Should A Master Plan Be In A Club's By-Laws?

[Thomas Dai]

If there’s a need for a Master Plan it doesn’t, please excuse the cynicism, say much for those in charge over the previous 5-10-20-30 yrs. if the evolution is well handled then revolution isn’t needed. Outcomes are usually all about the people involved.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

I don't know what all architects charge for Master Plans but I have a pretty good idea and I know they are not cheap.  If a club is going to spend that kind of time and money to go through the effort, at the end of the day they should do something lasting with it.  Remember by-laws can be changed if and when needed. 


Few here on this site will argue that golf courses haven't gotten screwed up or should I say changed for the worse by many well intentioned people/committees.  It happens ALL the time which is why many of us are busy these days .  Just because a club hires an architect, however, doesn't mean he or she has all the right answers or solutions - I sure don't.  But what I will say is that with the right architect to help guide the way, a well prepared master plan (I am talking about a good plan, as someone here said, which is much much more than just a fancy drawing) is a great educational experience for the whole membership/ownership to go through. And when all said and done, implementation and/or adaption of the plan at most clubs generally requires a vote by the membership and a significant majority to accept it.   The end result (if nothing else) is a plan that to some extent protects the golf course from every new grounds chairman or committee from trying to implement their own ideas and changes to the golf course.  It is now at least a little harder to remove all those bunkers on the right or plant all those new trees or add those new ponds or build all those new back tees, or rebuild greens,.... the list goes on and on.  With a Master Plan, at least the club has a hopefully well thought out short/long term guideline as to how to maintain, improve, enhance, restore,..., whatever it was that the architect AND the club viewed was best for their main asset - the golf course. 

I believe most architects are trying to do the right thing for the club more so than the right thing for themselves.  One of the keys is helping the club understand what is best for the club.  Many times the reason they are in the situation they are in with their golf course/club is because they didn't know what was best.  The architect might not know either but carrying out a proper Master Plan process working closely with a small group who represent the interests of the majority of the club membership can help everyone find out. 


What gets done with the plan after it is completed is solely up to the club itself.  No different than as someone said before, like a mission statement and vision for a business. You probably don't want that changing every year with every new committee but like any plan it can be and should be tweaked as needed going forward (but at least there is now some barrier or formal process to do so).  Believe it or not most clubs haven't had that which circles back to why many clubs are where they are.

[Matt MacIver]

I say yes, but like the Mission Statement the Master Plan should be succinct enough to convey key points and themes and not hamstring future changes, should they be needed for technology, different member/player set, etc. 


I have seen firsthand two times where “well meaning” Board members went off-script after a GCA’s plans were approved by the Committee - because they thought they knew better.  Both changes were later unanimously agreed to be wrong, which undermined the whole Committee process and let to many future problems. 


We’ve talked about it before, would you rather a benevolent dictator run your club or a volunteer committee?  The former better know what he/she is talking about while the latter rotates on and off so quickly they bring their own baggage and aren’t around long enough to learn “the truth” - be it about country club operations, budgets or GCA. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

If there’s a need for a Master Plan it doesn’t, please excuse the cynicism, say much for those in charge over the previous 5-10-20-30 yrs. if the evolution is well handled then revolution isn’t needed. Outcomes are usually all about the people involved.
Atb

A good point.


If the current regime at a club decides that a master-plan by a good architect is necessary to provide a blue-print for improvements to the course over the next 5-10-15 years, it is by implication a criticism of the way that the course has been managed for the previous 30-40 years. Many of the "culprits" will now be senior members with strong opinions and no reticence in conveying them.


This is particularly an issue with regard to trees.

[mike_malone]

As to the architecture of the course if it’s a great classic and you have the original design there’s your plan. Taking away the damage leaves the jewel.

