[Jeff_Mingay]

Patrick,

Please digest this brilliant quote from William Flynn:

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture."

I realize, we all have to feed our families. But for any golf architect to walk into a club, especially one with any architecturally significant course, and simply implement the wishes of a membership is plain foolish. Unless, of course, the membership in question is extremely knowledgable, which is very rare at best.

It is the golf architect's duty to educate club memberships about sound golf architecture. Not vice versa.

Many modern golf architect's clearly fail to understand the importance of their role within the game. And thus, here we are...    

[john_stiles]

well .... olympia fields isn't next...seems, as implied by newspaper column posted on clubhouse walls, that course changes have been completed on north course for 2003 us open.  the newspaper column implied that usga wanted deeper bunkers and more pin/hole locations (flatter, less slope in the greens ) so there you have it... the article read that the work has been completed...thank you very much usga for influencing these course changes and doing little else in regards to balls and equipment except for this last timid step in increasing swing speed and retiring iron byron for new machine.... everyone please keep sending in your dues to arnie (?)

what's next .....  look for changes at any (almost all, very few can survive the onslaught of distance) future pga/us open venues where tournament has been announced  -or- any new location for any pga professional tournament

it is just natural for clubs/members to want the prestige of a national championship and very unnatural for the usga/pga to accept low scores.

the ball lines are now changed year after year after year with new materials, new construction, different material thicknesses, new dimpling, totally new lines of balls within every brand, etc. etc.  the manufacturers know how to make changes and could go backwards if needed..

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

I'm still trying to understand your views on the accountability of the architect.

Do you believe there are circumstances where the architect rather than the club is responsible if something goes "wrong"?

Also, can you share your thoughts on the Flynn quote Jeff Mingay provided?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Not to disparage Flynn, but he lived in a different time, a different era.

In my limited experience, the architect rarely comes into contact with the general membership, so education is limited at best.

Most projects have layers or tiers of committees between the architect and the members.  Typically, you have a President, a Board of Governors, A green committee,
a long range planning committee and a project committee.  With the possible exception of promoting the project and getting the members to vote for the funds at a general membership meeting, the architect is insulated from and invisible to the members at large.

His ability to educate the members is virtually non-existant.

Tim,

You have to define what "going wrong" is.

You also have to define the scope of the project, and what latitude was given to the architect.

Architects perform an art based on science.
In your example, is "going wrong" based on the science or the art ?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Patrick,

Ideally, the consulting golf architect should be given centre stage at a membership meeting to speak about the project and, of course, field questions.

Some members won't show up, of course. But those who truly care, and those with influence will.

Such a meeting can surely go a long way toward educating. Then again, it could "backfire" as well! Nonetheless, in my opinion, this type of meeting is a very important one to schedule as part of the entire restoration process.

[Jeff_Mingay]

And this "another time/another era" stuff doesn't make an ounce of sense to me, at all.

It's about what works best, and has nothing to do with "another era".

[Willie_Dow]

Jeff
I think I will tend toward Patrick's thoughts on this one.
Much of today's thinking is not just within the walls of the clubhouse.  Look at what has come within the cells of the internet.  As Mike Cirba has said, all of this has been for not - yet he keeps on plugging his ideas.
His thinking will bleed down to those people involved with their club's decisions.
The best architects are yet to find their place in this new thought.  The establishment will benefit, and Flynn would be happy with the result.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

If you've got to take the project, the design changes to the membership for approval, I think the project is in trouble.

If you can just take the funding issue to the members for approval, I think you're in a better position.

The members with influence are already in the loop.

If the architect has to educate the members at the meeting for the approval of the project, I again submit that the project is in trouble.  All of the politicing should have been done previously.  I prefer not to call for a vote unless I'm pretty sure that I know in advance that the project will carry

Half the members at many clubs have no previous connection to golf or that club.
Years ago, two to three generations were probably at that club, so Flynn was in another era, dealing with a different type of member and membership.

Jeff, we don't live in an ideal world, and many times at open meetings, bolts from the blue, curve balls and unexpected motions pop up from the floor.  I would prefer to have the project well under control from a conceptual and financial perspective prior to approaching the membership for approval.

The concept of education of the members is nice, but either impractical or unrealistic.

But, that's just my opinion.

[George Pazin]

Patrick -

I certainly agree that the membership et al deserve a large part of the responsibility for a project, but I really think the architect should do his best to educate everyone involved. Even in the amazingly complex world of t shirt printing :-), I often explain to potential clients what will or will not work & why.

Maybe the architects in question do the same, but maybe they're just a little to quick to say yes. I think Geoff is correct in saying that Mr. Fazio is looking for a tie-in to the classic courses to better position his original design work. Only someone intimately involved with a project could tell you how much he atttempted to educate the members as to what they are looking to have done.

