[Ian Andrew]

I have a group of friends/ architects who have all faced this following dilemma:

The client is a course of great architectural merit, created by a respected architect and one worthy of at least some preservation if not some serious restoration. The membership is very aware of their history and proud of their legacy and has supported most initiatives from tree removal through to green’s recapturing. The stumbling point has become the bunkers. It’s always seems to be the bunkers.

The architect has the architectural history well documented and enough photos to prove what the original vision of the bunkering was. The club likes the idea of recapturing some of that look but would rather have a more modern view of bunkering where all the bunkers all clearly visible.

The architect stands his or her ground and so does the club and they defer the bunkers to another time waiting for each to soften their stance. The problem finally comes to a head when a bunker program is fully financed and the two parties are still far apart on the style.

The architect makes the final stand and so does the club. Usually the response from the chair is, “you can shape them how you see fit, but you’ll flash the sand up and make them visible.” The unsaid ultimatum becomes compromise or we’ll get someone else to do the work.

The architect’s dilemma is as follows:

He or she can make a stand but may lose the work. They can comprise the accuracy of the work to keep the membership happy, but be disappointed because of a lost opportunity to restore something they felt was important. The architect also is aware that another architect, often much less sympathetic to the history, may leave even less behind than they would.

The one response that comes from peers is to do the best you can and push from start to finish for a little more accuracy where you can get it.

The architect knows that sites like GCA may take the m to task for changing the appearance.

I bring this question up on this site because this is the type of forum that can be quick to criticize about the accuracy of work. So knowing what the architect is thinking and facing - what would be your council – or what would you do in the same situation?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

The club will get it's way.

They will find someone to accept the King's Schilling and do the King's bidding.

I would suggest that you draft a well constructed letter stating all of the reasons that the club should proceed as the architect recommends, along with the reasons that the club shouldn't proceed as the club desires.

The letter should be worded as a release would be worded.

In very brief summary, something like this.

The Chairman of the Green Committee, the Committee and President acknowledge that the architect has advised us not to pursue a flashed bunker style, however, the Chairman, committee and President disagree and have directed the architect to implement the plan we have selected.

Signed ____  ABC Committee Chairman

           _____ DEFG's Committee Members

           _____  XYZ President

Sometimes, exculpatory documents such as this cause the signer's to have second thoughts and reconsider.

And, if they don't, you've got a "get out of jail" free card.

A well crafted release can be the deciding factor.

Good luck

[Matt Varney]

Ian,

I feel the architect has the responsibility on his shoulders when working on any project like this to guide the club membership on the right thing to do.  Sometimes the right thing to do for the long term 10-20 years down the road is not always best received in the short term.  

If this course in question has great architectural merit then why in the hell would they want to go and screw with the bunkers and make them all look more modern?  In a case like this I would propose building 3 test bunkers around a green complex so you could take the members and stand at a distance and see the finished look of each style.  Use the classic design style from the original photos with some slight modifications to allow for some flashing.  Second create a modern bunker design style that flashes the sand up the bunker face so they stand out more and Third create a raw jagged edged bunker style that showcases a blow out style bunker so they can see all three styles.

I would bet you $100 the membership will choose the classic design style with only some slight design modification allowing for some minimal flashing that would be visible.  This style is in keeping with the classical style of the course historically and modern sculpted bunkers with visbile sand flashing faces like RTJ will be interesting to look at but using them all over the course will take away from some of the holes on the course.  The minimalist raw blow out type bunker is just a test to see how many of the members will actually like this look and you will have on display the full spectrum (minimal to the extreme) of bunker designs to look at and evaluate all options on the table.

One last thing find a really good artist that can render a hole in black and white and also in color using digital images taken of a couple holes in question where the members want the modern bunkers with large sand flashed faces so they can be seen.  In the end, I bet you get the job it will not be a stand off and a hybrid approach will be taken to the bunker design renovation that sticks with the classic style and still uses a couple modern bunkers that are more visibile and stand out on specific holes in question that might need them to make them better and interesting with regard to shot values.

I think it was Mike Strantz that rendered many of the golf holes at Monterey Peninsula when meeting with the club membership and those design sketches won the membership over showcasing what the course would look like when they were finished capturing the vision, look and feel they wanted for the course renovation. My 2 cents for what it is worth!