[Tom_Doak]

I would be very uneasy about archies coming in with plans with no costs or timelines.  If truth be told, I would be uneasy listening to an archie lay-out plans without a fairly firm budget in mind.  I am looking for opinions on how to get the best bang for buck...not be sold on a massive project that isn't necessary or perhaps unaffordable.  Is this how we get these 5, 10 & 15 million projects started on courses which are essentially fine?

Sean:


I don't know about your last question, but I can tell you that more often than not, my marching orders are to tell the club what's the best thing to do to their course, without regard to cost ... and then let them decide whether they can afford it all, or just want to pursue part of it.  Clients all want to know what is the "right" thing to do, even though there is no absolute right or wrong in design.

[Thomas Dai]

If there’s a need for a Master Plan it doesn’t, please excuse the cynicism, say much for those in charge over the previous 5-10-20-30 yrs. if the evolution is well handled then revolution isn’t needed. Outcomes are usually all about the people involved.
Atb

A good point.
If the current regime at a club decides that a master-plan by a good architect is necessary to provide a blue-print for improvements to the course over the next 5-10-15 years, it is by implication a criticism of the way that the course has been managed for the previous 30-40 years. Many of the "culprits" will now be senior members with strong opinions and no reticence in conveying them.
This is particularly an issue with regard to trees.

Dead on Duncan. Re-arrange the following words - the, head, nail, hit, the, on...


Atb

[Ian Mackenzie]

As to the architecture of the course if it’s a great classic and you have the original design there’s your plan. Taking away the damage leaves the jewel.

I really wish this was the case, but you’re making some assumptions here.
Shocking as it might be to hear, there exists other opinions by non-GCA denizens that malign the ODGs and do not place value on the integrity of the original design.


These same people do not know the difference between “good greens” and “good putting surfaces”. They believe good greens mean fast and true, not interesting, challenging, well integrated with surrounds, etc.


My point is punctuated as follows: take 5 courses on the north shore of Chicago that were designed by ODGs in the 20s. Ask the current membership to name the original architect and I will wager that less than 25% of rank and file members can answer that correctly.


The “golf IQ” of the average club board And greens committee is shockingly low. EXCEPT at bespoke golf clubs that feature their original GCA at the center of their perceived brand.


Any work discussed and proposed by a GCA in today’s Club market must be funded. Duh. Clubs have a choice:


1. Balance sheet funding if they are lucky and have the cash on hand.
2. take on debt. OK in strong markets but scary if the economy gets shaky.
3. Assess the membership.


In most cases, except at high end GOLF clubs again, there must be a vote where the membership approves the work. Now your problem is 10x more challenging as you need to articulate to the rank and file membership why you want to spend money, charge them for it and say their course will be “better”.


But, make a pitch to a board and a membership that you are embarking on a 3-5-10 year plan that will save the Club “$300k/yr.” in labor, chemicals, overtime and equipment, then I ASSURE you there will be interest by the lawyers, investment bankers, PE Guys, bean counters and CEOs in the room.


At the risk of needling Tom again...:-)...RDG and all the “RDG Cubs” out there are smart enough to vet the clubs and gravitate to assignments where these issues are avoided.

[Tom_Doak]

At the risk of needling Tom again...:-)...RDG and all the “RDG Cubs” out there are smart enough to vet the clubs and gravitate to assignments where these issues are avoided.

Those issues are never avoided.  Even a place like Bel Air has to wrestle with spending the kind of money they're spending to restore the course, and how to fund it.  And there were lots of members who love to name-drop George Thomas, yet wanted me to preserve the "cement pond" on the 3rd hole that has had Thomas rolling restlessly in his grave the past 20 years.


But I will assure you, we don't decide which clubs to work at based on the money.  We decide based on what the potential of the finished course could be, and whether it's enough to want to spend our time on.  Now that Bel Air is off the list, the course I'd most like to restore is Perry Maxwell's Dornick Hills, though I don't know if they could ever scrounge up the money to do the work even if I worked pro bono.

