.....does an architect have an ethical responsibility to design a course within a clubs or clients ability to maintain it properly.

How can an architect predict the capabilities of future superintendents ?

.....should someone design something that they feel can't be properly maintained over time....even if they reap initial benifits.

Can you provide a specific example, rather than a vague generallity ?

.....does this ever occur ?.........

Extremes do occur.  I have advised individuals to remember, that long after the architect has left the building, they'll have the long term responsibility of maintaining the course/features and defending the design work, and to avoid radical departures.

Patrick,
Who is responsible for the proper maintenance, the members or the superintendent?

Each club has its own dynamic, but in general, the membership should set the conditions of play, and the superintedent should agronomically implement them, where possible.

We all know that the supt. is responsible for the methods required to achieve the desired conditions, but is he really responsible for determining how the course should play?

He certainly controls how the course can play, but in the ultimate, the membership should decide.

Unfortunately, at many clubs, this may vary from President to President, Board to Board, regime to regime, and this is why I like dictators, especially those that hand pick their successor.

Good question.  I happen to feel I do, but of course, as Pat says, I am no damn good at predicting the future.  History repeats. The 20's and 90's may be similar, with more bunker removals, fairway narrowings, etc.

If the past is a guide, cost pressures will raise their head at some time.  I have told the story about seeing fairway bunkers well in the woods at Shoreacres, with the fairways narrowed through the expense cuts of the depression and gas rationing of WWII.

I have heard of two of my local courses now filling in bunkers to cut costs.  I never thought those were extravagant, but the owner's of these courses now need to cut costs in every way to pay debt and expenses.

I know some architects who do design features, knowing full well that in a few years, those features (gingerbread bunkers, steep slopes for shadows) will be changed, but they don't care, as long as they get their marketing pictures.  Even that may be ethical in a higher sense, assuming the owner knows, and also wants the great marketing pictures at the expense of some possible greater maintenance costs, which will be borne by someone else.  (kind of like our long running federal deficits, huh?)

Sometimes its a tough call - do you want the best theoretical design, or the one that has a chance to last, albeit, not as spectacular?  I have always felt that any feature that was hard to maintain would get changed at some point in the future. So, I lean to asking the current superintendent about his maintenance programs, and being a bit conservative about future maintenance.  I won't get famous, but my courses will stay less altered than many in the future.  At least, that's my hope.