Jason, I find point 4 distressing.  How unprofessional!

Mike:

Aside from Jason maybe being a bit too critical of the architect in point #4, don't you consider at least looking at the hole to be minimally informed so you as an architect could carry on an accurate discussion about a hole in question?  At that point, and if they asked you about your thoughts on the hole, you could decide whether or not if you wanted to offer any design comments, or hold your thoughts and simply have an informed discussion?  Who knows where it could lead

I know where you are coming from with your comments, but isn't this a standard risk we take to offer our thoughts...I don't think you need to give away the grand solution by any means, but being informed and offering design advise are two separate things to me

Why not just pick the best architect and let him do what he does best...and tell the committe to be quiet

I recently participated in a green committee meeting where we met with an architect to decide whether to make modifications to a hole where some trees have recently died.

A few comments from the experience that I thought might be helpful for others:

1.  I certainly have more respect for the political side of an architect's job.  No matter what he recommends, it will be different than the input he has gotten from committee members.  Handling that will be more interesting to see than whatever happens to the golf hole.

Jason,

I doubt that design by compromise produces the best architectural product.  Unfortunately, it's a way of life at clubs in the U.S. today.

2.  It is critical that you have input from some representatives from the club that hit the ball less than 200 yards off the tee.  A woman on our committee pointed out some issues that would never have occurred to me.

I disagree.

If you can't understand the game of the broad spectrum of golfers, irrespective of your game, one would have to question your qualifications.

Architects forge a disinterested challenge, they neither favor nor penalize any particular segment of the membership.

You must think in that same "disinterested" context and not in the context of your own game.

The broader the spectrum of golfers you introduce to the committee, the worse the product usually is.
Design by consensus or majority vote impedes and/or dilutes the creative process and the end result.

3.  Making a decision by committee would be a miserable way to determine how to alter a golf course.  This meeting was for the purpose of providing ideas, and there was little consensus in the group for what should be done.  Spending more than this idea meeting as a group would lead to entrenched positions and a rumble.

If you have to hold a meeting to look for ideas you've already lost your way.

Another way of saying this is, if you don't know what you want at the outset, surely you'll end up getting what you didn't want.

4.  If you are an architect showing up for a meeting, even if you are just being hired for a couple of hours to get input - go out and spend time on the hole before the meeting.  This architect clearly had not spent any time on the hole beforehand and he looked a little silly when he was mistaken about the location of a hidden pond.  

I disagree with your perspective.
How was the architect supposed to gleen what the committee wanted to do if the committee didn't know what they wanted to do ?

The architect should have listened to what was said, determined and developed a mission statement, and, with approval of the mission statement, embarked upon rendering a plan.

In life you tend to get what you pay for.
Would you entertain brain or heart surgery if the job was going to be done by the lowest bidder ?

If you hire a professional, pay him well, even overpay him, but, never, never underpay him.

5.  Even if it is a meeting for getting input, I think it would have been best if the architect would have had 3 ideas on what to do with the hole (1) nothing; (2) an approach that provides more options; and (3) an approach that makes the hole more difficult.  I'm not being critical of the architect here because he was not hired to make proposals at this juncture.[/color]

But you were being critical of the architect.
You're contradicting yourself.
Sometimes we learn more by listening than by talking.

If he was hired NOT TO MAKE PROPOSALS AT THIS JUNCTURE, why are you chastising him for not making one of three proposals ?

It is something to consider for those hiring architects and for architects as a condition of doing this type of work.

6.  I'm not sure how master plans fit into this equation.  But it is clear that implementing a master plan is probably more difficult than making one in the first place.  

It depends upon the culture of the club, the strength of the leadership and if the leadership supports the plan.
AND, it depends upon the financial strength of the club.
Things on paper translate into dollars and that single issue, funding, tends to be at the core of almost all decisions to implement.

Next step is to reduce the on site and the conversations to writing to be reviewed.  Once you have reviewed the written report you can discuss the relative merits of these ideas in the context of the whole plan.  Remember the architect is the subject matter expert.  

Further, the architect will come back to you with recommendations as a whole.  Review them again and you will be suprised how many good ideas make it on to the plan in some form or another.  

Now the fun starts!  Selling it to the Membership.

