[Matt Frey, PGA]

This sounds a little like the PGA of America's old partnership with A.W. Tillinghast. The full text of the press release is below, while a video can be found via the URL below.

http://www.usga.org/articles/2015/12/usga-and-asgca-partnering-to-improve-public-facilities.html

Courses to Benefit as USGA and ASGCA Begin New Partnership

The United States Golf Association and the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA) have launched a collaborative program to help publicly accessible golf facilities improve the design and maintenance of their courses in order to deliver a better experience for their customers.

Combining the expertise of ASGCA member architects and USGA agronomists, scientists and researchers, the program will provide pro bono consulting services to facilities that need assistance to achieve their goal of making their layouts more enjoyable and reducing their maintenance costs.

“Course design and maintenance form the foundation of a golf facility’s operations,” said Mike Davis, USGA executive director. “With the knowledge that the ASGCA and USGA can offer, more publicly accessible facilities will be able to strengthen this base, while promoting resource efficiency, a better golf experience and a stronger connection to the local community.”

Starting today, facilities can submit an application for the service, which will include an on-site evaluation, professional analysis and a report outlining recommendations for improvement. Recommendations can cover course design, agronomy, environmental stewardship and golf course operations, with the goal of lowering costs while also improving the golfer experience.

“The ASGCA, along with the ASGCA Foundation led by John LaFoy, is pleased to partner with the USGA on this initiative,” said Steve Smyers, president of the ASGCA. “Golf facilities have long benefited from the efforts of ASGCA members and USGA agronomists. Collaboration between our experts will have a positive impact on the facilities we support. ASGCA members are excited and proud to bring their expertise to this program.”

Interested facilities must submit an application by one of three deadlines over the coming year: March 15, Aug. 15 or Dec. 15. The application can be found here.

Canal Shores Golf Course, a community-owned and operated facility in Evanston, Ill., is the first course to receive a pro bono evaluation through the program.

“This has been an incredible opportunity,” said Jason Way, of the Canal Shores planning committee. “We have some great ideas about how to improve the course, but the assistance from the USGA and the ASGCA allows us to get past the initial planning process, so we can move forward with our vision for making Canal Shores a multi-use community green space that the maximum number of people can enjoy.”

Selected facilities must express a willingness to carry out the recommendations from the USGA and ASGCA. Facilities will be expected to track and report the effectiveness of their improvements based on specific metrics.

The partnership complements the USGA’s course consulting services, which delivers implementable solutions to support a healthier future for golf facilities. In October, the USGA also announced a five-year master research partnership with the University of Minnesota to study and develop solutions to golf’s present and future challenges, including environmental sustainability.

[Blake Conant]

From the ASGCA's webpage:

The program includes a site evaluation and a summary report, but there will be no funding for implementation. Acting on the recommendations outlined in the report is the sole responsibility of the facility. Therefore, the summary report will be commensurate with the resources available to the facility as well as the scope of the desired outcomes.

It is the expectation of the USGA and the ASGCA that the facility will act on some or all of the recommendations provided by the ASGCA member architect and USGA agronomist. Depending on the nature of the improvement being performed, the facility will be expected to track and report the outcomes of the improvements that have been made.

Furthermore, the application asks what the clubs budget is and what kind of work they want to undertake.  The appointed USGA and ASGCA members make a one day site visit and write up an evaluation report.  They recommend what changes need to be made, the facility has already agreed they'll make the changes and hire the architect who performed the eval, so the work gets done.

I'm trying not to be cynical, but this is a money-making scheme cloaked in altruism and good of the game BS. 

[Blake Conant]

Jason Way,


I saw on the application you can request an ASGCA architect rather than have one appointed to you.  Did you request Dave Zinkand when you signed up for the program?  Is he an ASGCA member?

[John Connolly]

This takes "design-build" to an entirely new level.

[Adam Lawrence]

Jason Way,


I saw on the application you can request an ASGCA architect rather than have one appointed to you.  Did you request Dave Zinkand when you signed up for the program?  Is he an ASGCA member?

No, he isn't

[Michael Blake]

Free Inbound Leads

[BCrosby]

I'm unclear about how this works. Could my club request, in lieu of the ASGCA guy assigned, Tom Doak or Mike Young?


Bob



 

[Blake Conant]

Here's part of the ASGCA application: If you are currently working with/under contract to an ASGCA-member architect, you will be assigned to that member for your consultation. If you are not currently working with a member, you may request a member, or you may ask ASGCA to provide a list of members to choose from who work in your area.

