Who is responsible for bad, or good architecture

[George Pazin]

JEarle -

Maybe our difference lies in interpretation of the word "responsible." I will try to clarify my opinion further. A good construction team can certainly add to the final product, maybe even to an immeasurable degree. However, it is up to the architect to give the final okay to the results of the construction, so, to me, he is ultimately "responsible."

As to who was "responsible" for the success enjoyed by Ross, I'm not the one to evaluate that, but I would still say that, given that he presumably chose the team to build the course, he would still be responsible. If he were simply sending plans to an owner or developer & they were having the course built, then I guess there would be joint responsibility.

[Richard_Goodale]

On the "false front" thread the point is properly made that many of these "architectural" features were in fact the result of maintenance practices rather than "design" (e.g. years of top dressing at Pinehurst #2).  It was also pointed out to me when I played Merion this fall that (regardless of what went on inside those formerly "white faces") at least some of the the "faces" (I remember the front bunker on the 9th) were in fact the result of years of sand splash rather than some genius of Wilson, or Flynn or even Valentine(s) and Kittleman.

More and more I lean towards the definition of "architecture" as a verb, rather than as a noun, which as I pointed out several months ago, is the way that many ancient cultures in Central Africa see the phenomenon.

[Curious JJ]

Rich
You my sir are a very wise man. There is far too much emphasis on architecture on this site, just play the damn game. Noun, verb, adverb, dangling participle who gives a crap about how the bunker got there just show me what you got Merion. Bring it on bi-otch! (Did you buy the story about the sand building up the bunker, because I don't?)

Funny you should mention Central Africa, in fact I was just speeking to a friend about the Zulus and that very same phenomenon, he agreed that a grass hut aint no architecture just years of sand splash.

Zabadoobie!  Pardon me, I just soiled myself.

[JEarle]

George
  It wasn't the interpretation of "responsibility" that I was trying to explain. Rather, what is the definition of "ARCHITECTURE" ? It seems that we have opposite views on what constitutes architecture and how good architecture is actually refined and developed.

[Tony Ristola]

"The weeks and sometimes months" said Mr. Wind.

Robert:  The client's vision?  I'd say it's the architects responsiblity to have that vision and sell it to the owners.  Explaining why it's the best for that region, that property.  If it happens to coincide with what the owner visualizes great...otherwise the architect should sell like hell or find another project.

JEARLE:  Those old courses moved less dirt using scoops that could carry about 1 cubic yard or so.  Slow, and painful...what once took weeks now takes hours and today we tend to move masses more dirt without supervision...ok with the supervision of plans.

You did hit on communication and that comes from the architect and to communicate you need site presence...architecture is a team effort as you noted, but a team needs a leader, especially a construction team.  I've worked building courses with guys who'd never done it before, didn't know a tee from a green or bunker, didn't speak the same language, but produced quality work speedily because I could guide them through it.  It's no different with a qualified crew.  Communication.  Time on-site.  

Contractors won't make willy-nilly changes...if the architect doesn't like it it's a free-bee and the constructors pay for the changes.  I've seen it when an on-site rep did make changes and didn't own up to it...the shaper got ripped by the lead architect making his quarterly site-visit.

Ed:  Mr. Ross is a standard from 50 plus years ago.  I'd hope the profession would have progressed further in a half century instead of holding his lack of participation as a defense...his best course was 35 years in the making...what more proof do you need.

Jeff:  What's the best way to get what you want?  How to trump the owner and contractor...be there...show your involved and the project means something special.  Sacrifice.  It may mean fewer projects, but perhaps you'll make more $ per project...if you want control you have to grab it by the horns...take it with both hands.  Part-time involvement leads to problems in any industry.

Ben Crenshaw in a 1983 interview in an obscure magazine  "Too many architects have too many jobs.  They can't devote enough time to each project."  

Twenty years later it's the same old story.

