioning, THE BATTLE FOR YOUR MIND, Ries & Trout, 1981 & 2001.
END

The architects’ associations’ restrictions are “deadly”.  It neuters those coming up and keeps them defensive, mute, ineffective.

I’ve never bad-mouthed an architect when vying for a project, though free speech would allow for this.  I do compare services on a broad scale, and my website spells this out loud and clear.  In fact if you want to know my sales pitch, just read my website, there’s no fluff, and there’s lots to discuss with prospective clients. How many architects can make that claim?

You mention developers really disdain attacks on others, and I believe this to be true as well, so why not let the salesman cut his own throat?  Let free speech take care of the situation by revealing the true character of the person?

[Tony Ristola]

PART 2


 “THE CODE JUST FORMALIZES WHAT MOST ADHERE TO OUT OF COMMON SENSE.  YOU MENTION LAWYERS ETHICS, BUT IN ANY COURTROOM OR GOVERNMENT PROCEEDING THERE IS A HIGH LEVEL OF DECORUM, AS THEY TRY TO UPHOLD THE DIGNITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/PROFESSION, EVEN IF THERE IS SOME UGLINESS, AS YOU MENTION.”  Jeff B.

I prefer the “code” of “common sense” framed by the Founding Fathers.  I wouldn’t doubt they had greater minds, perhaps the greatest collection of American minds ever assembled in one place, spending more time thinking about what provides the “greatest quantity of human happiness” than those who framed the architect’s codes.  Your “common sense” believes restrictions on free speech can and should be defended; I do not because of history’s clear lessons.

For the record, the “greatest quantity of human happiness.” quote isn’t from Dr. Mackenzie, but John Adams’, THOUGHTS ON GOVERNMENT, about 155 years earlier!

I ran these posts past a retired lawyer friend, and he focused on your flawed reasoning about “ethics”.  He explained the code-of-ethics for lawyers is to protect clients from bad lawyers.  Bad Lawyers are weeded out to protect the public and elevate the standards of the Bar Association. The Hippocratic Oath serves the medical profession in the same manner.    

That is why Bill Clinton, Impeached President of the United States was disbarred (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scotus011001.html) …for lying under oath (just one of many felonious misdeeds), a serious ethics violation, and a felony for every other American.

There is no way to disbar a golf architect if the rules exist as is, and restricts open competition vital for higher standards which the ASGCA claims to be in their interest.  This harms the…investor.

About “decorum”:  In a court room decorum isn’t there to be a hindrance to identifying truths, regardless of how offensive they may be.

I believe my posts have stuck unemotionally to the facts, a goal I strive for with each post and bit of literature I create.  Check my posts, web page and writings.  


”IT REALLY DOESN'T DO YOU ANY GOOD, WHEN COMPETING FOR A PROJECT, TO SELL HOW BAD THE OTHER GUY IS!” Jeff B.

  “YOU CAN CRITIQUE MY WORK PUBLICLY ALL YOU WANT, BUT IT USUALLY COMES OFF AS SELF SERVING, NOT PUBLIC SERVING.”  Jeff B.

This comes across as a veiled accusation that I bad mouth individuals when vying for projects, a false image (intended to mislead?) of the highest order.  

When I am contacted by an interested party, I have no idea who the others may be (could care less), and I have a lot to explain…services to sell.  Just look at my website to find out my sales pitch.  I don’t need to bad mouth anyone…I have a lot to discover, interviewing the investors as much as I get interviewed.  Building one golf course at a time means I have to select wisely.  


“IT REALLY IS MORE THE PLACE OF, AND MORE EFFECTIVE FOR THE GOLF CLUB ATLAS', RON WHITTENS, AND BRAD KLEINS, ET AL TO DO THE ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUING, AS INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES.”  Jeff B.  

Now you want to go even further and appoint an official court of opinion!  This is a further and dramatic tightening of free speech. You actually want to disqualify architects from commentary on golf architecture…those who are directly involved and have the most to offer!  Also, my comments had nothing to do with the architecture of any members in any association, but if analysis "REALLY IS MORE THE PLACE OF(OTHERS)"…then Tom Doak…time to retract The Confidential Guide.  Or is there another set of standards for Tom?

