News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bill Brightly

Architect etiquette
« on: May 17, 2006, 05:01:58 AM »
What is the proper etiqutte for considering a new architect? Let's say your club has had a relationship with a "name" but you are not sure they are right for a restoration. (But you are also not  sure that they are not...)

Is it considered acceptable to open the job up for competition?

Do you have to first sever the relationship before other architects will meet with you?

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2006, 05:46:53 AM »
Mr Wedge....just have them call me and I'll sort it out for all concerned.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 11:30:58 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

TEPaul

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2006, 07:22:57 AM »
Paul Cowley is your man.

If you have an old golf course and you want an architect to fit its aura Paul can make you think you hired Old Tom Morris---believe me, he's got the know-how and he's got the dubs. On the other hand, if you need Ulysses S. Grant or General Sherman he's your man too.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 10:33:56 AM by TEPaul »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2006, 09:28:01 AM »
"Skully,"

For an ASGCA member, and any other ethical gca, it would not be proper to solicit work with a club that has another gca under contract.  They would probably ask you to inform the original architect that the relationship was either severed, or suspended.  I have done that in similar circumstances, not accepting work until a letter was in place, stating (nicely and matter of factly) that it was the original architects poor service/design skill/attitude, etc. that caused the breach, and that I didn't solicit the work.  

You should send the original gca a letter stating what you are doing and why, and whether he/she is invited to participate in the new RFP process to find a gca.  They may decline, of course.  Then you will have had proper etiquette.  Many clubs don't, as calling a consultant to tell them they aren't needed any more is always a difficult task.  However, all gca's have the experience in at least recieving that "thin envelope" with a short dismissal letter.  In fact, you are doing us a service by stating matter of factly where we might improve our services.  For that matter, after your presentations, it would be good to nicely and matter of factly point out reasons for selecting another firm so we can improve our presentations skills.

As a practical matter, changing architects happens often, as it is quite proper for a club to find the best fit in terms of the above service/design skill/attitude attributes for them.  No gca can be everything to everyone, no matter how big a name.  In golf design as in sports, we know that we can't win them all..........



Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2006, 09:55:51 AM »
First how did you get on here without your real name???
And as for choosing a new architect ...treat it as you would wish someone to treat you....
Honestly, I only know of one guy in this business that would trash another architect or try to steal a client....and most know who that is....so I am sure the guy you are concerned with will understand or at least accept  it...
Mike
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Ian Andrew

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2006, 10:23:33 AM »
Skully,

I just want to back up what Jeff said. Let the architect know your talking to other architects, it's only fair. If the relashionship is done, send them a letter to confirm that you are moving on, out of courtesy to them.

That's the right way to do things. Nothing is worse than finding out you lost a club from another source.

Scott Witter

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2006, 10:32:02 AM »
Mr. Wedge,

This issue has been discussed before and the ice can become very thin at times...

I believe first the club MUST decide if they wish to continue with their current architect and be able to document their reasons why they don't, if that is the case.  This will help them better determine who they would like to work with in the future, perhaps they never did this in the first place...  They may have simply picked someone, even though they may have had experience, without looking deeper into the chemistry issue, which is very important I believe.  Especially in a restoration program, the work and the relationship will likely continue for many years to come and it is healthy and valuable to choose wisely in consideration of many parameters.

I would be methodical about it, which in an of itself may be quite difficult for a board or committee since everyone involved usually has their strong opinions...to me all the more reason to put your thoughts on paper.

Contacting another architect is certainly the right of the owner, but expecting the architect to do much beyond talking on the phone is another thing altogether.  It never hurts to talk, but as an architect, I wouldn't walk into an existing relationship unless I knew the previous one was finished and even then I would probably do my research as to why the relationship broke down.  There are always two sides to the story.

Scott Witter

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2006, 10:37:45 AM »
Wedge,

Once again, Jeff Brauer has stated the situation very well and I agree with his position...being fair is clearly the right thing to do and often all one can really ask.  Ian is right, I never mind if a thoughtful presentation is made as to why I wasn't the right 'fit' for a project, buck up and tell the architect, but it really rubs me the wrong way to find out through the back door from another source.

TEPaul

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2006, 10:42:21 AM »
Skulled Wedge:

Don't you let any of these yahoos on here give you any guff about your name---I like it and I'll tell you it's a whole lot better than Skulled 1-iron.

I'll tell you what the proper etiquette is with a club and an architect. The thing to do is call up about a dozen of them and schedule a meeting at your course with all of them at the same time, unbeknownst to any of them. It's a real hoot to watch their expressions and then watch them go after each other both on site and afterwards.

This is America, Man----didn't you know that competition is the name of the game around here?

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2006, 10:46:36 AM »
Let's say your club has had a relationship with a "name" ...

Skulled et al. --

I don't understand what "has had a relationship with..." means.

Could someone please clarify what it means, or might mean?