I would guess that in Tom Doak's consulting position with Garden City there is much give & take with respect to what the course & membership deserve. I can't imagine he simply comes in & rubber stamps the desires of the membership. If so, why even bother with an architect, if you're really just looking for a contractor?

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

The project I have in mind involves a fairway bunker.

The architect was not given specific instructions.  The club simply expressed that it felt something was missing in the landing area of a par four.

What do I think turned out "wrong"?

The placement and presentation of the bunker.
At best the bunker is unnecessary; at worst it is annoying.

However, club officials did sign off on the work.

I don't know anything about the "science" of golf architecture.  You could probably say that my evaluation of how this project turned out are those of an "art critic".

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

Explaining something to "A" client, and explaining something to 400 to 1000 members is an entirely different situation and experience requiring seperate skills, especially when MONEY is involved.

Tom Doak doesn't interface with the general membership.  He communicates with the green chairman through oral and written exchange, and occassionally meets with the green committee.

And... that is how the arrangement is with most consulting architects.

Tim Weiman,

I believe it was Donald Ross that stated,
"There is no such thing as a misplaced bunker".

I don't know the hole or the lay of the land that you reference, but perhaps you could supply some diagrams or pictures.

It appears the architect was told the hole lacked something, he was given the latitude to design a solution to the presented problem, he designed a bunker which the committee/membership had to approve, and they did.

Often, if you don't know what you want, you end up getting what you didn't want !

But, you object to the bunker.  
Did you voice your disapproval and offer suggestions when the intitial plan was presented ?

Does the bunker suit or not suit your game ?

In my limited experience, before a shovel goes in the ground, the club has to sign off by approving, rejecting, or modifying any changes presented by an architect.

Your club, your green committee, your membership obviously agreed with the architect on this issue, why fault the architect, he was given a mission/problem, he offered a proposal to the club, it was accepted, the solution was implemented.

What was the vote on the green committee ?
What was the vote by the membership ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

I'm already on board with the idea that the club leadership is largely, if not entirely, responsible for what happens to their golf course.

But, I'm trying to get beyond that and understand what responsibility, if any, should be assigned to the architect.

Should we view architects as merely order takers?

If not, why not?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I think each project is different.

Sometimes they are called upon to create from scratch and given full latitude.

Other times an owner has a vision but needs and architect to put it in the ground, with or without his help.

Sometimes, they have direct marching orders on exactly what to do.

Some work is independent, other work is collaborative.

And, I'm sure there are a good number of scenarios I didn't touch on.

As I said, each project has its unique dynamic.

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

I share your view that without knowing the marching orders given to the architect it is very difficult to sort out responsibility for a "failed" project.

I also share your view that each situation is unique, thus generalizations should usually be avoided.

My consulting experience, however, tells me that simply blaming project failures on the client can be overdone.  True, clients can be difficult or misguided, but the moment a consultant accepts compensation he must share responsibility.

The golf architecture example I cited illustrates the point.  The client gave some general direction and did sign off on the final result, but the project was, in my judgement, a failure.  In this case, I just don't believe the architect can be held blameless.  It just wasn't very good work.

Given the politics, it will be difficult to expand dialogue at GCA to include input from club officials when there are controversial projects.

But, wouldn't it be great if the discussion group could evolve to that point?

[Mike_Cirba]

That begs a question...

What happens, despite agreement between the club and architect on the nature of the work, when the work is simply done poorly, inartistically, or sloppily?

How do clubs guarantee quality workmanship?  Who provides quality control?  What if the architect and contractor say, "we did the work and met our obligation and we think it's what you told us you wanted.  If more is required, lets go back to the negotiating table"?

I mean...let's face it...we've all seen a lot of revision work to courses that stands out like a sore thumb as ugly, ineffectual, out of character, etc.  How did that work ever get final approval, and who signed off?

[TEPaul]

Each project is different, no doubt, but Tim Weiman is asking what an architect's responsibility is to the club, to himself, to architecture, whatever.

Probably not much more than simply doing the right thing architecturally, in his opinion, whatever that might be.

The problem between architects, committees, memberships, whatnot is an architect might be asked to do something; solve a problem, do a master plan, change a hole etc, and he comes up with a plan and then other people,  committees, members, whatever, object and start suggesting all kinds of ideas and personal opinions that vary from what an architect is recommending.

The funny and dangerous thing is they are apt to do and say these things in the name of valid architecture. How can they really do that when they aren't architects? They can because oddly many people seem to think somewhere in their being they too are a brilliant architect. Don't know why that is in golf, but it is!

So the question becomes why then are they even hiring an architect? Why don't they just do it themselves and screw things up without having to pay some architect to endorse their ideas? Well they do that too. That's the green committees making architectural changes on courses all over America all by themselves.

