David,
While I agree that any GCA has some control over the direction his career takes, once he takes a job he is hardly "independent." Every one of us has some control over the direction of our career, but once we sign a contract and take a job, our employer determines what direction we take. GCA's are no different.
A.G.,
I agree that once a GCA signs up the developer has quite a lot of say, but surely
before he signs up the site has already been chosen and he knows where the developer is coming from. I believe that usually the GCA will have seen the site (or could have,) maybe come up with some preliminary idea or even a complete routing, bid the project, discussed the details with the developer, and essentially auditioned for the job. So if the designer ends up getting the job, I think we can safely assume that he is right where he wants to be, and is working on a project he wants to be working on, and has come to some sort of understand (sometimes a detailed understanding) of what the designer/builder will produce. I am not saying that developers cannot muck things up, but it is not as if the developer is like a defense attorney who has put his name in a hat in the public defender pool at the local courthouse and he must take what he gets no matter who the client.
He chooses his clients and much as the developer chooses the designer. Honestly, I this I find this entire line of discussion to be sort of strange, as if Jim Engh (and others) have had to severely compromise their professional ideals and goals to get these jobs. (I also found it strange that Mr. Engh refers to sites he has been "given" as if he had no say in the matter.) Normally the so-called
Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders") comes up when the result is obviously compromised, wrong, or bad, and the underlings claim "don't blame me, I was just doing my job." In other words, it really only makes sense when someone is trying to distance themselves for the decisions that led to a
bad result. But here you seem to be taking it to the next level, arguing that we ought not to criticize
the final result because the designer was just doing his job. Isn't the final product good or bad for a golf perspective regardless of whose decision it was to create it? And if we have to have to "absolve" designers from responsibility for their work, isn't this an implicit admission that something must be seriously wrong with the final product?
Think of your GM example. Let's assume that I am very interested in automobile design (past present and future) and I sincerely believe that GM had been heading in the wrong direction for the past decade or so, and that the company and had been focusing on the wrong types of cars, and that they used too much gas, and that the fit and finish was not up to the quality standards of other manufacturers, and that they were not fun to drive, and that they cost more to maintain, and that their business model was not sustainable given the inevitable changes in the world and the industry. In short, what if I sincerely believed that
whether or not GM could sell Suburbans to yuppies, their cars were crap.
- Would you tell me that I shouldn't say those things because the employees and middle-management at GM had families to feed and that criticizing the
final product was really an unfair criticism of those that were just following orders?
- Would you tell me that as long as those creating the cars were following orders, then we must not criticize the final product?
- Or would you agree that it is possible to evaluate the final product, approach, and philosophy of the company without it being a personal affront to the employees or managers?
You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf. These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table. That is a pretty big issue, IMO.
Mr. Engh doesn't need my absolution and far be it from me to offer absolution or condemnation. I don't blame him for doing what he does. My concern is with
the golf courses and with golf generally. You can downplay that by claiming I "obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf," but I think there is more to it than that.
Finally, this still all comes down to the word "moderate". Engh said clearly that TO HIM this means land that only 50% CAN walk, and that only 10% WILL walk. That seems pretty clear cut, and economically that is a no-brainer.
Again, A.G., I suspect that this is NOT the real issue. As I wrote above, I think the real issue is
whether or not the particular land allowed Mr. Engh to make golf holes that he considers more spectacular/inspiring/powerful. In other words, given what Mr. Engh has written, I don't think he would pass up a chance to make a spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf hole for the sake of preserving the walkability of a site, no matter how many people could possible walk. After all won't the vast majority of golfers ride anyway? If so, then why would he ever give up the chance to create spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes if the site allowed for them? Why would he ever compromise his vision for the sake of a small percentage of walkers?
I've tried to explore these issues above, as have a few others, but our posts have largely been ignored. I asked some questions in my long post to Mr. Engh. RR has asked similar questions, and Michael Moore has asked a very specific fact based question regarding one of his courses on supposedly walkable site. No one has bothered to even consider our posts or questions.
Do you really think that Mr. Engh would pass up the opportunity to be build a powerful, spectacular, inspiring golf hole for the sake of preserving walking for the few who might? Doesn't this cut against what you said above,when you noted that you and I cannot reasonably expect Mr. Engh to design his courses for we few outliers?
And, A.G., I appreciate you taking the time to consider my posts and thoughtfully respond, A.G. I know your perspective is shared by many (probably most) and is worth considering. I also know I am in the minority here, and am fighting an uphill battle, but I think my take might be worth considering as well.
- David.