This is more or less a golf architect or designer question, but I do encourage everyone to participate and share their knowledge and experiences.

The rules maybe unwritten--that is unless you wear plaid. (well, sort of!)

How many times in the "Business" have any of you actually committed the heinous act, (or have had it happen to you) where a competing architect who was in no way, ever in line for your job, actually started talking to YOUR client with the intent of trying to influence design decisions, or designs that are already planned--for and by another Golf Architect whose firm you are no way and in anyway related to; nor ever want to be?

Now I'm not talking about where your a young and budding architect on your own, where all of a sudden the developer has an attack of Walletitus* and hires Tom Fazio, etc. I'm talking about where a architect is actually trying to influence a developer of a property, who already has his architect and is happy with him, yet still is going to see if he can manage to "steal" the job away from him. (All while not knowing the developer actually doesn't really like you anyway nor has any intentions of ever using you and never wants you on his property again.)

GCA's of GCA, I await your posts!

Tommy,

I don't see it happening often, but then again, I don't do it, and if an architect is secretly going behind MY back, I wouldn't necessarily know it anyway.

I did have a project manager once who had really wanted to hire Joe Lee, but was overruled by the committee.  During the project, he would tell me that he had called Joe to ask his opinion.  I can't fault Joe for anything.  In fact, I told the Owners rep that Joe must be nicer than me, cause if he had gotten the job, and I had gotten those calls, I doubt I would give him the time of day!  

I got caught in another project once, when a big remodel was awarded to another firm, but a friend I couldn't ignore, who was an influential member, asked me to visit one night.  When I got there, he had the entire board assembled, and I tried to back out of it.  However, I toured, and confirmed a few things that their then neophyte architecture firm probably would have figured out on their next site visit.

I have been writing a remodeling column for the new Golf Course News for six months.  That has spawned almost a dozen calls to me from greens committee members asking my opinion - from up to a 1000 miles away, and without seeing the course - of how things are going at their course.  In most cases, they have a competent architect and I implore them (as I did in my column) that the master plan/renovation is actually a process, not a plan, and anyone jumping in with last minute suggestions, no matter how passionate or well reasoned, is likely to do more harm than good.

Of course, I notifiy the architect in question after fielding these calls, just so he won't think I am trying to influence the project.

I can't name names, but I heard a really good story about how a well-known golf architect moved from "design associate" to starting his own firm.

Basically, he was working for an older architect as an associate on a project. He convinced the owner/developer that he'd do a better job without his boss involved. The owner/developer agreed. Right there and then this guy went into business for himself as a golf course designer!

Jeff Mingay,
This fellow must cheat in golf as well.

Redanman,
Why on earth would you single out the USA?  Move to France already!  I agree with Adam.  The basest aspects of human nature are not confined by geography.

I got a phone call so I modified my response...anybody else want to call and fill me in on facts that I may not be aware...please call 618-943-4716...Thanks....and sorry Tommy.

Bill,

There are countless examples of people doing good for one another.  What does your Paddington Bear example prove?  It is merely one nice example but no big friggin deal.  Happily caring for our fellow man is widespread though not universal.  There is bad in most population subsets, nothing earth shattering there.  It is not as you see it, mostly an American phenomenon.  Americans do more charitable work and investment per capita than any other nation by a substantial margin.  American soldiers have been paying the ultimate sacrifice around the world for decades.  Are we perfect?  Of course not but we do shoulder a fair amount of the load as we should.  

"You of all people, in the TV business, can you imagine a hollywood type doing that, relinquishing ownership of such a product allowing someone else to profit as a result?"

Who are you talking to?  I'm not in the TV business nor have I ever been.  In fact, as of now I'm not in any business.  I was however on the Gene London show as a kid and stood next to the pot bellied stove.  Does that count?  

"Agreed, ethics are not what they used to be anywhere but this is one of the reasons americans and their ideas about exporting freedoms are not "universally loved" shall we say."

It is interesting that you did not capitalize the word "Americans."

At least you have the right to vote for those whose policies, including exporting freedom (agreed that it is sometimes heavy handed and not completely practical) you disagree with.  I know we joke about your politics and regard for America.  If you're just inciting as some do on this site, that is one thing.  If you really believe it, you are an odd fellow.  France awaits, the country that tried to save Ira Einhorn's arse.

Philanthropy and business ethics are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, one is often used to disguise the other. Or lack thereof.

>>Agreed, ethics are not what they used to be anywhere but this is one of the reasons americans and their ideas about exporting freedoms are not "universally loved" shall we say.<<

Anyone who has done business internationally knows that US business ethics are the highest in the world.

Good people and bad people the world over. And over.

Good people and bad people in business the world over. And over.

Good people and bad people in golf the world over. And over.

Somebody delete this thread....

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Philanthropy and business ethics are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, one is often used to disguise the other. Or lack thereof".  So opines Adam Clayman.

Please Adam, tell me you don't really believe this.  Who have you been hanging around with?   The Enrons of the world are a relatively small minority.  There are many, many ethical business people.  I know any number of them.  I am also intimately acquainted with people of various means who through donating their resourses- $$$, time, expertise, effort-make this world a much better place.  That they may derive considerable satisfaction from being "good people" hardly detracts from their actions.

George Pazin,

Why do you want to be such a censor?  If every comment that is off-topic is deleted, this site would be a skeleton of itself.  And believe it or not, much of what we discuss in relation to politics, economics, and the nature of man is reflected in golf, the industry, and its architecture.

Hi Lou -

I'm not looking to censor anyone, and Lord knows I've participated in many off topic discussions, particularly of the political variety. I just don't see much point in tossing around meaningless generalities.

If someone wishes to argue the specifics of Enron, some specific architect, or whatever, I'm game, but the posters in this thread that are throwing around such weak generalizations reminds me of that joke (recently recounted on this site) where the prisoners sit around and tell jokes by yelling out numbers.

Adam,

As commonly used, "mutually exclusive" means that the presence of one necessarily prescribes the absence of the other.  I know many, many ethical, philanthropic people.

Traditions, ethical doctrines, professional codes of conduct, and formal or informal policies and procedures are at times used to protect the incumbents from competition.  Said barriers to entry make it comfortable for those who have theirs, and are major obstacles to those who aspire for a better lifestyle.

In my opinion, an architect chiming in on an existing project is not a matter of ethics.  It may actually be a bad business practice if the facts as noted by the Emperor are accurate.  From the standpoint of the principal, he is getting some information for nothing.  If the architect of record is secure in his ability to make his part of the project successful, he has little to fear.  And who knows, he too might learn something.  Ultimately, the principal/client dictates what is acceptable.  If he doesn't find the intruding architect's information useful or tasteful, he won't tolerate him.

Don't you wish somebody would have advised the City of Farmington that the nickel-and-dime irrigation and drainage systems being installed during construction at Pinion would not suffice?  Maybe it would have given Mr. Dye more ammunition to gain additional funding to do it right.

Of course, very few of us appreciate constructive criticisms, not to say anything about second-guessing or pot shots.