If a club approaches an architect about a plan it wants to implement, does the architect have an obligation to tell the club if it he doesn’t think it will work? Or rather…if he takes the job (and tells the club he can do it), should he be held responsible in some way if he doesn’t pull it off?
As an example...
In the effort to create some more space around the clubhouse, my club initiated a concept of re-routing the golf course. For now I’d like to set aside the question of why our club decided to do this to a 1910 Herbert Barker layout with 1920 renovation input from Donald Ross. Something about a future pool expansion….
The club’s “consulting architect” was brought in to complete the plans. In the end what was once a large driving range, a short par 4 1st hole and a par 3 2nd hole were converted into 3 holes and a narrower driving range. The original 17th and 18th (2 short par 4’s) were combined, so there are still 18 holes. Interestingly all of this is a result of wanting to move the 18th green approximately 100 yards.
With the new configuration, the new #1, #2 and #3 basically wrap around the driving range.
The immediate issue at hand is the driving range. Below is a photo of the 1st hole and the driving range during construction. In this photo the 1st hole has recently been sodded in the middle of the photo. The driving range (still dirt) is just over the mound on the right (you can just make out one of the target greens in lighter sand). The 3rd hole is out of sight on the far (right) side of the driving range over another large mound (but before the trees). That’s a future practice green in the bottom right.
It seemed obvious from the beginning that there really wasn’t enough space for the new holes AND the driving range. Many members were concerned that balls from the driving range would fly into the new 1st and 3rd fairways, but the architect assured the membership that his design would prevent anything like this. He constructed 2 very large mounds (which you can see in the picture above) that separate the 1st hole and driving range and 3rd hole and driving range. The new 2nd hole (a short par 3) is at the end of the driving range and is safely out of “range”.
Well…the course and driving range opened up for play last month and after only 2 weeks, members have been restricted to hitting shots of 175 yards or less because miss-hit shots from the range were flying into the 1st and 3rd fairways. Members were assured that the golf committee and architect would resolve the issue shortly.
I just received a letter outlining the remedy – which is to relocate a couple of target greens closer to the center of the range. In closing, the letter mentioned that many clubs in our area have been forced to adopt the use of limited distance range balls due to the impact of new technology in golf, and that even with the improvements the club is making, these balls will need to be considered for our range. This project was initiated in late 2004, so I find it hard to believe technology really has anything to do with this, and frankly am somewhat offended that the technology card was even raised.
Obviously much of the blame falls on the club for even initiating the concept, but should the architect be held responsible in any way? A lot of dirt was moved and a lot money was spent on this project.