Despite your blunt style, I appreciate your unvarnished perspective.  Here is my response:

Jason, I don't have time to beat around the bush and as such, try to get to the point ASAP[/color]

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 23, 2006, 10:10:47 PM

Quote from: Jason Topp on August 23, 2006, 01:38:35 PM

I recently participated in a green committee meeting where we met with an architect to decide whether to make modifications to a hole where some trees have recently died.

A few comments from the experience that I thought might be helpful for others:

1.  I certainly have more respect for the political side of an architect's job.  No matter what he recommends, it will be different than the input he has gotten from committee members.  Handling that will be more interesting to see than whatever happens to the golf hole.

Jason,

I doubt that design by compromise produces the best architectural product.  Unfortunately, it's a way of life at clubs in the U.S. today.

 I never suggested design by compromise was appropriate.  I do think it would be important however to have support of the committee responsible for the course.  Hopefully that will be accomplished not through compromise but through a decision people can support because it is the best way to deal with the issue.  

If you're looking for unanimity, it's doubtful you'll find it.
Enter compromise, stage left.[/color]

2.  It is critical that you have input from some representatives from the club that hit the ball less than 200 yards off the tee.  A woman on our committee pointed out some issues that would never have occurred to me.

I disagree.

If you can't understand the game of the broad spectrum of golfers, irrespective of your game, one would have to question your qualifications.

Architects forge a disinterested challenge, they neither favor nor penalize any particular segment of the membership.

You must think in that same "disinterested" context and not in the context of your own game.

The broader the spectrum of golfers you introduce to the committee, the worse the product usually is.
Design by consensus or majority vote impedes and/or dilutes the creative process and the end result.

 You are probably right that an architect will take that perspective into account, but I did not when thinking about the hole.  It opened my eyes as to how much I see a course through my own game as opposed to the majority of players that cannot hit it 200 yards.  

My guess is that most people who comment on architecture do the same thing.  

Agreed[/color]

3.  Making a decision by committee would be a miserable way to determine how to alter a golf course.  This meeting was for the purpose of providing ideas, and there was little consensus in the group for what should be done.  Spending more than this idea meeting as a group would lead to entrenched positions and a rumble.

If you have to hold a meeting to look for ideas you've already lost your way.

Another way of saying this is, if you don't know what you want at the outset, surely you'll end up getting what you didn't want.

Why is that true?  I know what I want - to do nothing or make changes that allow multiple strategies rather than forcing players to attack the hole in the same manner every time.  

But, you contradict yourself again.
You don't know what you want, you even said so above, you want either A or B, but, don't know the answer and so you're looking for advice.[/color]

Trying to ramrod that perspective through the committee would not have even been feasible at this point and the concerns some people have about the hole as it exists now are valid, even if I disagree with them.

When this issue came up in the committee, rather than try and resolve differing perspectives from a lay perspective, a committee member suggested we consult with an architect for suggestions rather than make a decision as a committee.  I think that it is laudible that the committee recognized that it did not have the expertise to devise a solution on its own.

If we had already decided what we wanted, I doubt we would need an architect and just could hire a contractor directly to do any needed work

This is where I think you went wrong.  First, reread your above three paragraphs.

You should have simply presented the problem to the architect and let the professional you hired come up with the solutions.[/color]

4.  If you are an architect showing up for a meeting, even if you are just being hired for a couple of hours to get input - go out and spend time on the hole before the meeting.  This architect clearly had not spent any time on the hole beforehand and he looked a little silly when he was mistaken about the location of a hidden pond.  

I disagree with your perspective.
How was the architect supposed to gleen what the committee wanted to do if the committee didn't know what they wanted to do ?

The architect should have listened to what was said, determined and developed a mission statement, and, with approval of the mission statement, embarked upon rendering a plan.

In life you tend to get what you pay for.
Would you entertain brain or heart surgery if the job was going to be done by the lowest bidder ?

If you hire a professional, pay him well, even overpay him, but, never, never underpay him.

 I think a golf architect could reasonably be expected to know where a pond is.

I find it humorous that you would prescribe precisely how this project should be tackled without having an understanding of the context.

It's simple.
I'm not tackling the specific problem.
It doesn't matter what the specific problem is.
I'm attacking the process you employed.

First you say that the architect looked silly, and they you say that you weren't critical of the architect and then you said that you didn't contradict yourself.  Are you sure about that ?[/color]

We have a master plan for the course.  We had 2 trees die.  The issue is whether the loss of 2 trees should alter that direction in any way.  Much of the process you suggest has taken place and this is one of a myriad of issues that arise along the way.  It was my first exposure to this sort of process.  