Please check one: *

I am currently working with/under contract to the following ASGCA-member  I am not currently working with/under contract to an ASGCA-member architect and would like to request the following member  I am not currently working with/under contract to an ASGCA-member architect and would like ASGCA to assign a member to visit my facility and prepare a report

[Mike_Young]

From the ASGCA's webpage:

The program includes a site evaluation and a summary report, but there will be no funding for implementation. Acting on the recommendations outlined in the report is the sole responsibility of the facility. Therefore, the summary report will be commensurate with the resources available to the facility as well as the scope of the desired outcomes.

It is the expectation of the USGA and the ASGCA that the facility will act on some or all of the recommendations provided by the ASGCA member architect and USGA agronomist. Depending on the nature of the improvement being performed, the facility will be expected to track and report the outcomes of the improvements that have been made.

Furthermore, the application asks what the clubs budget is and what kind of work they want to undertake.  The appointed USGA and ASGCA members make a one day site visit and write up an evaluation report.  They recommend what changes need to be made, the facility has already agreed they'll make the changes and hire the architect who performed the eval, so the work gets done.

I'm trying not to be cynical, but this is a money-making scheme cloaked in altruism and good of the game BS.

Blake you are 100% correct.  A few years ago a few of us objected to USGA aligning itself with ASGCA in regards to the architectural archives committee etc.  I'm not going to delve into the ASGCA other than to say there should not be an implicit effort to align with one group of architects.  There are as many qualified architects outside of ASGCA as there are in ASGCA and all this does is give them "credibility with USGA approval".  I'm sure the USGA strives to be an equal opportunity employer/association etc and would prefer not to be aligned with an organization that discriminates.   This should be an interesting thread.

[Jaeger Kovich]

From the ASGCA's webpage:

It is the expectation of the USGA and the ASGCA that the facility will act on some or all of the recommendations provided by the ASGCA member architect and USGA agronomist.

 

This grabbed my attention.

[Jason Way]

Not that I am interested in jumping on the train to wherever this thread seems to be headed, but I will share my experience with the program and the parties involved.


We decided on our design team prior to applying for the SE program.  It's off topic, so I won't go into how we arrived at that decision, but I am happy to share with anyone who wants to know.  Our team is:


Lead Architect - Dave Zinkand (not an ASGCA member)
Design Consultant - Drew Rogers (ASGCA member)
Design Consultant - Luke Donald (you know who he is)
Project Manager - Todd Quitno from Lohman Golf (ASGCA member)


We applied at the suggestion of Rand Jerris from the USGA and Drew.  They had both visited the property, and were familiar with and supportive of our vision for it.


The ASGCA was aware from the beginning of our conversations that Dave was our lead guy.  At no time have Chad or Aileen been anything other than 100% supportive.  They get what we are trying to accomplish, and they have been key to our progress.


The USGA was clear with us from the beginning that they wanted to use our project for the purposes of illustrating the impact they want this program to have.  They have provided initial agronomic consultation, and have promised us more support throughout planning and execution. 


For us, the support we received through this program has been instrumental in our ability to get our preliminary plan finished, which is a critical milestone for us.


Every one of the people I mentioned above has invested their time and energy into the Canal Shores project.  Some have been paid, some will get paid, and some will never get paid directly from the renovation.  All have been very generous and we would not be where we are without them.  If any or all of them can take their participation in this project and parlay that into greater indirect benefit, financial or otherwise, more power to them.  As far as I am concerned, they deserve it.  I don't see any reason why doing good and doing well financially should be mutually exclusive.


Some of you have far greater experience with these organizations than me, and I am familiar with the criticisms.  I am sure that some of those criticisms have been well earned.  From my perspective though, as a member of a volunteer army trying to transform this facility along with the role that the game plays in our community, I could really care less about any of that.  My direct experience with these individuals and this program has been nothing but positive, and I am grateful that they joined our little movement.

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
Congratulations on the funding and putting together a team for your project.  I am quite sure everyone involved is positive and good for your project. 

I think the concerns of some of us are the involvement of the USGA.  If the ASGCA foundation is providing funds then great and it is understandable they would wish to use ASGCA members for such a project.  If the USGA wishes to give you free consulting and has some monies available then by all means go for it. From viewing the video it looks as though you have achieved such and the video has comments by Todd Quitno as an ASGCA member.  I don't see any problem with any of that.  Looks like a good team and wish you a great project.

