[JESII]

I think Ian and Kelly both touch on the point well. It's the sales side of the job. Even you guys have to be salesmen, and Kelly if you don't think the way you handled that negative member was salesmanship you're nuts. If poorly handled by you from the beginning you would have been out the door.

Everybody that sells anything (and you guys are selling your vision) has to perform those same skills of perception. If they are going to have any success that is.

[Jason Blasberg]

When a lawyer is a committee member and starts meddling with the archie, it would pay to remind this member that he wouldn't let the archie represent him in court, no matter how good his understanding of a particular field of law and his interest in it. The architect is hopefully a professional in his field.

Tony,

You give lawyers far too much deference, people represent themselves pro se all the time with varying degrees of success but we are, for the most part, a self-perpetuating profession.    

That being said, I think members do need to voice preferences and submit a unified goal or plan to the archie, who should then give their candid advice and if it's a good fit for what the membership wants, great, but if it's not it's better to find an archie that will work with what the membership wants then to try and put a square peg in a round hole.  

In these situations its crucial that both the membership and the archie be candid and not be afraid to part ways if it is clear that the parties do not share a unified vision for what will be done.  Ultimately, I think an ideal situation is one where the membership conveys to the archie their vision for the project and the archie, embracing and developing that vision, does their work with limited involvement from the membership day-to-day.  

Some of the best work comes from taking chances and it's imperative that there be a mutual trust between the parties so that the archie will take the chances they deem necessary and they know the membership supports them and trusts their judgment.  

[corey miller]

Jason

I am not sure that the average membership knows enough to know what they want.  It would be helpful if there were some sort of educational resource available.  Parts of this website are a good start.

What if an architect writes, as part of his plan:

1. "members are rightly concerned that their golf course will be changed to take on an alien character and appearance, reflectin more the individual style of the golf course architect hired to design the improvements than the inherent style of the original architect.

2. "Each designer possesses a style that is their trademark, however renovation projects on courses require an objective approach based on respect for the original designers work. The expression by an architect of his or her individualistic style should be reserved for use on their own new courses, not classical ones, particularly those with a high pedigree".

3. "The members can be assured that the improvements recommended will be carried out in a classical style consistent with the design of the original architect.  Properly implemented, the improvements will yeild a golf course which is simply a better version of the original giving an observer the impression that the golf course was designed at the original time by the original architect"

I think many architects and memberships can agree on these principles.  However, what happens when the actual plan calls for adding ponds, or adding trees, or narrowing fairways in the landing areas or building containment mounding, or flattening greens or fixing redans so poorly hit balls don't luckily roll near the pin.

Now if I were an unscrupulous archtiect I might

[Tom_Doak]

Corey:

When projects fail it is not always due to lack of scruples.

In a couple of cases I've seen, there was little in their master plan that I would have written differently, but the execution of the plan was horrible -- a contractor was brought in who had no feel for the look of older bunkers and features, and did not particularly try to imitate them, just built a bunch of brand-new looking bunkers where they were drawn on the plan.  The architect is somewhat at fault there, for putting the contractor on the bid list and/or not making enough site visits to ensure that everything was built correctly; or more likely he just didn't care that much himself.

The other part of the problem is that ANYONE can write what you just wrote, but not everyone is capable of following through with the intent.

[paul cowley]

Thanks Kelly, I enjoy your gutstuff infight attitude....you don't be patronizin me bro....yo?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Thanks Kelly, I enjoy your gutstuff infight attitude....you don't be patronizin me bro....yo?

Based upon the time of your post it is definately possible you've been drinking: "gut stuff infight attitude"

Also I had no idea you're black, you may be the only black man practicing golf architecture, that must give you an edge on public work!

JESII

I kinda hate to think I "handled" anyone but in some ways I guess you do massage the situation, of course I hate to think I massaged him either but the sales job almost makes it sound like you are putting the show on in a somewhat disingenuous way to get your way...I like to think of it as a passionate, well argued case and if he bends great if not there may be a big problem here but you got to deal with it moment by moment and realize you are not completely in control so relax and let the other side sort through it as well.  I have jumped the gun before and gotten aggressive when I didn't need to because I wanted to make damn sure we didn't lose the fight and at times I overextended without having to, so I  am learning to be a little more confident and patient and if I really think its the right thing then stick with it and believe in it, in the end it will work out.  

[JESII]

I wonder if I, as a salesman, should be offended that such a high percentage of people who run businesses think it offensive when they are referred to in the same breath as the term sales, or salesmanship.

Kelly, what do you think you're doing with your services? Are you giving them away? You're trying to sell them to golf course developers. It's the hardest part of your job and you seem to be doing it pretty well, as with the other, more important parts of your job.

[ed_getka]

Bump. Here's some architecture stuff.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How many architects, whether renovating a course, or 'adjusting' something new, would actually take on board members' suggestions?

I realise it is an area fraught with danger - after all, how would you decide which and how many members to listen to - but surely some members, and their regular guests, have some ideas worth listening to?

After all, golf architecture is an art, and it is all too easy for artists to get caught up in the brilliance of their own creations.

Has this happened?

[size=4x]

Wouldn't the answer depend upon the MERIT of the idea and the EGO of the architect ?[/color][/size]

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't seen the question answered quite this way, so here goes - the best projects I have had (new or remodel) are ones where the owner gives strong general direction, but leaves 90% or more of the execution of the vision to the gca.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()