"Did/do architects leave guidelines or instructions for maintenance practices at a golf course after they finish building it?"

Not much and certainly not enough.

"Is there evidence of the "golden age" guys doing this?"

I don't think much but Flynn, for one, returned quite a bit and he was apparently interested in agronomic evolution over an extended time, particularly with bunker surrounds. It's probably not surprising as in the teens some thought of him as perhaps the most progressive greenkeeper to be found (Merion).

"Do the modern guys do this at all, or do they generally collaborate enough with the superintendent to be that it would not be necessary?"

Some probably more than others. One never knows what some feel. There was a super who grew-in on both a C&C course and a Rees Jones course and he once said Rees was so much more super-user friendly than C&C. But with a course like Hidden Creek certainly and maybe Friar's it seems the supers feel that C&C couldn't have been (and maybe continue to be) really user friendly---although growing in fescue in the heat of NJ ain't easy--but Jeff Riggs is good.

"If there are any instructions left behind, are they intended to last for the life of the course, or is the responsibility of a "maintenance meld" generally left to the course's people?"

I'd love to see any architect leave a full blown maintenance master plan behind (with his hoped for intentions) on his way out of town after construction ends and grow-in progresses. I've never actually seen such a written thing though. Most of the time owners probably just don't get it anyway. Guys like Bakst and Hansen surely do though. It was really interesting talking with Ken Bakst about this very subject and great to see how intensely interested he is in it going forward.

MacKenzie used to give clubs copies of his book Golf Architecture, specifically telling the recipients they would find it useful for the future upkeep of the course. (Perhaps he had a stack of unsold copies in his cellar. Perhaps they're still there...hmmm)

What happens when the architect and super are not on the same page with regards to local conditions and maintenance requirements?

JES,

If there is a conflict with the architect and super I would try to search a third opinion from some consultant.  But I guess the architect usually wins.

If the local climate is very different than the architect has ever worked with he should not try to force own opinions.  The local knowledge always wins in the end.

Jari

In 20 or 30 years it is very common to have different problems so there are always some changes going on with maintenance.  New turf varieties, fertilizers, machinery etc. are developed.

If you are lucky the super has written the history of the construction and maintenance routines.  It always helps if you know what has been done or tried before.

And of course there is the notorius greenkeeping committe that always try to change something.  

Jari

Thanks Joe,

That is what I had in mind, the architect leaving suggested playing condition expectations. A collaborative effort would seem the most effective, as opposed to one hand or the other making all the decisions and recommendations.

"He won't tell the super how to achieve the desired results, he just expresses his expectations."

This is the confirmation I sought, and would be surprised as well if it were less than a very common occurrance in golf course construction.  Thanks again.