To do things correctly, in my opinion, the club needs to do the research to get a clear idea about what they are wanting and asking for and then do plenty more research to find the particular architect who can do it the way they envision it.

This part is important and in this area I totally disagree with Pat Mucci's argument that any architect can fill the bill if you just tell him what you want. More and more these days that belief seems to be getting proven wrong. Not all architects are going to come up with the same solutions and not all architects have the same tastes, styles, construction styles, techniques, whatever.

So not only does a club have to know what they want and probably in some real detail if the project has any complexity to it, and what that involves, but they should know also what various archtitects do do, can do, have done and want to do. If every architect had the same take on architecture we wouldn't have such variance in golf courses, would we?

So understand exactly what it is you want and then find the proper architect, and not any architect, to accomplish that for you. And lastly it would be a good idea to listen to him and take his advice if you happen to have gotten the first two steps right!!

As for the architect's responsibility to himself, his craft or whatever, if things are going really contrary to what he feels is right, then he should walk.

But apparently that gets into a whole separate set of problems like feeding his wife and kids or making himself famous or thinking he will.

I know I've talked a lot about Coore & Crenshaw but I do only because I have so much respect for them in the way they operate and what they do and I think those on here should know about that--and this is the perfect thread to mention them, even again.

When the proposal to move Gulph Mills came to us (totally unsolicited, by the way), it became my mission from the club to find the right architect for us and to have them really analyze the proposed new site. The move proposal was never one that was even remotely popular within the membership because generally speaking the membership loves our Ross course.

So I talked to a few architects and eventually came upon Coore & Crenshaw (through Shackelford, BTW, for which I will be forever grateful to him) and they helped me analyze the other site for a very long time.

It was determined that the other site had awesome potential so it was proposed to the membership that we pursue the move proposal. This did not go over very well and eventually we had an entire membership meeting and I got up there and told them that the architects I'd found that I truly felt were right for us had determined that the other site had tremendous potential. Little to no reaction from the membership! Then I said that the only problem is I'm having real difficulty convincing those architects to do this project even if that's what, you, the membership wants.

Well, if you wanted to see about 300+ quizzical looks, that was it! About five people asked me at the same time how and why that could be and I told them that Coore & Crenshaw basically could not stand the thought of a course like Ross's Gulph Mills going down the tubes!

And if you wanted to see about 300+ people melt and get on board at the same time, that was it too! After the meeting all kinds of people came up to me and said; "Wow, where did you find architects with that much integrity?"

So there you have it, and some of the answer to questions on this thread about what kind of responsibilty does an architect have to a club, their craft and themselves?

The project ended for entirely separate and different reasons, but had it not, we had almost that entire membership on board and with Coore & Crenshaw and for the odd reason that they didn't really want to do it at all--and for all the right reasons!

I don't even really know if they ever would have done it, but somehow I think I could have convinced them--but they wanted no responsibility whatsoever for encouraging a membership to shut down and leave a course like ours!

So to answer Tim's question about should architects be little more than order takers? No way, not in my opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

That's a great and illustrative story, Tom, and I'd have to agree that just like any other profession, not all architects are cut from the same cloth, or have the same abilities, motivations, and integrity.  

Based on a lot of observation, I'd say the exact same thing about contractors.  From my perspective, there is a pretty vast difference between many of them, and they can make or break all the good intentions of both an architect and the club.

Bottom line is this, in my opinion.  A club should make site visits to inspect similar work done by architects and contractors at other clubs.  They should also speak to officials at that club for additional information about the quality and effectiveness of the work  That's where the real proof lies.

[TEPaul]

You're right Mike, that's what clubs should do if they plan on changing their courses. Get out there and see everything they possibly can; take pictures, show them to their own membership, talk to other memberships about how things were planned, how they went, what mistakes were made, how they like what they got, etc, etc.

There is so much variation in architecture and architects, it really doesn't seem to be that hard a thing do do and to determine what it is you really do want and can get and what it actually looks and plays like and who can do it!

That to me is basic collaboration among clubs that can help so much and I would love to see an entity like Golfclubatlas help out in any way in that vein. I think it truly can too--there are many knowlegeable people on here and all kinds of interesting resources.

But clubs seem not to do this kind of thing. Why? Who really knows? One might assume that they just think they might know better, or maybe that these things are pretty darn simple anyway and also the misguided assumption that any architect/contractor can fill the bill if they just tell them what they think they want.

It's probably very true too in this sort of thing that the road to mistakes and maybe even disaster is paved with good intentions. Education and research is so important and making snap and quick assumptions is so darn dangerous.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Mike,

Most clubs require at least three bids in retaining a General Contractor, so what do you do when you present your bid specs if the contractor you want submits a bid
$ 1,500,000 higher than everyone else's, tell your membership you really like this firm and spend the extra money ??  NO WAY !

Guys, get back to the real world.

