A "hands off" clause

« **on:** January 09, 2008, 09:29:32 PM »

Should an architect insert a "hands off" clause in his contract that would extend 5 to 10 years from opening date.

A clause that states that NO changes to the golf course can be made without the architect's written approval ?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:00:36 PM »

Pat,

Realistically, it would be a quick way to be an unemployed architect. What club or board wants to willingly relinquish control for any period of time? Most club boards are educated business people who are comfortable holding the reigns.

Joe

« **Reply #2 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:07:54 PM »

If you were an architect competing for that course would you do that Patrick? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd appreciate an answer on it from YOU.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:14:20 PM »

This is a foolish question. Shouldn't it be in your other thread? Both questions are equally pointless. Clubs would just get an architect that wouldn't require the clause.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:24:02 PM »

Johnny M:

Most of what Pat Mucci says on here is pointless, so why shouldn't he ask pointless questions too?

Furthermore, when one tries to answer Pat Mucci's pointless questions his usual pointless response to their answers is that they missed the point!

« **Reply #5 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:25:47 PM »

TEPaul,

It would depend upon the personal relationship I had with the owner/developer.

In other circumstances, it would depend upon the demand for my services, the owner's circumstances or the membership's circumstances.

Had C&C offered that deal to Roger Hansen, I think he would have taken it.

Lowell Schulman and Rees might have done the same.

I think it's a course/owner/architect specific type of issue.

The "hands off" clause doesn't preclude fine tuning or revisions, it just precludes spontaneous, member driven changes or knee jerk reactions.

It gives the golf course time to "settle in".

Joe Hancock,

That's why so many disfigurations have taken place over the years.

Here's the question I have for that element of the membership, new to the golf club, that wants to make changes.

You liked the golf course just the way it was when you joined.
In fact, that's one of, if not THE reason you joined.
So, why do you want to change the golf course after you've been a member for a year or two ?

Typically, everyone wants the golf course to play to their strong suit, to their game, and when you let the members loose, each one vying for their particular preferences, you have chaos that usually ends up disfiguring the golf course.

Having a "hands off" clause would go a long way to thwart that.

In the OLDE days, patriarchs or oligarchies created golf clubs and NOONE dared challenge them, let alone suggest changes to the golf course. But today, with democracy in full swing at most clubs, everyone feels entitled to exercise their "rights" and those rights extend to reconfiguring the golf course to their whims.

If one views the issue from a historical perspective and asks, have most clubs improved their golf course with alterations, or have most clubs damaged their golf course with alterations, I'd lean toward the damaged side, and as such, I'm wary of change.

A "hands off" clause diminishes the chance that a fad will be thrust onto the golf course, a fad with a limited or permanent shelf life, a fad that will breed more fads, and more alterations, until the golf course doesn't resemble its original design.

« **Reply #6 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:29:51 PM »

Quote from: Johnny M on January 09, 2008, 10:14:20 PM

This is a foolish question. Shouldn't it be in your other thread? Both questions are equally pointless. Clubs would just get an architect that wouldn't require the clause.

Johnny M,

You must not be aware of how clubs retain architects.

Having seen the clause in an architect's contract, I can assure you that it wasn't pointless. It was meant to preserve his work, and, by preserving his work, he could then display it, UNALTERED to other potential clients.

Please, think before you type.

Thanks.

TEPaul,

You missed the point !

« **Reply #7 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:35:16 PM »

TEP-Thanks for the advice, I will use it in the future, but this time, I'm saying to speak a bit.
-The members paid for the course, shouldn't they have what they want? If thats not exactly what the architect put down, let them change it. THEY PAID THE MONEY TO HAVE WHAT THEY WANT! If your New York Strip is not to your satisfaction, do you send it back, or do you just eat it and figure you'll just pay and not really get what you want? In reality, how many courses are really changed in 5-10 years of opening. In that time, the original owners are probably still there and have enough power to just beat down anyone else. Do you write the contract for life? Either until the club goes bankrupt or the architect dies? None of these things are feasible. Club developers pay big money to get exactly what they want, if they do not get it the first time and the original architect won't rework, they'll do whatever it takes to get what they want.

BTW Pat-I do think before I type

« **Reply #8 on:** January 09, 2008, 10:46:59 PM »

Pat Mucci

Curious thought that of preserving their work. If the owner /developer paid in full for the work is it not his to do as he pleases? In theory if the owner of the Mona Lisa choose to paint a black moustache on her I would guess they would have the right as they own it. Not arguing the intelligence of the act only the right to commit the act.

After he is paid it is still his, I think it is now the property of the owner. The designer may still have a sense of ownership but the legal rights of ownership have been transferred I would think

Nice to see you posting again.

John

« **Reply #9 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:08:24 PM »

Pat,

If its my money, and I'm hiring someone to build a golf course for how I see fit, why would I reliquish control? Please remind me once again, who is the customer when one goes about having a course built?

