Tim,
First, I notice that according to the forum, Tom Doak still has the last word!
The only thing I assumed from your description was that your friend rotated on to the greens committee just after the completion of the master plan you described. In that position, its again very natural to try to do whats best for the club, and get up to speed on what your committee has recently done. I just didn't know if the plan had been approved, or if he was asked to approve it at the first meeting, etc.
It's not unusual for the better players to hold sway over the architectural changes at a club. Often, memberships assume they know best. And, not knowing the two abandoned holes in question, its not all that unreasonable to think someone would want to expand a 6300 yard course. For better players, (and anyone in citywide competition who cares about their handicap, and thus course rating) adding a bit of length sounds reasonable. Its always best to do it with tees only, and it sounds like you think the two short holes had great character despite their length.
I like to say you can tell me what you want to spend, and I'll tell you what you get, or you can tell me what you want, and I'll tell you how much it cost. Or, we can, as most clubs do, work somewhere to the middle. In other words, with a reptutable architect, you really shouldn't need a second opinion, because he should have provided you with that, and perhaps a third opinion, for the general program (redo vs restoration, vs sympathetic restoration) and specific ideas (even if rerouting for length is accepted, he probably presented a few options for the club to explore) and even budget (here is the Mercedes, here is the Chevy) and even phasing (all in one year up to ten years) so the club can decide what is best for them, given his professional recommendations.
I would have (and I think most architects would have) probably gotten a list of the clubs goals, and then presented a high, medium, and low cost proposal in the preliminary stages. Or, he may have gotten strong direction in the analysis phase to add length, and then presented the cost estimate for that.
While I grant you that there is more money for the architect in during the construction phase of larger projects than small ones, he probably got a lump sum fee for the master plan (the number $25K has been thrown out) to make his best recommendations to the club, with no guarantee of what the final number may be. At least in the first phase, he should be objective about the clubs needs, and the ASGCA ehtics code does provide that we work in the clients best interests.
In fact, from my perspective, the architects who also have construction divisions are the ones you may favor, but which also have the greatest potential for conflict of interest, not ones who do master plans for a lump sum. Obviously, some disagree.
Of course, we are spending someone elses money, and "best interests" is subjective.
Is it in a clubs best interest to rebuild aging green structures that have grown grass fine, but whose reduced drainage and increased compaction will make it difficult in the next, inevitable overly hot summer? Or is it in the best interest to be surprised one year, and have to scramble, perhaps paying premium contractors prices for emergency rebuilding? From experience, many architects would recommend the rebuilding, based on the experiences of other clubs. The club doesn't have to accept, of course, but while it may be a bit like doctors overprescribing medical tests just to be sure, some architects may prefer a wholistic approach, and truly believe its in the best interest of the club.
I wouldn't necessarily assume if I were your friend that a reputable architect is selling them down the river to make a few extra bucks. Too many of those, and we wouldn't be in business in the long run!
I also like to tell clients that in renovations, if you are going to try to solve a problem, then really solve it, whether thats play issues, like length, safety issues, or technical issues like trouble growing grass on your greens. No one will remember what it cost in a year, but they will sure know if they spent a dime, and come back next year with the same problem.
Again, for not knowing the course, I suspect that it really does have some technical problems (given modern standards) in a lot of areas, and rebuilding greens, tees and drainage to provide better growing conditions may be warranted.
but, all of those things should have been tested and analyzed during the master plan process, and factored in to the master plan before the cost proposals/estimates were done.
Actually, for $3Mil, if they have to rebuild large parts of the irrigation, the proposal sounds reasonable for an 18 hole rebuild. I know total rebuilds that have cost $4 and up. So, perhaps the architect wasn't proposing the moon after all.
Sorry for ignoring Brad Kleins urging to shorten and edit, but I must go pick up my son from the golf course - a club that I have both as a membership and a remodeling credit!