The ISSUE isn't important, it's the PROCESS that's important and, based on what YOU presented, your PROCESS appears to be flawed.[/color]

5.  Even if it is a meeting for getting input, I think it would have been best if the architect would have had 3 ideas on what to do with the hole (1) nothing; (2) an approach that provides more options; and (3) an approach that makes the hole more difficult.  I'm not being critical of the architect here because he was not hired to make proposals at this juncture.[/color]

But you were being critical of the architect.
You're contradicting yourself.
Sometimes we learn more by listening than by talking.

If he was hired NOT TO MAKE PROPOSALS AT THIS JUNCTURE, why are you chastising him for not making one of three proposals ?

 I did not contradict myself at all.  My reaction after the meeting is that perhaps we should have asked for proposals to focus discussion rather than a free ranging brainstorming session.  That would be the fault of the committee rather than the architect.  I'm not sure on that point and am interested in input from those with more experience in this process.

Reread my comments above.
You've contradicted yourself again.[/color]

I agree that "sometimes we learn more from listening than talking" but have no idea whether you are throwing a criticism at me or supporting the role the architect took in the meeting.

I'm trying to provide you with a path that will lead to a positive outcome, as I think the current one, as described by you, is full of pitfalls.[/color]


It is something to consider for those hiring architects and for architects as a condition of doing this type of work.

6.  I'm not sure how master plans fit into this equation.  But it is clear that implementing a master plan is probably more difficult than making one in the first place.  

It depends upon the culture of the club, the strength of the leadership and if the leadership supports the plan.
AND, it depends upon the financial strength of the club.
Things on paper translate into dollars and that single issue, funding, tends to be at the core of almost all decisions to implement.

Agreed but my point is that I have more appreciation for the challenges associated with implementing a master plan and the importance of keeping after it for the long haul, particularly when you are spending money out of people's pockets.

That's probably the most difficult task, the ongoing committment to the master plan and its ongoing implementation.

I think the answer to that lies within the political continuity of the club.[/color]

I'm tired of the rhetorical chess match, but am interested in understanding what you are suggesting.

It's not a chess match, I'm trying to help you from drowning despite your resistance to accepting aid.[/color]

Others suggest that the process we are going through may be the best approach - have the architect get the perspective of a representative sample of members[/red] and then make a proposal as to the best approach to take.  

There in RED, lies the flaw in your process.

You even admitted that you only viewed the issue in the context of your game.

Do you think that the representative sample of the members will view the issue in any other context.

A representative (whatever that means) sample of the membership is a biased group, each advocating their own interests, based on their games.

THE ARCHITECT ALREADY KNOWS THAT.

HE WILL FORGE A DISINERESTED CHALLENGE.

One that neither favors nor penalizes any contingent of the representative sampling of the members.

Every hole, every architectural feature can't please every member or every "representative sampling" of the members.

That's the formula for disaster.

Tell the architect the problem.
Let him come up with the solution/s

If you were having surgery would you tell the surgeon which surgical methods you'd prefer, or are you going to let THE PROFESSIONAL make that decision ?

Pick the best professional, describe the problem, and let him draft the solution/s[/color]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting is much different other than somehow knowing before the architect arrives what we want to do with the course.  If more than one person is involved in that process, I do not see that as realistic.  

Am I understanding your suggestion correctly?

Jason, the key to success is a small committee, not a large one.

Lack of leadership and/or lack of knowledge usually lead to the appointing of large committees, that way, those in charge can always say, this is what the "representative sampling" of the members, and the membership wanted.

This is how most golf courses got disfigured in the first place.

Designing by consensus is a horrible idea.

It's a defensive strategy with political objectives, rather than a strategy whose objectives are the solution to the architectural issue.

Having said all of that, you may be in a situation where the powers that be want as many people involved as possible.

If that's the case, you have a difficult road ahead of you.

I've always favored relying on select members who have the interest, the time, the knowledge and the passion for the project, rather than relying on a broad base of committee members who form a "representative sampling" of the membership.

But, that may be beyond your influence.

If so, I'd suggest hiring the most qualified, most expensive architect available.

In my limited experience, I've found that people tend to listen more to people who they pay handsomely, rather than those who are paid minimally or not at all.

I hope that helps.

If not, call TEPaul, he's a great believer in getting the entire membership involved on every little detail of the project
[/color]