How much benefit has that one book created?  How much better off are golfers and INVESTORS because of it?  I would think they are more discerning and demanding...better informed (the latter I would almost guarantee)  The book is 100% opinion, and the greatest feature is it is without regard to reputation, relationships or favoritism.  It is a valuable resource which I have benefited from and will in the future.  I’m sure Tom’s honesty didn’t please everyone, but who benefits most? The individual.  

Your text assumes I critique architecture.  Check my posts, you will be sorely disappointed.

  
”WHO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE INDUSTRY SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO?”  Jeff B.

“…ACCOUTABLE TO?”…Not to undemocratic code, that’s an absolute certainty.  If you believe in the American system it’s simple:  The investor of course.  

Placing the group’s interests before the individual as your rules pronounce are socialist and this breeds a closed, restricted society rather than an open, vigorous one.  The greater the restrictions, the greater the decay.  

You try to gloss over Dr. Mackenzie’s views on socialism like they are an aberration.  Why not examine a few lines?  

He said (Spirit of St. Andrews):  

“In order to arrive at a decision as to the right or wrong of any social or economic problem, one should always be guided by the lessons of history.”

And…“Socialism is a policy of destruction and not construction.”  

And “I left Europe to reside in America because I felt it would only be a question of time for Europe to be destroyed by socialistic propaganda and LEGISLATION.”  

And “It is the DUTY of every good golfer and CITIZEN to dam this tide of pessimism AND ENCOURAGE COUNTER PROPAGANDA to neutralize false economic doctrines…”

That is valuable speech, but the socialists surely don’t like it.

Wonder what he would say if he knew an American Society was going to limit his speech with their very own “socialist…legislation”?  Would he be happy to see an American Society travel down the proven path of decay, or would he pay heed to his own words and counter the false doctrines, the socialistic doctrine he despised and fled.  

Freedom robbing rules are taxes.  The more you tax, the less of the activity that is generated (in this case speech).  That’s why they tax cigarettes like crazy, and like some of your rules, this is social engineering.   Of course taxing tobacco only hurts the most vulnerable addicts, those who can least afford it, and your heavy taxation on speech hurts those most vulnerable as well.  

I’ll finish this rebuttal with your opening paragraph:

“NO ONE IS STIFLING YOUR RANT HERE.  DO IT ALL YOU LIKE.  IF AND WHEN YOU APPLY TO A PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY, DON'T BE SURPRISED THAT THEY WILL QUESTION WHY YOU WANT TO BE A MEMBER, AFTER PUBLIC STATEMENTS YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF FOLLOWING THEIR PRINCIPALS.” Jeff B.

I follow gladly the “principles” provided me under the Constitution.  Why should I have to trade them in to join an architects association?  Embrace “principles” which serve the interests of the group ahead of the investor?  

Life is too short (who knows when the last round will be played), freedom to precious, and would loathe myself for selling out my rights.

“… ASGCA MEMBERS, AND OTHERS, DO DISCUSS OTHERS WORK IN PRIVATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF LEARNING.....”  Jeff B.

Jeff.  Why don’t we send this thread (or just our portion) to your membership and let them read, debate and voice whether, in hindsight, the rules are undemocratic restrictions?  Then we will know the ASGCA framers had intended well but erred, or that the ASGCA has other considerations paramount; their own interests before the investor and society…which is how the situation now stands.
 

[Tony Ristola]

PART 3

“SPEAKING OF WHICH, TOM, DO YOU HAVE ANY WRITTEN EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC CRITIQUES AMONG OTHER ARCHITECTS?  I DON'T RECALL ANY OFF HAND, (EXCEPT SOME OF THE MACKENZIE STABS AT SOCIALISM, ETC.)…  JEFF B.

 
To add to Tom's list.  Here’s one critique from a surprising source:

Robert Hunter, THE LINKS, 1926.
Pages 158,59.