  

[Jeff_Brauer]

"The architect knows that sites like GCA may take the m to task for changing the appearance."

Ian,

OMIGOD are there really OTHER sites like this one?  While I will admit to wondering what gca.com might think about one design proposal or another I haven't let it get in my thought process to affect my design.  Your contract requires you to serve the interest of the club.  It does not require you to please gca.com.

Pat's idea is a good one, but I can also tell you from experience that it will be forgotten down the road. 
You might take heart in knowing that many clubs who had implemented "misguided" renovations are now restoring their courses.  Time is an ally.

That said, it could very well be that the restoration craze has faded everywhere in America.....but here!  And you might very well be at the forefront of the next movement in gca!  Of course, my crystal ball has never been very clear.

[paul cowley]

Ian...seriously....unless this course is one of the EXTREEME of the very best, I would use the opportunity to give them what they want, and create something even better.

Its only dirt after all....use your talent and the force!

[RJ_Daley]

I see something to be worth following in all the above responses.  In particular, I think that documentation provided along with the actual in the ground work should include a narrative of all the work done and the pros and cons of what you are directed to do by the committee and club.  You must follow their edicts after you diligently give them your best advice.  But, let them know upfront that whatever the compromise or directive, you will provide the club with a narrative that sets forth both sides of the issue, then do what you are hired to do.  I'd also include a summary where if you are directed to go against what you believe is an original or design principle that you feel strongly about, offer a fall back redesign plan, with destimated budget to rework their directive to what you believe it should have been, and then they will by default have signed on to the cost of their own directive should it turn out folly on their part down the road.  I don't think there is anything wrong with following their orders but documenting your vision for the ability to come back and say and prove yourself right all along. 

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

As Pete Dye told me on about the tenth day I worked for him, you always have to be ready to walk away from a job if the client just won't let you do the right thing.

At the same time, you shouldn't be pigheaded about it -- there are places where compromise is easy because it really doesn't matter too much.  But if it really DOES matter, you should not do something you will regret.

[Adam Clayman]

Ian. With all the crap that gets built and subsequently left alone one solution could be to build the way YOU know is proper. Sure your gambling with your career but your not selling out. Also if this highly regarded gca was really a genius the members will see it.

[Mark_Fine]

Golf Architecture is no different than any other profession.  It is a business and you have clients/customers to please but at the end of the day if you are not proud of what you are doing/designing/recommending/building you only have yourself to blame.  I stick by that rule of thumb and it has worked well for me. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

I was thinking last night about this (tossed and turned all night I did) and also thinking about how other gca's might respond about the (at least temporary) career effects of walking a job.

I kept coming back to the question of did you have an inkling of what they wanted during the interview process?  In short, I guess I have always found that it's easier to walk on the project earlier than later.  Putting off a dispute until someone changes their mind rarely has worked for me.  If anything, people get more entrenched in their opinions over time.

If, in the interview process, at some point you graciously say that you just might not be the guy for them based on what you know about the project you are a principled fellow.  Walking out over a dispute after the project just gives the impression you are hard to work with.

[Jerry Kluger]

I would suggest to you that being a golf course architect is not much different from any other profession in which you give an opinion and the client makes the decision.  A lawyer advises an individual or company to settle a case but they choose to go to trial and they lose - lawyer did the best he could but the ultimate decision was the client's.  The lawyer suffers the stigma of a loss but   should not disclose to other clients that he recommended to the client that they settle.   This happens to experts/professionals all the time and a golf course architect is no different. 

If you just cannot live with what they want then walk away from it but don't be so full of yourself that you cannot see the other side's position. Remember, you are giving an opinion, they are spending the money. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ian

My views may not be of interest, but I will voice them all the same as this is a discussion site and you have asked a good question.

A new or newish course then, the answer is very simple, follow the Clients instruction to the letter perhaps pointing out the odd alternative.

A Course that has a pedigree, a close connection with an important architect whose name is used to attract golfers to the Club, then that a different kettle of fish.  The problem which must be resolved is the definition of the brief – what is the intention of the Membership (a) Correct Restoration; (b) Part Preservation/Restoration; (c) Modern reconstruction (d) Or something else not yet fully disclosed.

