[Scott Witter]

In a recent thread it was stated that "GCA is the most unregulated of all design professions"

This may or may not be true depending on how deep one wishes to investigate the world of "design professions", and considering the location the GCA is currently practicing on any project(s), but taking the context at hand, does this statement concern any of you?

This isn't the first time I have heard this mentioned in my presence, or while sitting at a planning board meeting where local citizens are quick to blast the GCA for doing this or doing that, "isn't anyone watching these people" seems to be a common phrase.

As far as my own work, I am not concerned because I have the credentials (from societies regulators point of view anyway) that stand behind what I do, but I do know of others who I do have some concern about with respect to their experience and knowledge of issues surrounding the profession that clearly have an impact on the health, safety and welfare of the public.

What say you?

[Adam_F_Collins]

"design profession" includes a lot. And within that inclusion, it's not even close to the most unregulated, simply by the fact that it's enormous budgets and necessity for a multitude of permits regulates it by default to a certain degree.

Graphic Design, Interior Design, Interaction Design, Instructional Design and probably several more are all much less regulated design professions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am not familiar with all design professions, but golf design is very unregulated, in part because ASGCA fights regulation strongly.

Every so often, the landscape architects or engineers in a state will orchestrate an effort to licensce golf design, presuming, of course, that they will get most of the work.  And, of course, many state legislators will be sympathetic.  ASGCA fights it by pointing out that a course designed by an unlicensced Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus or Pete Dye is very likely to increase tourist dollars more than a course designed by "Joe the Landscaper" and so far, we have been successful at stopping licensing.

Even knowing that most states think they need to supervise who cuts my hair, which I have never understood, what exactly are the public issues that would require more licensing and oversight of gca?  The environment perhaps, but in such cases, another firm could be hired to provide those services on truly sensitive sites.  Housing projects usually have land planners who assist in any safety issues there, although frankly, the gca is usually the one pushing for more safety margins and less lots.

The truth of the matter is, golf courses don't fall down like buildings, or bridges.  There are few health safety and welfare issues associated with them.  As to who is watching, presumably the Owner is watching, in the fact that when he hired a gca, he thouroghly checked his/her references and past projects and picked on that not only had few problems but also designed wonderful golf courses.

I always wonder what these local government bodies think when they say that.  That some 25 year old snot nose kid with nothing to do back in the planning department should write some "guidelines" for us to follow, even though he has never played golf in his life?  What a waste of time for a local government who will likely never have another golf course built within its boundaries again.

The most likely outcome of that is that the guidelines would provide ultimate safety, environmental sensitivity, and even drainage (probably specing that the course drains for a 100 year storm, like houses) but pricing any new golf course construction into the stratosphere, perhaps by requiring yet another layer of review in the permitting process to delay construction even further.

I would be more worried that someone would seriously  entertain those notions.  

Scott, when someone says that, can they give an example of a golf course designed by a qualified gca that would have benefitted signifigantly?  And I am not talking that a personal opinion that Doak should have been hired, not Brauer.  I am tallking about real design issues that affect the public?  Or, are they just "generally" worried about how a project is going?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Scott,

I think regulating the profession would be meaningless, and could be viewed as a way for those that set the standards attempting to exclude others that don’t meet their standards yet are probably far more competent than the ones setting the standards.  There are a number of architects who have entered the profession in different ways other than what some may perceive as the standard way and to devise standards would unnecessarily rob the profession of imaginative, talented people.  I am working on a project where an architect renovated the bunkers.  He would meet all of the standards I could envision being set by a regulatory body, an ASGCA member, etc., yet after my investigations, and study of the course, the work he was directly responsible for was highly performed in a highly incompetent manner, now he has blamed everyone but himself yet just yesterday I was on site within 2 hours of another one of his bunkers completely collapsing upon itself.  Others have already collapsed and at least 3 more are poised to fall any day.  Another regulatory group, the GCBAA, has done no better.  The two best contractors with whom I have worked are not members, yet the absolute biggest crook and most incompetent contractor with whom I have worked is a member.  So all of these standards meant to protect the public and inform the owners, and clients has meant very little.

[Scott Witter]

Jeff,

I had the over and under by about 10 minutes anticipating that you would be the first to reply...I lost, but not by much.  Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

As always, you make some good points and ones I was expecting based on your background and experience with the ASGCA.  All in all I do agree with you and though I knew you would reply, I actually was hoping to hear from more of the other non-architects.  Not that I think it really matters to most of the GCA site crowd, but I was still curious.

Here in NY, the state long ago began regulating GCA by requiring the individual to hold a license in Landscape Architecture if they intend to practice as a golf course architect and yes as a result some have taken work away from us.  Aside from the fundamentals of GCA, the environmental issues, drainage, golf car paths, bridges, board walks and housing connections can all be solved/satisfied by other qualified consultants (if needed) to accept the liability and keep them fat and happy that they were able to contribute to the project.