[jim__janosik]

As  one who manages  projects I will  offer the following:

The contractor  is legaly bound to build the course to the plans and specs of the architect and engineer.  No countours,
irrigation heads,  bunkers,  lakes,  etc are  massaged  or
shoved down anybody's  throat by the contractor.

In  properly managed  construction  the architect  signs off
on  every step of the project assuming  all  liablity  for things
being per  plans and specs.  If its built per plans and specs then if its ugly  who do you blame?

Whose  responsiblke for  bad architecture? Depends.
Case  study.  Dye's  Mountain  Course  at La Quinta.
#18  is a  poor par  5 with  a  terrible  landing area. Argueably the  weakest hole on the course.   Dye wanted it  to be a strong  par 4,  Landmark  Land wanted a par five  to attract  
the  TOUR.  Who  is responsible for the weak hole.?

Its on a case by case basis  and sometimes its both,  owner and  architect  whose responsible.  

It  would be interesting  to do a study of all bad  architecture and find out who made  the decisions?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JEarle,

Yet Fazio did a great job at Pine Valley with an in-house crew, not a crew that specialized in construction, but maintainance, and the results were outstanding.

While I would agree that there are different degrees of craftmanship, does money determine to what degree craftmanship is evidenced ?  And is that not the developer's decision ?

As I indicated earlier, and Jim Janosik confirmed, the architect has to sign off on every architectual feature, so I would tend to diminish or relegate to the bottom of the totem pole, the role of the contractor relative to the evaluation of the architecture.

I would also agree with Jim Janosik that each case depends on the particular facts of each course.  I would imagine that many projects reach an impass where the architect and the developer are at odds.  I would imagine that both parties would plead their case, deliberate on the opposing view and come to a prudent decision, though I think the final decision rests with the guy who is paying the bills, and risking his own money, even though the architect may be risking his reputation.

[JEarle]

Pat
 You make some good points. I think that you site a good answer of your question regarding money and degree of craftsmenship.
 You state that Fazios' ?? work at Pine Valley was completed by an in-house crew. The outcome of the work was outstanding. This helps support my ramblings re: craftsmenship and architecture. The maintenance crew has taken pride / accountability in the work they completed. Money wasn't the driving force behind the work. When you take money out of the equation and allow craftmenship to prevail then you've  created good architecture ( the reason behind the golden age classics). Whether the maintenance crew had experience in construction isn't a consideration, but the fact they take pride ( in the work and club) and can be help accountable by the membership. When people take a special interest (other then money) the product will be that much better. This is the reason why the construction teams and maintenance crews are responsible for architecture!

[jim__janosik]

The  architectural decisions were not made by the  in house
staff,  they executed  only.  If they built it  per Fazios direction,  in any court  in the  land he would  be  responsible.

If you  owned one, you wouldn't  praise your mechanic  for
designing  the  Ferrari would you.  Maintenance  crews  and
put "paint in the  Ferrari"  the don't design or engineer.
They can make it  "look" good or  bad  you can't blame bad
architecture on dead  grass.  If its bad its bad.

[Lou Duran]

The client/developer is most responsible for good architecture.  There are many fine architects out there with strong technical backgrounds and artistic flair.  By comparison, there seems to be far fewer developers with the motivation and vision.  This is not a criticism of capitalism, but golf as a profit maximization proposition is entirely different than building a club for the primary enjoyment of its membership.  I think that in the "Golden Age", more clubs of the second variety were being built.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jearle,

I think one of the unfortunate realities of today is that you cannot seperate money from craftmanship.

Time is money on almost every construction project in the world, from bridges to skyscrapers to golf courses, and most construction projects have a budget created by varying factors, not the least of which is accessability to, and the cost of money.

The fact that a maintainance crew, unfamiliar with construction practices, was able to build a nearly perfect replica of Crumps work, is a tribute to the architect and the project visionary.  Maintainance workers are hardly construction craftsman, and pride at $ 9.00 per hour is a rare commodity indeed.  I think Fazio and Ransome deserve almost all of the credit.