“There are some stunning things being done by the best men these days, but unhappily they are too busy to write about them.  There are also, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT, MANY COURSES being built at great expense which ARE A BLOT UPON THE LANDSCAPE.  In this connection I RECALL AN ARCHITECT who appeared on the horizon several years ago, carrying under his arm a parcel of plasticine models of greens and bunkers.  WHEREVER HE WENT he undertook to fit these into the landscape, AND THE RESULTS IN MOST CASES WERE LAMENTABLE.  Having proclaimed himself in the public prints as the designer of the most championship courses, HE WAS RECEIVED, BY THOSE WHO KNEW NO BETTER, WITH OPEN ARMS, AND MANY CLUBS PAID HIM LARGE SUMS TO CONSTRUCT HOLES WHICH WERE NEVER PLAYED, AND TO REPRODUCE GREENS WHICH WERE AFTERWARD PLOUGHED UP.

Quite recently I was shown plasticine models of some greens to be built in California.  Many of them were familiar, being excellent copies of greens justly famous.  But I found that several of them were unsuited to the conditions and terrain into which they had to be placed.  One called for blasting away a stone ridge in order to make deep traps.  Another required the carting away of thousands of yards of soil.  Still another called for the building of a ridge in front of a green which required in the play a full brassie shot.  These were all good greens, and in the proper environment deserved the unstinted praise given them; but torn from their native soil and planted in the most unsuitable conditions on the coast of California, THEY ARE DESTINED TO BECOME, IF THEY ARE EVER BUILT, MONUMENTS TO THE STUPIDITY OF A PLAGIARIST, WHO AFTER HAVING LABORIOUSLY COPIED THESE TREASURES, HAD NOT THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH THEM.”

It seems Mackenzie and Hunter hadn’t landed the project yet, as he believed Raynor’s “blots” could still be constructed. Considering they were vying for the project (one assumes seeing as they landed it) that was a powerful critique about Seth Raynor’s architecture!  Mr. Hunter (a Socialist politician who ran for office in CT.!!!) obviously felt passionately about the direction the industry was headed and wanted to hinder the proliferation of “blots”.  If Raynor had recently passed on, this would be a quite remarkable passage.  

If a course is good, an honest man will say so.  If a course is lacking, an honest man deserves to explain why.  If he believes the industry is going in the wrong direction, or investors are getting a raw deal, he should be able to say so without feeling it will come at a professional price, a detriment to his livelihood, or blight on his name.  What is better for industry: Honest analysis, filtered analysis, or withheld analysis?


Here is another more recent “WRITTEN EXAMPLE(S) OF PUBLIC CRITIQUES AMONG OTHER ARCHITECTS”.


Excerpts from:  Q&A: A DISCUSSION with ASGCA DIRECTORS
Source:  GOLF COURSE NEWS, January 1997.

Q1. GOLF COURSE NEWS:  There is a huge crop of young golf course architects entering the field.  Are they affecting fees and taking away business?

ASGCA Director "X":  "There has always been a sort of food chain in any business. There are always (clients) out there who are going to hire somebody whose fee is less and who is perhaps not qualified.  But I wouldn’t say they are stealing business.  I’ve always told my clients to hire the best architects they can afford, whether it’s me or Jack Nicklaus or the guy down the street who has just hung out a shingle.

Q3. It hasn’t affected you getting the jobs?

Director "Y":  One of the concerns all of us the society have is, what's the impact of younger architects with less experience doing projects where they don't understand the complexity of what is involved with golf course design today.  Twenty years ago a routing plan, a good idea of what a golf course should look like, and a scale in your back pocket were about all the credentials you needed to do a pretty good job.  But today the intricacy of getting a job from start to finish is far more complex.  It's a bit scary... I feel it is a major concern.

Q4. GOLF COURSE NEWS: So you are saying a person needs an apprenticeship rather than say jumping from landscape architecture school into golf course design?

ASGCA Director "Y":  "One thing that isn't talked about is architectural roots...It's awful hard to establish roots without serving an apprenticeship... A lot of newer architects just hanging out a shingle have no roots and nothing to take hold of as architectural style... I'd guess, about 75 percent of the new architects are trying to copy the Dyes or Fazio or others.  And in those cases you only get a cheap imitation."
END

The first few words from Director “X” dismissed the “huge crop of young architects” as being cut-rate and unqualified.  By question 3 he’s pigeon holed them into being unqualified, cut-rate imitators without roots.  