Membership owned clubs are price sensitive and picking a contractor is not choosing the firm you like or prefer, it's dollar driven thru the bidding process.  Nominal differences can be overcome, but substantive differences can't, unless you want to pony up the balance yourself.

TEPaul,

Your seventh (7) paragraph distorts and misstates my position.  It is inaccurate and I know you're capable of properly quoting my posts.

One only has to look at Pine Valley's short course, built on a different piece of property, and those responsible for it,
Fazio, Ransome, and in house labor.  
How did they do it with No Big Name Contrator and without the services of C & C ?
Amazing, but they did a great job.

My point was that any number of architects and contractors could have done this project with Ernie Ransome at the HELM !

Coore & Crenshaw are a good firm, but they aren't the only firm capable of getting it right, especially in restoration work.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Cut it out, will you? Practically everybody who belongs to a golf club and probably everyone on here knows that if a contractor submits a bid of $1,500,000. higher than anyone else then obviously he's not going to get recommended or hired by any golf club. Sometimes contractors do just that and what they are telling you is they just don't want your damn job!!

But within reason any club, committee, whatever, has got to analyze whether they are going to pay for what they want!!

If your saying to me that all any club needs to do is just monitor the bidding process and take the lowest one, then I say they will probably get just what they're paying for and most of the time that will probably be a cheap suit!! Please don't tell me that you really think that all this boils down to is JUST MONEY and that the lowest bid can get it done any time if properly ...blah, blah, blah!

Did I ever say that Coore and Crenshaw was the ONLY good architect around? Did I ever imply such a thing? Never! Since I know them I talk about them. Hanse is great, I know his work too, Doak is great, seen his too,  Prichard, Forse, Silva, a whole number of architects depending on what exactly you're looking for if you were me.

And what's this stuff about Ernie Ransome and the short course? Sure, Ernie was in total control and sure he knew exactly what he he wanted. He used his own people to build that short course! Do you think he knows what they can do? Do you think they know what to do? Of course, they work with each other everyday and the crew works with Pine Valley's bunkers everyday, of course they know what they want and how to do it!

Just because I mention Coore and Crenshaw where do you come up with implying that I'm saying other people can't do the job? What I am saying is that not everyone can and that's what I thought you said some time ago if that anyone was properly supervised and directed. I will go find that post of yours that gave me that impression, at some point, and see exactly what you did say about that.

Why didn't Pine Valley bring in MacDonald & Co. for the short course? Do you really think they would have done the exact same thing which is there now and obviously what Ernie wanted?  

Sometimes the logic gets a bit bizarre around here. Somebody criticizes the work of an architect and gets jumped on. Other times somebody says something nice about another architect and gets told he's implying that's the only good one in the world. Jeeesus!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

When I say General Contractor, I'm not talking about a firm that puts up houses, apartments or office buildings, I'm talking about firms that do golf course work.

I've been involved with jobs where the second low bidder was $ 700,000 higher than the low bid, the third was $ 1,200,000 higher than the low bid and the fourth was
$ 1,500,000 higher than the low bid.
And, all of the firms had great reputations for being golf course contractors.  Another firm indicated they were not available at the time.  

So, how do you know what the quality of a chosen firm's work will be ?  How do you know, incrementaly, how much better the higher bidders work will be, if at all ?

How can you justify spending millions more to get a contractor you perceive will do a better job ?  There is no way any membership I"ve been around is going to go for that.

If you haven't done this, you have a lot to learn, and I'm trying to help you understand the scope, process and reality of a major project.

I believe you and others have quoted, "the devil is in the details", and the key to that is to have Ernie Ransome's equivalent watching over every step of the project.
A knowlegeable, devoted leader is the key, not the contractor or the architect, though I certainly don't want to diminish the role of either.

Do you think Shadow Creek just appeared in the desert ?  Or was it one man's vision, sculpted in a directed collaborative effort with an architect and a contractor ?

Shoal Creek, same question.

The Honors Club, same question.

The list goes on and on.

A visionary, a talented architect, and a golf course contractor usually blend to make the best of a project.  With the visionary in Ernie Ransome's mold, and a talented architect, there are an abundance of contractors who can make the dream come true.

I'm not surprised you haven't made the connection yet, but then again, look how long it took you to recognize that the abolishment of the stymie led to the demise of chipping and all architecture related to it.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Well, maybe you're right. I haven't been involved in projects like that. The restoration project we have going on at Gulph Mills is obviously far simpler than you describe. I don't really know why and we certainly feel we're on top of it and we know what wer're doing. We also know the kind of work already done by the people who are going to work for us too. When we get going I actually hope to spend a lot of time there too.

We're definitely not building a Shadow Creek and I hope I'm never involved in something like that. If I was I guess you're right--1.5 mil here, 1.5 mil there and eventually it starts adding up to some real money!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()