We have an agency in the UK, well based in England called English Heritage, which is very strict on allowing work to be undertaken on site of historical importance. If you restore a Graded building you have to use the same materials as originally used. Modern alternatives are nearly always rejected for the real article. There is no choice, you finish what you started.
So restoration means restoration in its entirety – no compromises whatsoever. Historical courses are part of our heritage no matter where in the world and as such should where possible be preserved and the duty lies solely with the owner/client.

The responsibility is not with the architect but with his Client, if they are unable to provide a firm brief – Walk away. Compromise in this situation is not possible as one sector or other may be unhappy with the final result. Original historical course with modern bunkers equals a flawed course, no matter how good the architect.

The Membership must be certain what they require otherwise do not start the project in the first place. This is I expect not a Design & Build project so the Client MUST provide a clear brief.

From what’s been written, the architect does not have the authority to modify the course and should seek confirmation from the club as to their requirements, if this is not forthcoming, you and your reputation have no choice but to distance yourself from the project. Comprises and reputations do not generally go hand in hand and I agree with Tom. I have declined other non golfing projects in the past because of a confused brief. If the problems start before you even get to site, kept walking (or should I say driving).

A reputation will take many years of extremely hard work to achieve but can be lost overnight. At the end of the day the architect must decide what is more important. I know my answer.     

[RJ_Daley]

But, as has already been said or implied, if you walk due to the early meeting with the membership where they want something that is not sympathetic with original intent of a significant designer, you merely walk and have no work, and they get the guy that will do what they want, and the course is still messed up by the archie that doesn't have said principles.  I think you have to save what you can, and document and present a viable fall-back design on the stuff that they don't readily understand is an insult to some great original architect's work. 

Given the spectre of these impending doom times, I say take the work and eat.

[tlavin]

Here's an idea that worked at my club:  Have the architect re-do one hole and let the members play it for a year.  I'll bet that they wind up deferring to the architect's vision.  It's hard for most of us club guys to have the kind of foresight to imagine what the course will look like or play like until the work is done.  This is a reasonable accommodation that allows all interested parties to have a year's worth of experience on one hole before all work is done.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Terry

Sounds great, has your club got deep pockets in these hard times. Must be very expensive based upon 18 years worth of work. 

[Ian Andrew]

I find it interesting that the responses are primarily from architects.

I’m interested in this as an intellectual exercise – the question is rooted in the past and not in the present. I had to deal with this dilemma about 18 months ago and one of my better friends recently faced a really tough call with a club and walked away. I admired his walking away because I don’t think that’s an easy decision to make. He knew who was coming in to replace him and what they would do – but decided to wash his hands of what was coming.

You always make some sort of compromise with your work whether for committee input or to help deal the superintendent out. This whole dilemma is not on whether to compromise – you must somewhere - it’s more about finding your limits. I like Tom’s comment about always being willing to walk away but there are some courses that you can’t walk away from regardless of what the committee situation is because they are too personally important to you.

Personally I have chosen to work with two clubs where I’ve have clearly (in my mind) compromised to make it work and have walked away from another where I refused to paint what I felt would be a moustache on the Mona Lisa. We all have to make out own choices.

I have been recently reading a book about Michelangelo called The Agony and the Ecstasy. I’m fascinated by how little choice he had at times but how he poured himself completely into every project regardless of whether he agreed with the commission or not. I had no idea that he didn’t want to paint the Sistine Chapel, but look what he did with a commission that he wanted no part of.  It’s what brought me back to this question.

In answering Jeff’s point, the problem is not of different points at the outset often it’s brought upon by the change in the committee. I find the level of historical interest change from year to year. Most problems come 5 years in when the original people who hired you are all gone and the club has had a shift in viewpoint.

[Carl Rogers]

Let's not use the word 'compromise' but use the word 'context'. 

Some people can leave some of their ideological baggage off and some can not. 

Can a subtle flashing of a few bunkers from certain vantage points be ok?

How truly credible is the 'historical' record?

There should be a point you should not cross, but make sure the point is really there.