Some of this goes deeper for me and ties into Zoning Codes (the ultimate destruction of our communities) for development where, countless UNQUALIFIED individuals sit on these boards, Planning Boards and Town Boards and actually vote on "their" views of how development should, or shouldn't proceed in their locality.

I am currently dealing with one of those "snot nosed" 30 year olds who hasn't the slightest idea about what I do, or for that matter, how I am actually trying to improve his Towns open space provisions in their Zoning Code by virtue of the project.

More often, it seems that some local engineer or unqualified accountant, Dr., highway superintendent/armchair architect is bent out of shape because the fifth hole isn't going to be directly out behind his house, or now he is going to have to plow snow for 15 more minutes, or his buddy didn't have a chance to work as a consultant on the project, or as you say, "they just generally worried about how a project is going?".

[Scott Witter]

Kelly,

I couldn't agree more and your examples have only highlighted the real concern it could bring.  Your introduction of contractors in the mix is an interesting one, in that, often their efforts can hurt the golf architect with no notion to many of the onlookers and vocal ones crying wolf that the architect wasn't the one at fault, but this is another subject altogether.  I posted just behind you or else I would have written a longer response to yours as well.

[Jim Nugent]

By regulation do you mean government regulation?  If so, I support no regulation at all of golf course architects.  Of course, I support no regulation in just about everything.  Including law, medicine, education, and even the environment.  

[ChasLawler]

I'd be curious to know the educational backgrounds of many golf course architects.

A degree in civil engineering would certainly seem necessary, but aren't there a lot of guys out there who don't have that (not even including the professional golfers turned architects)?

To the architects who frequent this site - what are your qualifications?

[RJ_Daley]

Isn't there a sort of natural regulatory system in place.  It is called tort law.  While I don't like a litigious society that files law suits over every frivolous aspect, the things that cause lawsuits in the wake of poor GCA and the associated developers and builders activities such as drainage that causes problems for other surrounding property owners, or holes that fall into the sea, or routings that unduly put others in harms way, or bunkers that are built shoddy and don't hold up are all events and consequences that are actionable in court, aren't they.  If a GCA or builder-constructor starts getting a rep and track record of law suits that are sustained, doesn't this sort of regulate them in terms of not being hired or can't get insurance?  

[RJ_Daley]

Also, it seems to me that the issue is something like gun law reform.  There are plenty of regulations in the permitting and zoning process already in place to regulate.  But, like gun laws, those laws are written with wide loop holes in them and those with $$ and clout can circumvent them anyway.  The laws and regs that are on the books currently don't prevent mishaps or malpractice.  More regulation wouldn't either.

Take Ocean Trails.  From my understanding, when that course was first being built, even lay people like Tommy N., warned that the area was totally unstable and very well known to have slides and slough-offs and faults everywhere.  Yet, clout got the thing built for astronomical sums of $$$.  Did that help?

A more unfair example is Arcadia Bluffs.  I really sympathise with that circumstance.  It was a freak occurance in my opinion.  Yet, it happened, and they got fined big time.  So, didn't the current system work there?  It was rather unforseen, nearly unpreventable, yet enforced after the fact.  I don't think certifying or regulating the archie there would have forstalled what happened.  Just my opinion...

[Bill Gayne]

Government regulations are minimal standards that all need to follow. Professionals set higher standards beyond the law and are enforced by the governing bodies of those professions. When the professional governing bodies fail, the government will step up and take corrective actions (ie. Sarbanes Oxley). I agree completely with Shivas' post.

As a consumer, the need for professional standards is directly proportional to my risk:

Medicine yes I want a professional and will pay.
Law yes
Auditing yes
Pilots yes
Building Architects yes

Golf Course architects no. What's the risk to me as a consumer if the course was designed by a non-professional? None that I'm concerned about. Therefore no end consumer need for a golf course architect professional.

[Ryan Crago]

Interesting comments, some of which i agree with.. others i'm not so sure...

in response to bill, lets be sure though that a lack of regulation/professional standards does not absolve the golf course architect of RESPONSIBILITY - to the community, and the environment, both of which i'm assuming you care about (to some extent anway!  ).  

the majority golf courses are still built on large areas of open space, in, or resonably adjacent to populated areas.  they should serve as ammenity to that community, and thus planned/designed to reflect their place with their place in the  green and social infrastrucutre in mind.

[Bill Gayne]

Ryan,

"in response to bill, lets be sure though that a lack of regulation/professional standards does not absolve the golf course architect of RESPONSIBILITY - to the community, and the environment, both of which i'm assuming you care about (to some extent anway!  )."

I agree and do care about the community and environment. However, I expect this sensitivity regardless of a certification in golf course architecture. In the context of consumerism, the consumer being the golfer, I wouldn't pay extra or have any course preference knowing that one was completed by a certified golf course architect and the other was completed by an uncertified architect or designer. I just don't see a market need for a special designation as a golf course architect professional or some other type of additional standards.

