Don,
I was going to post the same thing! I recall a contractor who had a design build project years ago. He called a dozen architects pretending (somewhat) to be a developer and asked all for free routing plans to gauge their ideas. Cherry picked the free plans and built his course without an architect.
Dave,
While I agree that part of the announcement is a bit awkward, and I can only speak for myself, I imagine that many courses will only require a one day visit, and will do a lot of the work themselves to boot.
I had three one day visits this year, all for a total of under $5K in fees each. I get in the night before, and spend a full day. I print out a few copies of a Google or better aerial. We go around the course, marking up the plan for forward tees, path extensions, bunker reductions/eliminations, etc. If they want my advice on how to build that path, I tell them what I know. Same with any subject.
If they don't require me to go back, fire up CAD and write a report, and are happy with scribbles on that plan, we spend the last hour cleaning up the plan, and then going to FedEx Kinko's or similar to get a large scale color copy, and we're done.
In essence, its about the same design process as I would do to start a long term master plan, just without the formality. It is probably the best value in the biz. Again, I don't know how other architects do it, but I suspect 9 of 10, ASGCA and not, would do the same. The practical problem is that if you act standoffish and unwilling to give valuable info, they aren't likely to retain you for any further paying work anyway......in my estimation and experience, there will probably be less than 1 in 3 that ever retain the architect for major projects. If they could afford those, they wouldn't be seeking free advice! And there is nothing in that passage that implies a contract to do so, either.
It just suggests the standard practice all architects would like to see - if an architect does a low cost plan or any master plan, that person ought to be the one who follows through long term. Sure, sometimes relationships go sour, but the worst is if the club bids the master plan, then bids the construction documents to maybe find someone a bit cheaper and so on. Not great clients if all they are doing is bloodsucking all the free advice that they can.......from an architects perspective, of course!
For that matter, the USGA Green Section Service does the same sort of advice on agronomy in a day, for similar fees, and goes back and writes the report. My guess is that for their free one day visits, the club had better listen closely and take their own notes, but otherwise, their agronomists provide lots of information in one day. I do know that private consultants sometimes gripe they shouldn't be a national body and a paid consulting service, similar to NGF providing below market business plans for golf courses......
And I figure that some architects in the 1930's were teed off at the PGA for using Tillie only for their "good of the game" course visit tours. Why use only Tillie when there were dozens of near broke, qualified golf course architects?
I think the answer lies in practicality in both current and historic cases. While the USGA could spend even more resources on this "free program" by developing their own list of architects, but why would they do that when ASGCA is available with members nationwide to provide that coordination for them? Certainly not because some non ASGCA member complains! As Forrest notes, most who don't join their professional organizations are rightly or wrongly perceived as not wanting to give back to the game. And, all the associations in golf do pledge to support each other in these projects that they deem are good for the game.
I see nothing wrong with that. Mike's posting here is the wrong direction for him to take. If he really feels strongly about the USGA position, and is a USGA Associate member, he should contact them. If he doesn't support even the USGA, maybe he doesn't have a case.......
Jeff,
Myself and others have contacted the USGA. I do feel the collaboration is a USGA problem. And I agree with most everything you say above except for the quote from Forrest saying if you don't join your professional organization you don't care to give back to the game. There is no professional organization for golf architects.
I have no problem sharing my response to the USGA with you below:
Dear USGAXXXXXXXX:
I was stunned to see news of the USGA/ASGCA collaboration today. I, XXXXXXX and other architects who are not members of the ASGCA are very troubled by the collaboration and the preferential treatment it gives to members of the ASGCA. At a time when almost all golf architects are struggling to make a living, this unfairly tilts the playing field against non-members.
There are many highly qualified golf architects who are not members of the ASGCA. The USGA should not be in the business or preferring ‘insiders’ to ‘outsiders”. The USGA Green Section has always taken pains not to specify vendors. This collaboration changes that. Can you imagine if USGA was to put out a press release announcing a USGA/Toro collaboration? Would Rainbird or Jacobsen not be justified in objecting?