[Chip Gaskins]

it also depends on what the architects current pipeline and bank account look like.  lets face it, times are going to get worse before they get better.  unless the architect is Tiger or Jack then he has to evaluate how much do i need this current project.  am i willing to stand up for the "right" thing and risk getting the boot and being without a project for a while.  if the architect has a long pipeline then he should be more inclined to defend his position with vigor, he has no other projects to begin work on then (unless he has lots of personal wealth to pay his best associates and pay his mortgage) he has to more than likely compromise.  maybe i am the only poor person on the board that has this pragmatic approach though.

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
As a realist on an idealist website I say..... you do the project so you can do another a project another day...that is the present environment....now having said that..i would have limits but it is rare that you can't negotiate an acceptable point even if it is as you progress....
....you say the client says you can shape the bunkers as you please but you will flash the sand.....can't you always change the sand line?  start with the lne you want and work up if he doesnt lke it....not saying I have no I think the real trick here would be to have that client think that he had you do what he wanted when you dd what you wanted all along....oh well you already know this anyway

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ian:

As Pete Dye told me on about the tenth day I worked for him, you always have to be ready to walk away from a job if the client just won't let you do the right thing.

Why would Pete tell you that on your 10th day?
Would that be a benefit of a handshake agreement - not being trapped?
There are quite a few clients who wouldn't let someone leave - contractually speaking.
Do all your contracts have an exit clause?

Ian,
If I knew someone was going to come after me and do something goofy - I'd stay.
I would show them tons of pictures of non-fitting bunkers and why I wouldn't do it if it were my choice.

I'm with Michaelangelo - my great grandfather's name btw.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

Mr I'm With Michaelangelo Nuzzo now that is an interesting name

Melvyn

[Bill Brightly]

Ian,

I'll respond as a Grounds Chair. First of all, when you say the "club" you really mean the one or two people on the Board who have the most power. The "club" is not speaking, but these guys are...


Here is what I suggest: follw Pat's advice and send a letter with as wide a distribution list as you dare. (Pres, VP, Grounds Chair, all the "committee members" etc.) Say that you will follow the Club's desires, but politely point out the historical significance of the architect and the course, and why changing the bunker style would go against that, etc.


Once this letter gets out, the one or two guys pushing their own ideas are really out there on a limb. Unless they truly are speaking for a vast majority of the membership, they will have to back down. And if there are a few brave souls involved in the process who really do care about the historical significance of their course, you will have provided them with the ammo they need to get the power guys to cool it...One thing about clubs; while there are usually a few powerful guys running things, there is no shortage of other skilled guys ready to challenge them when they go too far...

[Thomas MacWood]

Ian
It sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. At the beginning you said the membership is very aware of their history and proud of their legacy. I would question the degree of their awareness and pride if they are keen on altering a major part of his design. Perhaps they don't know exactly what they have or what they could have. Could they be in need of more information on their architect, his style, his reputation, what made him unique. Perhaps a visit to another of his high profile courses, one that has been faithfully preserved or restored.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Mac,

They can have a course that they are proud of AND that DOESN'T fit the game of the greens chair, no?  We all know which has taken priority, at least at some courses!

That said, this is really a bigger debate, which has been had here before.....who has the right to decide, should a course remain static or change to current needs, etc.  It could very well be that restoration proves to be a less than perfect solution for most courses in the near future (think clubs going from private to city courses, as happened in the depression)  I also don't think that Melvyns example of more govt. fiat would play well in the USA I have known the last few decades.  Maybe after this current debacle, the majority will be all for the govt. handing down more and more restrictions.  Even if that happens, I think preserving golf courses will be far down the list of a Democratic Congress and President!

Professionally, I think any gca would actually be approaching the project incorrectly IF he went in with a strong preconcieved notion of what the proper solution might be.  Designs and Master Plans are a process of analyzing and THEN coming up with the best (not proper, not perfect because there are no such animals) solutions.  Design, like politics is often a compromise in many ways - of opinions, of opportunities, of budgets, etc.

[Thomas MacWood]

Jeff
Some architects are remodel specialists while others are restoration/preservation specialists. I don't think either necessarily goes into a historic project with a preconcieved idea of what they want to do, but I'm sure their approaches and inclinations are quite different.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()