Shivas, I agree with you conceptually but I'm not so sure about some of your examples.  

[Ryan Crago]

Bill,

I agree with you wholeheartedly... as a consumer of golf, i certainly would not put any further stock in a course because it was designed by a "professional" or not...

my not so eloquent point was that although there is NOT the professional regulation that we see in engineering, architecture and even landscape architecture (though some gca's are registered LAs), the projects still present and take on a certain amount of (in your words) "risk" to the enviro. and "consumer"... and to become accomplished, you can't be any geek off the street... the jist: with or without certification, the GCA does have some level of responsibility.

[B. Mogg]

A civil engineering degree would probably be the worst type of background I would think - mainly because free and/or creative thinking is not really tought in that field. Most of the engineering on golf courses is pretty common sense anyway - water runs downhill and that sort of thing. For the more complicated maths involved - you can always hire a someone.]

Of course there are a number of GCAs who come from a civil engineering background and the majority of them are no doubt very creative and top GCA's - probably why they are still not practicing civil engineers!

[John_Cullum]

Most of the engineering on golf courses is pretty common sense anyway - water runs downhill and that sort of thing...

As had to be learned the hard way at Rustic Canyon.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The RC problem was, as Geoff explained here once, a problem of a unique combination of events that increased runoff, as well as a typical golf construction budget that forced designers to 1) build the course in cheaper/free floodplain land, and 2) accept periodic flooding.

These are the knowledgeable trade offs and variety of approach that any owner and designer make, but the golf biz is at the risk of nature, always.  I have postulated her that a different, more engineering, less minimalistic oriented designer might have built a more flood proof golf course at RC, but perhaps one less sucessful artistically.  That is different than from an inexperienced designer who doesn't even know what he doesn't know, or doesn't realize how uncommon common sense design is.

What amazes me is how many newbie and wannabe golf designers get projects, because the Owner has no idea that there must be some engineering done to make any project practical.

[Forrest Richardson]

When I was last at a meeting of state regulators on the subject, we inquired who at the state level would oversee the applications of golf course architects? In this particular state there had been six golf courses built in the past year, and there are no practicing golf architects who live there. The regulators were caught. Who would review the applicants and interview those who might apply? Would they import qualified golf course architects for a day to handle applicants? And how many would apply? Maybe 1 or 2 per year — certainly only those who might land a project in this state.

The fact of the matter is that building a golf course involves several professionals; civil engineers, irrigation designers, geo-tech engineers and environmentalists. Rarely will you find a project that does not involve one or more of these easier-to-regulate professions. The golf course architect is a conductor.

The argument that landscape architects (those who are registered with CLARB or individual states) are qualified to design golf courses is nonsense. Of the thousands of registered landscape architects in America, only a very few have the knowledge to carry out a golf course design. There is far greater impact to the safety and welfare of the public when one of these individuals gets involved in planning and design of a golf course!

Interestingly, Arthur Jack Snyder took on the State of Arizona in the 1960s (Snyder v. State of Arizona.[/b]) Jack had not been paid for a job. The client — although he had no problems with the work — decided he did not need to pay because Jack was not registered as a licensed professional. He was a developer out of money and was taking advantage of all he could with his consultants and contractors.

Jack went all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court. The court ruled that golf course architecture is a unique profession and was not subject to state regulation. Among the court's findings were that the art of golf course design was not landscape architecture, but a form of architectural design which was wholly different from what landscape architects and architects regularly practiced.

Jack went on to become registered as a landscape architect anyway — in the interview he was asked by his panel whether he would start designing landscape projects. "No.," said Jack, "providing you fellow don't start designing golf courses!"

[JohnV]

Most of the engineering on golf courses is pretty common sense anyway - water runs downhill and that sort of thing.

My favorite example of an architect forgetting this was at Sandpines.  The course was designed during a couple of years of severe drought in western Oregon.  When the usual rains returned, a number of the bunkers on the lower part of the course turned into mini lakes as the water table rose to its more normal height just the level of the ground.

In my opinion the most unregulated design profession is software.  Anyone with a PC and a minimal understanding of a programming language can start cranking out crappy software.  Of course, the software on the PC may be the best example of that.

[Scott Witter]

Forrest,

I didn't really know where this thread would take us and some of the comments were predictable, but I will say that your reply was probably the most informative to those who don't understand.  I especially liked your comment about the public safety and welfare risks associated with LA's who know nothing about golf course design...very true.

I think the important thing to understand is that it normally takes an assortment of consultants (often sadly so) to get a golf course built and the golf architect is in fact only one component.

Though I responded to Cabell's other thread about golf architects qualifications, I was hesitant since it really doesn't matter that much, though to some it seems to look cool at least if it appears that we have the paperwork to support our actions.  The other way to go is to be a successful insurance salesman and start designing courses...HA HA where would THAT ever take me!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()