Being Directors, is it too much to assume this opinion is reflective of a significant portion of the membership they represent?  Makes you wonder what an independent architect’s chances at membership are if you weren’t formatted the ASGCA way.  When public statements of this sort are made, what is said behind closed doors with developers? It surely supports Kelly Blake Moran’s statement earlier in this thread:

“I AM AWARE OF SOME SITUATIONS WHERE ASGCA MEMBERS HAVE TOLD PROSPECTS THAT PEOPLE LIKE ME WHOM HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO BELONG ARE UNQUALIFIED BECAUSE WE ARE NOT MEMBERS.  THAT IS UNETHICAL AND A LIE.”

TEPaul related his personal experience with the EXACT tactics Kelly illustrated:


Source: GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM, July 5, 2001, 10:50 AM
 
“I have nothing whatsoever against the ASGCA. Well maybe I shouldn’t say nothing whatsoever since I believe if they are into things like documentation and such that’s fine but I think they should caution their members not to mislead clients and potential clients that that is the only way to go.

Here’s what I mean by way of a quick story.  One of the reason I became interested in architecture is my golf club was looking into moving and the job of finding a suitable architect for a new course was left to me.

Well, of course I didn’t know anything and I spoke with a number of architects about the project and I was all ears.  I was coming to know Coore and Crenshaw and an architectural firm from California (ASGCA member) came to talk with me and their representatives told me that they were “architects” and that C&C were simply “designers”.  He also layed a ton of detailed plans on me from other courses his firm had done around the world.

It was more than implication that they were professional and could do everything I might need and that Coore and Crenshaw could not”!  I was a little alarmed at first and thought about backtracking on Coore and Crenshaw.

It didn’t take long to realize that Coore and Crenshaw were the ones for me despite what this ASGCA member told me about plans and documentation and what Coore and Crenshaw could or couldn’t do.

He was trying to make me think Coore and Crenshaw were a couple of amateurs.  Three years later I see it very clearly—he didn’t need to do that—and anyway he was totally wrong—for what I was looking for C&C are about 100 times better than his firm.

I have nothing at all against the ASGCA except that they should caution their members not to say things like that…”
END


The tactics Kelly Blake Moran illustrated were used on TEPaul.  It’s not like C&C were a couple of country bumpkins those four years ago when he had his meeting.  By the time TEPaul met them in 1998 they had produced work of merit.  

It can be rough out there, certainly not the pretty image the ASGCA would like to portray.

I have four pages of additional rebuttal in the can, but believe the point has been made fairly, honestly and greatly with the assistance of others free speech (what we can glean about such practices under conditions hostile to free speech.)

One last humorous highlight from the interview of ASGCA Directors and I’ll leave this stand as is for now:

“…ABOUT 75 PERCENT OF THE NEW ARCHITECTS ARE TRYING TO COPY THE DYES OR FAZIO OR OTHERS.  AND IN THOSE CASES YOU ONLY GET A CHEAP IMITATION."

Really?   The young and rootless then and now (some might be ASGCA  members by now) led the industry down TPC Drive and Super Dune Highway?  They introduced and sustained two decades of mass grading?  

Were all the dogs the responsibility of the young and the rootless too?    I guess Mr. Wadsworth was referring to young independent architects when he said: That “it was just that architects could do anything short of designing 17 holes and get away with it.” (Source: Driving the Green, John Strawn, 1991 & 1997).

C’mon, let’s compete vigorously and fairly, and show us, architects associations, you mean it by retracting those freedom robbing rules as a first step.  They’re a proven detriment to the industry on both sides of the pond.

[RJ_Daley]

Tony, who can deny your passion and your grasp of the issues, from your perspective.  I wouldn't want to be in a debate with you and have the other side.  

This whole question is the same dilemma every professional organization, guild, or society that is formed to advance that particular "profession's" collective economic/social standing faces.  It begins to adopt by-laws and ethics codes for the mutual protection and advancement of those who are in the collective group and attacks those that are not.  Those that are "mavericks" and outside the pack often are both individualistic and creative and talented.  They become the firebrands that are always stirring the pot.  When those people that are mavericks are indeed talanted, intelligent and passionate, they can really bring up some tough questions and difficult situations for the guild, society, association, etc. But in that tense environment where values and methods clash, there is usually progress in the end.