Aside from your project, ask yourself what would Rainbird do if this was a USGA/Toro collaboration or what would Callaway do if it were a USGA /Titleist collaboration.    If you happen to be a non ASGCA member architect and have course out there that might apply and be required to use ASGCA members; how would you like that.  A lot of golf in this country was designed by non ASGCA member architects.  Should those architects be supporting the USGA and it agronomic staff when that same group is collaborating with the competition?  It's all a business and this was a bad choice by the USGA.    They should have remained separate. 

[Tom_Doak]

Blake,


You are right to be concerned.  This initiative seems designed to take away some business from all you guys who have worked for me, who have not yet tried on a plaid jacket.  You'd be much more help to a local muni than a guy who draws plans.


My advice:  just go to the two public courses closest to your heart, and offer to give them the same deal:  a day's worth of free advice.  All for the good of the game.




Jason:


One question.  Why did you need to have THREE architects involved in your project?

[Jeff_Brauer]

The program doesn't seem designed to take any business away from anyone.....it seems designed to provide struggling courses with a bit of a head start.  When lawyers provide pro bono services, do other lawyers complain?

Its actually amazing this got this far.  Usually questions as per others and my observations below, many good industry service ideas have traditionally died on the vine, lest a program get criticized by someone for some reason.  From that perspective, its a breath of fresh air.

The allied associations of golf do tend to support each other, plus the only way to provide this kind of a program nationwide would be to bring together associations with architecture and agronomic representatives nationwide.  I would say this is a better attempt than the PGA saying you could only use Tillie, at the very least.

I am sure we will get grief even from our internal members.  If a DFW course needs help, do they call me, John Colligan, or Tripp Davis? What if someone requests D.A. Weibring?  As far as I know, there is no seniority list and I haven't seen a sign up list or anything.   For that matter, not all members will want to work pro bono.   

So, no doubt there are problems in trying to do the right (or at least, a good) thing.  The fact that the very first project has a non ASGCA architect probably tells you that if your course selects someone different, it will be allowed.  There is no way a course can be coerced into using anyone, as with anything ASGCA, even if it is encouraged.  After all, its our members who pay into the Foundation, so perhaps they should get some benefit (if working pro bono for a underfunded course that may never do big work resulting in large fees, is considered a benefit)  The naysayers always look past those kinds of things to gripe at the associations, whose missions are to help golf in their respective areas.  Seems like a more direct method than archives, white papers and the like. 

And is a former field shaper/representative for Tom Doak immediately more qualified to provide assessment and analysis of a golf course and its infrastructure problems than other architects with more of this type experience? This is a questionable statement at best.  Tom seems to be diminishing the entire profession with that statement, no matter how well intended an expression of confidence in his own interns it may be.

[Jason Way]

You'd be much more help to a local muni than a guy who draws plans.

My advice:  just go to the two public courses closest to your heart, and offer to give them the same deal:  a day's worth of free advice.  All for the good of the game.

Jason:

One question.  Why did you need to have THREE architects involved in your project?

Again, to be clear, I most definitely do not have a horse in the race to determine if acronym associations are on-balance a positive or a negative.  From my armchair, I think say that it's intellectually dishonest to cast them as either white as snow or black as night for the the sake of making a point.  From my direct experience in this program, they have been flexible and supportive.


With regard to your points above Tom:


Canal Shores is not a muni.  We are a community golf course run by a non-profit association.  I don't know if that made us more approachable or not.  I suspect it did.


There is truth in the advice that you offer, in my experience, but the way you phrased it diminishes what Dave, Drew, Todd and others have done for us.  They have been involved, offering their ideas, advice, and encouragement since I started blogging about our dreams for the course a year ago.  They never asked me for anything - they just offered help.  And they also came out to visit, knowing that I could not pay them to do so.  I communicated with several other architects throughout the process, but in the end, there were only 3 teams I considered, and they were all ones who had engaged with me for much more than a "day's worth of free advice".


I wouldn't say that we "need to have THREE architects involved".  We want to have these 4 people involved because of their support of the project and the different things they bring to the table.  They were happy to work together.  From our perspective:


* Dave is our architect.  He is doing the design, and he will be doing the shaping of greens and hazards himself (and calling on his guys if need be) when the time comes.


* Drew is our advisor, and out of his experience, he acts as a practical sounding board.  He has also been instrumental in educating our Board about the vision.  To this point, Drew has insisted on working pro bono, even though I have asked him for a proposal.