Perhaps you can make me understand, Jeff -- If Giants Ridge or Fortune Bay decided to make some changes in your designs, would you need to be "dismissed" before someone else could be hired to make those changes? Is it *presumed* (or spelled out, contractually) that you are the architect on the job until you are dumped?

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2006, 10:57:39 AM »


If a new architect is hired and the old architect is fired can we then speak candidly about the original plan?  How do we find out if the original architect has not proposed a plan that he would not even have the guts to explain to his own peers?  

Maybe fewer mistakes would have been made at classic courses if there was some sort of peer review of plans?  

Within my club it is not  my responsibility to tell the original architect(master plan) we will not be using his plan but I would relish the task if I thought I could get some info as to how we paid for such garbage and see him try to explain some of his recommendations to his peers.


TEPaul

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2006, 11:04:47 AM »
"Skulled et al. --
I don't understand what "has had a relationship with..." means.
Could someone please clarify what it means, or might mean?"

Dan Kelley(R);

Are you absolutely certain you want to have what that means or might mean clarified?  
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 11:05:18 AM by TEPaul »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2006, 11:08:21 AM »
Dan,

No, my contract for design clearly states in that case that my services are done 60 days after substantial completion.  That protects me from being called back w/o pay for a variety of related projects, but it also turns the course over to the Owner.

Mr. Wedge implied that his club has had an architect prepare a master plan or consult in other ways on an ongoing basis, and probably have had some work done to that plan or those recommendations.

If, in fact, the relationship was long ago, and for a specific project, like new greens on three holes, for examle, and the services are complete, then the club probably has no obligation to call the first architect or formally terminate a relationship.  They are starting a new project, or a whole new direction (restoration vs renovation) and again are entitled to find a gca who fits their needs.  

Then, they might just send a form letter to all saying they are requesting proposals for a restoration plan from qualified gca's, etc.  If they choose to send one to the original gca, since they believe he may be qualified, when the original gca calls, they can inform him of why they are soliciting new proposals - to get an idea of what might be out there in the way of a new approach that meets their new directives.

I agree with Scott that they should go through an excersise of defining where they really want to go before calling a bunch of gca's based on a particluar skill set - i.e, restoration.

Corey,

I see little value in having the new gca focus on what was not liked about the old plan. I am sure it will come up in disucssions so they can know what was not favored, but really they should focus on doing what the club currently wants.  In the interview process, it should be up to candidates to show you how they WOULD capture the flavor, you want, not rehash how the old one didn't.

If for some reason, the original gca was justifying his work to another gca or the club itself, he would probably say they went through the traditional design process of analyzing, preparing prelim plans for approval and then final plans before construction.  Whatever their qualifications and experience, there is a similar design process intended to get the gca and club on the same page as much as possible. If the club (or certain members) don't like the work, its possible that they:

 Weren't involved or paying attention (if that was their role) during construction,

 Just prefer a subtle style differentiation. For example, I am not sure if I could replicate a Travis bunker, for example, and if that was a requirement, then maybe you should find another gca who could, or

 Just have a vague sense it could be better.....(or a specific hole someone dislikes)

 Have a great passion for the course (which is good, but also tends to lead to dissatisfaction.......)

Having some members dissatisfied with the work in a renovation is pretty typical.  No one agrees on everything.  
Knowing the gca involved in your club, I suspect its not a total botched job, and I know they did attempt to go through that process to identify the history of your course and the best way to keep that and also meet modern needs.  

If the current board members aren't happy with the results, you can hire a new gca and consider it a lesson learned.  However, it is surprising how many clubs go through multiple architects and are never quite happy. Could it be there is something just as amiss with the club decision making process as there is with the gca in those cases?


« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 11:33:39 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2006, 11:35:44 AM »
Skulled Wedge:

Don't you let any of these yahoos on here give you any guff about your name---I like it and I'll tell you it's a whole lot better than Skulled 1-iron.

 
This is America, Man----didn't you know that competition is the name of the game around here?

Tommy:

A Skulled 1-iron?  When did you ever do that?  When you were 9?

Skully:
Common business courtesies and basic ethics would indicate that a simple letter stating that the Club appreciates all the work the current GCA has done but will be soliciting proposals for a fresh approach and also offer the current GCA the opportunity to participate.
This happens in many phases of business.
Fairways and Greens
Dave
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 11:36:14 AM by Dave_Miller »

Bill Brightly

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2006, 11:37:27 AM »
Thanks all for your responses, I did glean some useful information.

By "relationship" I mean they have done work for us in the past, and our by-laws require that any changes to the golf course must be recommended by our architect. (To stop greens chairmen from thinking they can re-design the course on the back of a placemat over beers at the bar...What a stupid rule!)

We are in the early stage of planning for a restoration. I really like our current architect, but I can't help wondering if he is the right one for the restoration. It's like having a long-time girlfriend. You can't really say: "honey, I like you a lot, but I think I need to date some other women, just to make sure you the right one for me."  Women and architects tend to take this poorly.


Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2006, 11:46:08 AM »
It's like having a long-time girlfriend. You can't really say: "honey, I like you a lot, but I think I need to date some other women, just to make sure you the right one for me."  Women and architects tend to take this poorly.

Maybe so -- but I can't help thinking that a bit of the wandering eye, at the proper time, would lead to better marriages ... and golf courses.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

TEPaul

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2006, 11:49:12 AM »
"It's like having a long-time girlfriend. You can't really say: "honey, I like you a lot, but I think I need to date some other women, just to make sure you the right one for me."

SW:

What are you talking about? Of course you can do that and say that. How the hell else do you think you can find out if she really is the right one for you? It's like how the hell are you going to appreciate golf architecture if all you do is play your own course everyday for the rest of your life??? She should thank you for dating other women too as it completely indicates you may be interested in making a serious committment some day---at least in theory.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2006, 11:49:44 AM »
Mr Wedge....I'd go ahead and follow all this good advice from my learned associates, but if it don't work, why don't you all come down to my swamp cabin for awhile till we got things worked out.........
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2006, 12:11:45 PM »
Skully,

Master Plans are often put in the by laws, but never simply a particular gca, although if he prepared your master plan, that would be implied.

Your last post implies that you do have a current master plan and its committed to the by laws, which may raise some internal procedural issues, if not ethical ones regarding your gca. If you decide to restore, whereas your old MP proposes total renovation, then you might very well have to vote the old plan out, and a new plan in, etc.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2006, 12:32:52 PM »
"Master Plans are often put in the by laws, but never simply a particular gca, although if he prepared your master plan, that would be implied."

JeffB:

You're right about that. Although they didn't accept my suggestion for some reason I recommended that our Gil Hanse restoration master plan not only be put in the bylaws but I also recommended that Gil Hanse become a member, the enitre Green and Golf Committee and the perrmanent President of the golf club.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 12:34:01 PM by TEPaul »

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2006, 12:34:31 PM »
Wedge,

Having been down this road before, I would advise that you make darn sure that the current beneficiary of your favors has not been assured he is the man of choice for ongoing work. Bringing in a new face, who may well be a friend of the current President of the club, can cause all sorts of problems, the least of them being a suit for tortious interference of contract. Apologies to lawyer friends if I've got this wrong.

Bob

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2006, 12:44:22 PM »
Bob,

Wow! If I had to threaten or pursue a lawsuit to stay the gca at a club, I wouldn't bother, although I do occaisionally hear of those threats being uttered.  It would be difficult to imagine a relationship surviving that.......

I can see the title block on that master plan now....."Consulting Golf Course Architect to the Tiddly Links Golf Club.....as ordered by the ninth Appellate Court of.......
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 12:45:34 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2006, 01:36:06 PM »
I like to think I have always maintained the highest of professional ethics, but I must also say that I see a weakness in the present system.

At 75% of the clubs to which we consult, we are following up the work of someone else which has subsequently been found to have been lacking in some respect.  But under the code of ethics, it was impossible for another architect to give the club a second opinion until they spent the money and did the work ... it's only afterward that they can hear another viewpoint.  Millions of dollars have been wasted in this manner.

Perhaps hindsight is 20/20 and the members of a club can only understand the problem after they see the attempted solution in place.  Presumably many of these clubs interviewed several designers before they hired someone to consult, and only afterward they realized that they chose the wrong direction ... or, for some relativists out there, a new green chairman has a different idea and there is no right or wrong.  :-x

We have never signed up a consulting client to a long-term contract of any sort ... they pay as they go, and if they find our services lacking, they are free to solicit someone else at any time.  Only twice in recent years has this happened, but neither time did I get a thin envelope from either the club or the architect ... the superintendent let us know in a routine conversation.

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2006, 01:43:34 PM »
Bob,

Wow! If I had to threaten or pursue a lawsuit to stay the gca at a club, I wouldn't bother, although I do occaisionally hear of those threats being uttered.  It would be difficult to imagine a relationship surviving that.......

I can see the title block on that master plan now....."Consulting Golf Course Architect to the Tiddly Links Golf Club.....as ordered by the ninth Appellate Court of.......


Jeff,

I agree. The architect in question did not follow this route but could well have owned a  couple of golf courses on some prime land.

Bob

Ian Andrew

Re:Architect etiquette
« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2006, 01:47:36 PM »
Tom,

I disagree, your reading too much into the code of ethics.

Some clubs choose to "interview" multiple architects (including the existing architect) before commensing the next stage to see if they are going in the right direction. I'm going through this now from both ends with two different clubs. That's how many get a second opinion without formal changes to the arrangements.

The clubs have no obligation to do anything unless contracted to do so. I also have no contracts with any clubs I work with so they are free to do what they want. I think the issue here is more about courtesy. If you don't want the architect anymore, just let them know. That's all I want from a club - and a phone call works fine with me. I like to have the letter sent when I get involved, so the other architect doesn't feel I took "poached" the work.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back