« **Reply #10 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:15:14 PM »

Kalen-good to have someone else to support the idea that this is not good business. Why should an owner not get what he wants? Would this not possibly allow an architect, who signed the 'hands off' clause before construction from changing plans on the course and making a few new tees just to impress himself, just to show he can build a monster golf course? And then he would have absolute authority to veto any changes. How is that fair to the owner? Did the owner get what he wants and paid a significant sum of money for? I think not.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:25:21 PM »

Johnny M,

Agreed. And to me its a basic question of ownership. If you own the course why would you agree to this? If I want a custom built house, its about what I want, not what they want. No further explanation needed.

As TomP says me thinks it really is a "pointless question".

« **Reply #12 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:29:26 PM »

Quote from: Kalen Braley on January 09, 2008, 11:08:24 PM

Pat,

If its my money, and I'm hiring someone to build a golf course for how I see fit, why would I reliquish control?

If you're building a golf course as you see fit, why would you need an architect ?

Owners frequently seek out architects because they WANT that ARCHITECT'S PARTICULAR PRODUCT, not the owner's product.

If you wanted Tom Doak or C&C and they had that clause in their contract would you NOT hire them ? Remember, for those of you with limited reading comprehension skills, this is a clause that takes effect ONLY upon COMPLETION of the golf course.[/color]

Please remind me once again, who is the customer when one goes about having a course built ?

It's the customer who seeks the artiste, the expert, usually because he's enthralled with his work. If you wanted Tom Doak or C&C and they had this clause, I guarantee you, you'd sign on the dotted line.[/color]

« **Reply #13 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:35:29 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 09, 2008, 11:29:26 PM

Quote from: Kalen Braley on January 09, 2008, 11:08:24 PM
Pat,

If its my money, and I'm hiring someone to build a golf course for how I see fit, why would I reliquish control?

If you're building a golf course as you see fit, why would you need an architect ?

Owners frequently seek out architects because they WANT that ARCHITECT'S PARTICULAR PRODUCT, not the owner's product.

If you wanted Tom Doak or C&C and they had that clause in their contract would you NOT hire them ? Remember, for those of you with limited reading comprehension skills, this is a clause that takes effect ONLY upon COMPLETION of the golf course.[/color]

Please remind me once again, who is the customer when one goes about having a course built ?

It's the customer who seeks the artiste, the expert, usually because he's enthralled with his work. If you wanted Tom Doak or C&C and they had this clause, I guarantee you, you'd sign on the dotted line.[/color]

Pat,

How many owners actually have the expertise to build a course on thier own? Mike Keiser gave some very sage advice in "Dream Golf" about there being a huge difference to thinking you can build your own course and actually being able to do so. And I think he went about it the right way by hiring good architects, yet still remained very involved in the project in terms of hole to hole approval. I can't imagine I personally would be any more involved than this.

As for Doak and C&C, while I would certainly consider them to design a course for me, if this were there conditions, there are plenty of other capable architects I could choose from. And if they are in a position to demand such a clause from thier clients, then more power to them...but the vast majority of architects I would suspect are not.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:36:29 PM »

Pat--I must admit that after reading back over the posts, I see no mention in any of them as to when the clause would take affect. Please show me where you said that. I would like to see it, I really would.
--Again, the point is, the owner of the course owns the course. Its just that simple, he can do whatever he wants with it. Just the same as YOU personally can do whatever you want to the car you drive or the house you OWN. Its yours.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:43:32 PM »

Quote from: Johnny M on January 09, 2008, 10:35:16 PM

TEP-Thanks for the advice, I will use it in the future, but this time, I'm saying to speak a bit.

TEPaul is an idiot, even if he is my brother-in-law through an arranged marriage.[/color]

The members paid for the course, shouldn't they have what they want?

What members ?
Can you name a golf course that had a full membership before the golf course was built ?[/color]

If thats not exactly what the architect put down, let them change it.

Then, why have an architect ?
Why not let the members design and build a course that suits each one's particular needs ?[/color]

THEY PAID THE MONEY TO HAVE WHAT THEY WANT!

What money ?
Do you know of a single golf course where a full membership paid their money up front, before the golf course was designed and built ?[/color]

If your New York Strip is not to your satisfaction, do you send it back, or do you just eat it and figure you'll just pay and not really get what you want ?

Well, it depends.
Am I sharing the steak with 400 other diners ?[/color]

In reality, how many courses are really changed in 5-10 years of opening.

It's only a guess, but, I'd say the great majority.[/color]

In that time, the original owners are probably still there and have enough power to just beat down anyone else.

That goes to my point about the courses that were built by patriarchs or oligarchies, versus democratically run clubs.[/color]

Do you write the contract for life?

No, I thought I made the term of the contract clear in my opening post.[/color]

Either until the club goes bankrupt or the architect dies?

See my answer above[/color]

None of these things are feasible.

I would disagree.
And my idiot, soon to be ex-brother-in-law disagrees as well, he just doesn't know it yet.[/color]

Club developers pay big money to get exactly what they want, if they do not get it the first time and the original architect won't rework, they'll do whatever it takes to get what they want.