* Todd is acting as Dave's right-hand man on the nitty gritty of making sure that the Master Plan checks all of the approval boxes with the two municipalities and MWRD, all of whom must sign off.  Additionally, he is helping us deal with our stormwater management issues as well as the multi-use and habitat enhancement components.  Once the work begins, Todd will be coordinating the day-to-day work on the ground.  We felt that it would be impractical to have Dave try to manage all of those details from AZ, and Dave was happy to delegate them.  Our Superintendent Tom Tully is already stretched too thin, so he was also happy to have Todd's assistance.


* Luke is an architecture geek, grew up playing the kind of golf in Europe that we are drawing upon for inspiration, and loves Canal Shores.  It's a no brainer to have a role for him.


There are numerous other ways that we could have gone with this, but we are excited that this is our team.  They have been in it from the start, and we feel confident that they can get us to the finish line three years from now.  Fortunately for us, the USGA and ASGCA were supportive of our decision.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

OK...first ASGCA is not an association and should not be considered a part of the "allied associations of golf".  It' a club.

I agree with you that if this is being funded by the ASGCA foundation then by all means they have the right to use on ASGCA members but they still should not involve the USGA.  Let the USGA function separately. 

Yes, one of the architects is not a member of the ASGCA but he is very close to one of the others who is and he has worked for a member. 

The form says ASGCA members. 

I think it's great if ASGCA wished to use their foundation to fund such projects but when they use the USGA for validation I have a problem. 

Lumping ASGCA with the PGA, GCSAA , CMAA and considering it a member of the "allied associations"  is no different than taking Harvard, UNC, Princeton and an SAE fraternity and having an allied association of universities. 
This entire thing is a promotion....

cheers...

[Blake Conant]

Jeff, you're right, good projects will come from this initiative.  My main concern is restraint.  The program's lowest common denominator is a free lead and an easy paycheck.  We're going to see pandering to what the facility thinks they need rather than an honest evaluation of what they actually need.  The facility says upfront what they want to fix and what their budget is.  If the course is chosen for the program, they have to commit to some of the work being recommended. 

I'm skeptical of the vetting process for choosing facilities and architects, I'm skeptical there will be lack of oversight, and I'm assuming there will be a lot of unnecessary work.  Ultimately, I hope there's transparency.

[Niall C]

Blake


Correct me if I'm wrong but there seems to be an assumption on your part that ASGCA members would/might put their business interests ahead of providing sound advice. Do you accept that non-members might equally be prone to that, and indeed arguably might be more susceptible to doing that given they have no regulatory association that governs over them ?


Jeff


What would constitute sharp practice by an ASGCA member ?


Niall

[Mike_Young]

Niall,

I don't think there can be a factual argument of  business practices between ASGCA members and non-members. 

The entire argument from my side is that the USGA is choosing to side with one segment of architects in the US who mainly are together for business interest.  IMHO the ASGCA can do whatever they wish as long as they don't try to restrict trade.  How would the USGA feel if the non member architects were to write the owners of their projects and ask them not to use USGA greens section reps? 

I wish Jason and those guys the best with their project and regret that these types of things evolve from such but this is a blatant attempt that will be denied over and over to gain business by ASGCA.  The USGA should not fall for such. 

[Mike_Young]

Blake
Do you accept that non-members might equally be prone to that, and indeed arguably might be more susceptible to doing that given they have no regulatory association that governs over them ?

Niall

Niall,
What are you talking about.  If you think ASGCA is a regulatory association then you have fallen for the misconception that is quietly pushed.   They don't govern each other more than talk....please don't go there....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Blake and Niall,

I agree that for the most part, ASGCA (and most non member) architects are in business, but wouldn't be if they didn't put there clients interests first.  What architect really needs "oversight?" Usually, one professional is enough, they act ethically and make a decent project that fits the budget, needs, etc.  I have never been able to convince a muni (or any budget minded course) to mindlessly spend money, and only a select few can, but they probably won't be doing pro bono projects......As to the vetting process, I haven't read it. Since the goal is to be wide spread, it probably isn't a huge bar to clear, but I doubt we will see Augusta on the list of requests!

Niall,  I don't see another reference to "sharp practice" in a quick review of this thread, and don't really know what it means as a stand alone phrase.

Mike, the definition of an association:

1.(often in names) a group of people organized for a joint purpose:
"the National Association of Broadcasters"

synonyms: alliance · consortium · coalition · union · league · guild ·
[more]

2.a connection or cooperative link between people or organizations:
"he developed a close association with the university" ·

Nor has it ever been represented as any sort of regulatory body, by us or anyone.  Its an association of architect with a common goal of helping both their own profession and the industry as a whole, where they can.......Most folks don't agree with your one man crusade against ASGCA......and, we don't restrict trade in any way, shape of form.  The fact that Dick Wilson, Von Hagge, Doak, and yourself, among many others have had long careers is testament to that.