I have been designing golf courses for over 25 years
www.mydgolf.com and have over 40, 18 hole courses in play today. How should I feel if one of my projects were to request such help from the USGA and then be told they that I am barred from doing the work in favor of an ASGCA member? There is no place for the USGA in such scenarios. It is hard enough competing against the ASGCA when it promotes it members (sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly) as being the only ‘qualified architects’. To have to now also compete against the prestige of the USGA is simply unfair to non-members.
The ASGCA consists of approximately 185 members. Many of its members worked for other members as associates and gained membership while under their personal sponsorship. A significant number of ASGCA members cannot claim design credit for designing a golf course ( name not on a scorecard). There are, however, a large number of highly qualified architects who have designed a large number of highly respected courses who are not members.
For example, XXXXXXXXX, due to a personal feud with RTJ, was never a member, XXXXXX protégés, including XXXXXX and others, never became members. XXXXXXXXXX, notwistanding his many wonderful designs, is not a member. XXXXXXX, who designed several excellent courses,was declined membership. One of the most prominent modern architects, XXXXXXX, is not a member. XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX and others who have focused on renovation or restoration work at many of Golden Age courses are not members. I could go on. Many of the best golf courses in the USA were designed and built by non-ASGCA members. In short, the connection between good golf architecture and membership in the ASGCA is hard to see.
So I must object when the “society” enters into an alliance with the USGA with the stated goal of promoting work for ASGCA members to the exclusion of non-members.
Should we non-members now stop promoting the USGA Green Section and other USGA services to our clients? If accepting those services means we are barred from working on our own courses, can it be a surprise that we would be upset? Is it the place of the USGA to side with only a segment of our industry? Would the USGA be troubled if non-ASGCA architects asked the courses for which they work to stop USGA green section visits and to go the private route? Should clubs be put in the position of picking sides in this? None of us want to put clubs in that unhappy place.
As you know, the ASGCA is not a sanctioning body like a state bar association or a medical licensing board. The ASGCA is more like a trade organization with what are, ultimately, subjective membership criteria. (There are no qualifying exams. Anyone can be either admitted or blackballed without explanation.) The society’s goals from its inception were to limit competition.To that point, let me reference the USGA’s Herbert Warren Wind Book Award winner for 2015. James Hanson’s book, “A Difficult Par”, is a biography of Robert Trent Jones. The book describes the formation of the ASGCA. Beginning on page 155there is an account of Robert Trent Jones’ goals for the ASGCA. RTJ was clear. The ASGCA was founded to limit competition and fix prices in the golf architecture business. It is an association designed from the outset to erect barriers to entry and trade restrictions. The relevant passage from the RTJ bio is quoted below:.
__________________
Here are the highlights of the pages:
“In 1937 Alfred Tull ,a partner of Devereux Emmet and took over the Emmett practice upon his death in 1934, wrote to Jones stating “ it is about time golf course architects got together to protect their interests”- such a society should “be formed by a few active golf course architects in the East and then extended to take in all qualified applicants” Tull wanted three basic objectives in his proposed society:
1- “ a minimum scale of fees”, a maximum amount of service we shall render gratis”
2- a code of ethics that protected “ protected one another from undue competition once we have been retained by a client”
3- “group advertising of the society”
Tull sent the letter to six other East Coast architects but interestingly did not send it to Maxwell, Ross or Tillinghast. Of the seven he had sent it to only 3 would become founding members 10 years later. Tull , himself was not a charter member and was not admitted until 1963.
Jones stated that the ASGCA purpose was “ to protect and upgrade the profession and to advance concepts and techniques of design consistent with the spirit of the game by collective thought.” But even Paul Fuller, the executive director for years, admitted there was more behind the establishment than this. Fuller said “ the “names “ in the business wanted to establish higher fees, keep newcomers out of the business and retain the majority of the work in their hands.”
Jones was the youngest charter member at 40 years old by 11 years. As the first secretary-treasurer he was instrumental in defining a schedule of fees that would be used by ASGCA members :
minimum fee for a day- $50 and expenses
minimum fee for 9-hole preliminary plan- $350 and expenses
minimum fee for 18-hole preliminary plan- $700 and expenses
minimum fee for new course plans- 5%
minimum fee for new course supervision- 5%
minimum fee for complete plan nine holes- $2000
minimum fee for complete plan 18 holes- $4000
Jones became president in 1950 and was considered the “main man within the society” “
Thanks for your attention and all the best,
Mike Young