I also find it funny that developers/architects are trying to give the golfer what he wants i.e., let’s make the golfer happy, but at the same time the golfer may be happiest when complaining about unfairness. Is there an actual disconnect there or is it just ironic? In my opinion there’s a speckle of truth to it. Should an architect or his team ever consider the golfer’s happiness during the design/build process? I think that’s a mistake, and a very slippery slope.
If you don't consider people's happiness at some level, you are probably not going to be very successful as an architect.
That is quite different from saying your goal is for everyone to be happy . . . which is impossible, really.
The question is how much tolerance you will have for complaints. I personally have a lot, because as I mentioned in the previous post, good golfers often complain about the exact thing that I was trying to do. Ultimately, though, you've got to make an assessment of the client in that regard, because it's the client who will ask you to come back and change something if it's unpopular.
The architect is rarely in position to make that call himself. If a hole is working as far as the client is concerned, they are not too keen on dealing with a bunch of disruption to "fix" something that people are not complaining about, no matter how much I think it should be fixed. This is one reason I take the attitude that our courses are done when we plant the grass on them, because after that, it's more or less out of my hands.
I have one [potential] client who has suggested that we build into the process that after five years of play we will go back and change anything we are not thrilled with, based on our observations and feedback, and then it will be done for good. I would agree to a policy like that [with the right client] because it's a one-time thing, and it would guarantee that we didn't overreact to negative feedback in year one, and it would guarantee that we wouldn't keep monkeying with the design forever.