As to the USGA, I from time to time hear that they shouldn't compete with private agronomy consultants, and understand.  However, they probably started before there were private agronomists, they seem to co-exist, and say what you will, agronomic assistance does help golf courses, and thus, the golf industry.  Similarly, there have been lawsuits dating back to 1900 or so challenging whether cities should compete with private enterprise by building golf courses, and that right has been upheld every time.

Again, your rants about free trade are mostly baseless, even if the underlying theory could be true.  In reality, it isn't.

Cheers and Happy Holidays!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, you're right, good projects will come from this initiative.  My main concern is restraint.  The program's lowest common denominator is a free lead and an easy paycheck.  We're going to see pandering to what the facility thinks they need rather than an honest evaluation of what they actually need.  The facility says upfront what they want to fix and what their budget is.  If the course is chosen for the program, they have to commit to some of the work being recommended. 

I'm skeptical of the vetting process for choosing facilities and architects, I'm skeptical there will be lack of oversight, and I'm assuming there will be a lot of unnecessary work.  Ultimately, I hope there's transparency.

Blake,

And not to single your post out any further, but what would keep Tom Doak, yourself, or any architect from doing that?  As I alluded, the market and client themselves keep us from doing that, at least the second time!

I suspect an architect known for frilly edge bunkers will probably push for frilly edge bunkers, even on a public course that really needs Maxwell clamshells for the lowest possible maintenance.  Actually, in the ideal analysis, they would take a look at whether frilly bunkers (or wild green contours, or whatever) would draw enough additional golfers to break even or generate more profit.  Most architects I know are prone to both - pretty well sold that their own design ideas are solid nearly everywhere, versus the idea that every project really is unique and needs its own solution tailored to its specific need. 

Yeah, most of us probably have a few standard programs, (muni, upscale, etc.) much like the insurance proposals that are really the same set of numbers, tailored to the client a bit, with a cover sheet saying "Proposal exclusively crafted for Jeffrey D Brauer. "  That said, I think most of the generalized programs (for both investment, insurance and golf design) touch most of the major points for a generalized class of golf courses.

I agree that the architects providing the free service are hoping to be retained when and if any big work comes along.  The saddest part is, how many architects work for free for years without this program, in hopes of landing a nice project?  From my perspective, at least, far too many!

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

As you know but many of here don't, I admire your support of the ASGCA and understand.  I don't think I have a one man rant nor do I think you do.  I think we both are at the age where we don't really worry aobut arguing the points and many others just sit back and watch

Anyway:   
Associations...define it however you wish.  The USGA moves championships from clubs that exclude various religions or races.  I don't see where they would align with a group that is not open to qualified architects who support the USGA. 

Trade restriction?   
The qualifications for the collaborative program say:

If you are currently working with/under contract to an ASGCA-member architect, you will be assigned to that member for your consultation. If you are not currently working with a member, you may request a member, or you may ask ASGCA to provide a list of members to choose from who work in your area.
Please check one: *	I am currently working with/under contract to the following ASGCA-member  I am not currently working with/under contract to an ASGCA-member architect and would like to request the following member  I am not currently working with/under contract to an ASGCA-member architect and would like ASGCA to assign a member to visit my facility and prepare a report

Will the ASGCA be sending a list of all architects in an area to the applicant?  I don't think so.  Thus an attempt at trade restriction with the backing of the USGA...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I agree the points are not worth arguing.  Associations like USGA, PGA, ASGCA, GCSAA, GCBAA, etc. have been around a long time and always will be.  The definition I give comes from a respected dictionary.  Courts have upheld many of their rights to exist and provide services, and to take in whoever meets their criteria. Obviously, race, religion, etc. based admissions are not allowable.  Setting other standards, a la private clubs are. 

Just as obviously, even though we encourage use of ASGCA architect, there is absolutely no client on earth who feels that they MUST use one of our members.  At least, I have never seen it.

Whenever two associations can find a common ground to provide something good for golf, they do it.  As to the USGA, I guess the complaint some clubs would have is that they signed up for the Green Section Agronomy service only to find the USGA provides it free for others.  Ditto, with an architect charging course X, but working for free at course Y.

No doubt there are problems with this plan.  Like I say, it would have never seen the light of day in the past, due to association politics.  And, no one says USGA or ASGCA is perfect, but whoever wants to cast that first stone......

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
From Thomas Jefferson:
" I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend" 

Got to get on the road...might argue more tonite...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()