If I remember correctly, Buonarotti had such passionate disagreements with the Academy-Guild of Fresco artists about their methods to corner the market on new Papal and Principality commisions and what constituted great creative art or mere commercialism and stagnation in acceptable art for viewing in those forums.  In those days, a fellow could face inquisition and torture for being a radical individualist.

I faced some of these dillemas as a president of a "professional" police collective bargaining association.  The sad but inevitably practical fact is, we had to have certain "freedom robbing" by-laws and collective controls to restrain those that wanted to go their own way in securing advances in wages and benefits and working conditions.  Some (not all) of the "dissident" anti-union officers were in deed very creative and talented, and very ambitious.  They usually would go against seniority concepts, and wanted merit based wage and benefit incentives, and could care less about the collective association or profession.  In that case our clients were the citizens that need police services.  If they had a police department of all independent contractors that could barter for their own compensation as individuals acting like a bunch of maverick cowboys, I can assure you the morale fallout of the entire force would degenerate into a pit of back biting corrupt and individualistic gunslingers that would not work together becasue they would see no benefit of mutual protection, collective fairly distributed benefits or support, and the citizens would suffer.  I know the other side of that arguement in case you were thinking of bring up the other side of the equation which is the code of silence, blue wall of secrecy that led to the corruption documented by the Knapp Commission or recent L.A. revelations.  But, those things also happened with the aid of the administrations, who were themselves corrupt and harbored the mavericks that would do unethical things to gain individual graft rewards.  Not unlike the LA confidential movie story line, if you saw that.  But, I digress, and GCAs are serving one client at a time, not a whole community of citizens who need a vital protection from crime and safety issues.  And GCAs get paid by the job and do not have standard fees etc., for which they must bargain collectively with a government/employer.  So that leaves the question of their own unique compensation and professional standing in an arena of competition that should be governed by ethics.

Frankly, I don't know what you seek Tony.  Are you only desiring to be the voice of independent GCAs who have difficulty overcoming the self-serving propaganda that the ASGCA puts out, and want a level playing field of competitions with prospective clients?  Do you want admission into their association, but desire to then change them from within?  If the association or one of its members under the mantel of their professional group rob you of a job by unethical means, if those means were libel and slanderous proclamations, don't you have legal recourse?  

I have visited your web site Tony, and you have made a fine case to hire you as a golf course designer/architect to manage and oversee the construction through constant on-site supervision.  Your presentation is so persuasive that if I were contemplating a project, there is no doubt you would be given a chance to offer your vision for the design/development/construction contract.  Do you want to, or feel it is benefitial to put ASGCA or ESGA or BIGCA behind your name.  It hardly seems necessary to me.  

[Tony Ristola]

RJ:  I wouldn’t assume to speak on behalf of all independent architects, but as an independent working in a limited manner, with nothing to gain or lose from this, I felt I should speak up to address an issue I believe hurts the investor by creating a climate of timidity. The, how dare you message of this thread is a good example.  Why are some topics are off limits?  The Congress debates law, its impact on the public, most everyday they are in session.

Do these rules hurt or help?  Are they a step in the right direction? That’s the crux of the question.  Back to Tom’s original question…are they ethical?

From my experience the actions taken in the name of these rules were directly targeted at advertising and voicing opinion.  For any other young architect receiving such words of wisdom, the messages are clear, disturbing, even intimidating.  Join in a conspiracy of silence to enhance your chances at membership.  It illustrates a buddy system instead of membership based strictly on qualification.  How else can this be interpreted? I don’t think it is a stretch to come to this conclusion as it has been spelled out that clearly…twice.

How far under the radar must one fly?  I have an idea now.  It’s until you have forfeited your distinct advantages, and your ability to voice serious concerns.  Turn facts into “fuzzy advertising”.  I truly believed our unalienable rights were unalienable.  I still believe free speech leads to betterment, restrictions to incremental decay.