If a club developer knows exactly what he wants, why would he hire an architect with a particular style ?

You seem to be confused with respect to the process of designing the golf course prior to opening day, and the fate of the golf course after opening day.

I would refer you back to my original post.[/color]

BTW Pat-I do think before I type

Then tell that idiot, my brother-in-law, TEPaul to try doing the same thing.[/color]

« **Reply #16 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:49:34 PM »

Quote from: Johnny M on January 09, 2008, 11:36:29 PM

Pat--I must admit that after reading back over the posts, I see no mention in any of them as to when the clause would take affect. Please show me where you said that. I would like to see it, I really would.

It was in my opening post, the one that started this thread.

"Should an architect insert a "hands off" clause in his contract that would [size=4x] extend 5 to 10 years from opening date."
[/size]

--Again, the point is, the owner of the course owns the course. Its just that simple, he can do whatever he wants with it.

Not if he's contractually prevented from doing so.[/color]

Just the same as YOU personally can do whatever you want to the car you drive or the house you OWN. Its yours.

Those are off the rack, showroom or street products made for the masses.

A golf course is designed by a professional for a specific user and that user is the one who seeks out the architect for his style and expertise.[/color]

« **Reply #17 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:54:45 PM »

Kalen,

I think you're looking at the issue in the context of Pre-Opening day, as opposed to Post-opening day.

When you consider the relationship between the owner developer prior to opening day, and the situation where the club will be turned over to the "membership", don't you think it makes sense to have a "hands off" clause ?

« **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2008, 11:55:26 PM »

The owner either respects you and what you have done (in which case there would be no problems) - or doesn't.

Either way, a clause in a contract is not going to help you - if you are needing to pull out a contract and refer the owner to it your relationship is pretty much over there and then (and any potential relationship you might want to have with your owners friends and associates).

You are better off working on your relationship with the owner so he respects you enough to consult you should he be contemplating a change.

Its kind of like taking your name off a project - easy in theory but pretty much impossible in practice.

« **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:03:53 AM »

Wow, Pat, you wrote a lot. To answer a few of the questions...
1. Do you know of a single golf course where a full membership paid their money up front, before the golf course was designed and built ? Yes, Eagle Point in Wilmington. They had about 50 people go in and built a golf course, as far as I know, they still have no more than the original 50 members. (This answers another one of your quesitons as well)
2. Then, why have an architect? Because one is still needed, if only because of the logistics of planning.
And your original post only specifies that the contract EXTENDS 5-10 years. While the architect is still bound by that contract, suppose something is wrong that the members don't like but he doesn't want to change? What then? Or suppose the architects ego gets in the way and he alters the course a bit from orignal plans and the club does not like it. They contractually can't change it.
-As I have said, owners should get what they want and should not be potentially bound to accept something that is not 100% of their expectations.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:44:41 AM »

Patrick,

Who is to say that people other than the architect don't have good and valid ideas?

Architects surely evolve, and their ideas change over time - who is to say they will ever get it right in regards as to a particular site?

Architects are surely no different to other artists - occasionally it takes someone else's ideas to make something as good as it can be.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:53:44 AM »

Patrick:

I could get SOME clients to sign off on that clause in my contracts, but certainly not others. There are some jobs which I would only take upon that condition, and others where I wouldn't worry about it, because the client seems more reasonable.

« **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2008, 01:59:35 AM »

For most contracts (not golf related) that I've worked on, all rights to the product (golf course in Patrick's case) developed are claimed by the buyer. This would include intellectual property and moral rights to the ideas etc in the product. I've never seen one where they vested in the vendor (architect in this case). You pay the money, you own the product of the work. Now, that doesn't say you couldn't negotiate a no-touch clause. As TD points out, it can be done in this environment. Whether the buyer wants to or not is up to them. If they want the architect badly enough then they may give away a no-touch clause.

For the archies, do you have intellectual property and moral rights clauses in your contracts generally? Do they impede using replicas of your particular designs of holes in future engagements?

Patrick, the original contract is usually (??) between and developer/owner and an architect. As you say, the membership comes later and there are many ways to structure memberships. Do you propose a contract between owner/developer and members that would pass-on a no-touch clause? Do you think it would impede sales of memberships in any way?

« **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2008, 03:03:50 AM »

Anybody who needs it, wouldn't sign it.

Anybody who doesn't need it would gladly sign it.

Isn't that about right?

« **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2008, 05:06:14 AM »

if an architect supplies an "operating and maintenance" manual, either free of charge or for a small extra fee, the responsible club will be more likely to understand and maintain the architect's original vision...

...this is most effective method to keep some control and please the client... a middle ground

...in my opinion...

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Joe Hancock

TEPaul

John Moore II

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

John Moore II

John Keenan

Kalen Braley

John Moore II

Kalen Braley

Patrick_Mucci

Kalen Braley

John Moore II

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

B. Mogg

John Moore II

Mark_F

Tom_Doak

Bryan Izatt

Matt_Cohn

Ally Mcintosh