Who wouldn’t want to join an architects association when qualified?  Really?  But not under such terms.  The fine print reveals serious costs.

 “An architect may possess all the ideal skills and knowledge, but if he is dishonest or duplicitous when dealing with the client, the contractor, the golf industry, or the profession, then he is not a true professional, regardless of the quality of the designs he may produce.  The golf architect’s sole loyalty should be to uphold the finest industry standards, in working for his clients.  He is legally and ethically obligated to protect the interests of the client when making decisions.  This includes notifying the client of any concerns about safety, environment impact, legal or ethical practices.  A good architect will not work for a bad client.” Dr. Hurdzan

“The architects SOLE LOYALTY (emphasis added) should be to uphold the finest industry standards”…and is “legally and ethically obligated to protect the interests of the client when making decisions…This includes notifying…(about)…legal or ethical practices.”  

The Dr. puts the client first too and says the architect is ethically obligated.  I didn’t find any clause or loophole he referred to which supercedes this.

I’ve done my part, bringing up the freedom robbing rules for discussion, clearly stating a case to abolish such restrictions on freedoms because they fall far short of “the finest industry standards” and their reach goes beyond the association.   The rest is up to the associations.  They can revise their undemocratic rules and fulfill their duty to the investors and industry.  If not, they are in clear conflict with the writings of one of the industry’s senior members, the Constitution and “basic human rights”.

One further question.  What happens if these organizations do become the regulatory arm of the industry?  Is it likely they will rescind such rules when they reach that level?  If they would have to rescind them on legal grounds then, why not now?  

[Mike_Young]

Tony,
I am not a member of any architects association and I understand what you say.  But...any of us are free to start any group we want....any group we start has the right to be subjective or objective....and since there is no architects group that has regulatory powers there is nothing to discuss....it frustrated me for a few years but I have always supported their rights; I just disagree with the public perception.  It is no different than AGNC situation.

I sort of like the way Hootie handled things at ANGC....I hope they don't give an inch...would you not think that is their right?....And by the way,I just sent in my app for the Miss Black America contest as a 50 year old fat white guy...watch out if I don't get in...

Mike

[Tony Ristola]

Mike:  Tom’s original question was:

“DOES THE ASGCA, OR OTHER SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS, EVER DISCUSS ETHICS. FOR EXAMPLE HAVE THE EVER HAD A REMODEL UNIVERSITY FOR ETHICS, A ROUNDTABLE OR SYMPOSIUM WHERE ETHICS WAS THE TOPIC?”

“CAN THESE ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATIONS OR SOCIETIES BE UNETHICAL? DO THEY STRUGGLE WITH WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEIR MEMBERS AND WHAT IS GOOD FOR SOCIETY?”
                                

Tom asked if these associations struggle with what is good for their members and society.  I can’t answer that but revealed something they can struggle with and hopefully eliminate; the few freedom robbing rules which by their design hurt the investor.  As it stands now the freedom robbing rules are inconsistent with the broader goals they have spelled out in their own codes.  Shouldn’t these inconsistencies be resolved?  

This is different from ANGC, the two are not at all comparable.  It’s like comparing apples and elephants.  ANGC’s influence is great and world wide, but they are a private social club managing a golf tournament, facility and membership’s interests.  Their membership is limited by design.  They don’t have standards by which you can simply apply and prove yourself to a board for membership.  ANGC is by invitation only (so long as Hootie stands firm).  Their interests are narrow, not industry wide.  

The architecture groups are industrial associations which play a leadership role they cannot deny.  For 5 decades the ASGCA has been the de facto voice for the industry with a very cozy relationship with the press.  I don’t begrudge them this one bit, but considering their standing and influence don’t architects’ associations have a responsibility to society, the industry and potential investors to observe Human Rights, Constitutional Rights and reconcile their rules so they parallel them?   I think so.

What is so critically important, secret or toxic that free speech need be suppressed in the golf industry?  

The solution to the freedom robbing rules are simple; “Motion to rescind code of ethics rule “X”, “Y” and “Z”…all in favor say “I”… all opposed “Nay”…by unanimous decision, revision to code accepted and session adjourned.”

This may not be easy, but it is simple.