[Sean_A]

I would be very uneasy about archies coming in with plans with no costs or timelines.  If truth be told, I would be uneasy listening to an archie lay-out plans without a fairly firm budget in mind.  I am looking for opinions on how to get the best bang for buck...not be sold on a massive project that isn't necessary or perhaps unaffordable.  Is this how we get these 5, 10 & 15 million projects started on courses which are essentially fine?

Sean:


I don't know about your last question, but I can tell you that more often than not, my marching orders are to tell the club what's the best thing to do to their course, without regard to cost ... and then let them decide whether they can afford it all, or just want to pursue part of it.  Clients all want to know what is the "right" thing to do, even though there is no absolute right or wrong in design.

Aren't you and the club at risk for wasting a bunch of time with this approach?  I would think if a course has issues (real issues) then the club would go about trying to rectify those issues rather than go on a fishing expedition with an archie.  I would go to the archie hoping that he would

1. Confirm if there really is an issue or if a different maintenance approach etc could resolve the problem

2. Offer solutions as to how to rectify the issue

3. Offer ideas of what else could be improved relatively easily and cheaply if the course is already undergoing the knife

4. I wouldn't expect a full on report of the course hole by hole unless it was requested...and to be honest that seems a bit much for most places that likely have specific issues which need to be targeted

I am naturally a conservative when it comes to these sorts of projects unless I think a serious rethink is in order, but then the concern is how to pay for it...I am not a big fan of unnecessary debt.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I am not a big fan of unnecessary debt.

Me neither!  It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck when Jeff B. or Forrest R. talk about clubs taking on debt to line their bunkers so it will pay off in x years.


I don't know what sort of "issues" you are imagining where a club goes out in search of a new consultant.  In my experience, the calls come when:


a)  there's a changing of the guard and the club wants to pursue a new direction, or
b)  the last consultant built something really bad, and it's clear there needs to be a change


As for recommendations, unless there's a green that balls won't stay on, or a lawsuit over adjacent property, we ALWAYS start with the simple and inexpensive stuff -- mowing lines, trees, and sight lines.  I am not a bunker salesman.  I often tell clubs they are wasting money on bunker makeovers, and a lot of them insist on it anyway, because that's what the neighbors have done.

[Jack Carney]

Simply NO. Many good answers as to why already posted

[Mark_Fine]

Very interesting thread to me and lots of great responses.  The concept of and benefits behind doing a Master Plan could be debated ad nauseam.  However, the most important aspect is probably EDUCATION. 


I don't mean this with any disrespect but most members of clubs really don't have any idea or even care who designed the golf course they belong to.  And even if they do, they know little if anything about its history or evolution.  While some on this site might find this shocking, it is not fake news, it is true.  Even at my own home club, when I first joined 20 years ago, a poll was taken and less than 5% knew Flynn designed their golf course.  Even Arthur Hills didn't know (he asked the Superintendent who designed the course as he was driving in the front gate to present the club with a final course renovation plan)!!   True story 


But what I have learned over the years is that clubs and members will listen and most members like to learn and that is the educational aspect/benefit of doing a Master Plan.  That education can go a long way in helping a club to do the right things for their golf course.  Note:  I mostly agree with Tom Doak in that there is no right vs wrong in design but I have to say there are times where what has been done is bad vs good 😊


Someone earlier made a good point about insulting or embarrassing past members or committees who are still at the club and who have to sit there and listen to how they might have done things that were not so good for their golf course.  This is true and it makes the Master Plan process that much more challenging.  It is a lot easier building a course from scratch then it is to convince a club and their membership to do a course restoration/renovation.  Far less egos and experts to deal with on the new course. 


I had one personal experience at a club in the Northeast where I was interviewed to do a Master Plan, got the job, completed the plan, only to be told by a new Grounds Chairman who took over that they weren't going to use it and they were going to bring in someone else to do another one.  Apparently our plan "didn't sit well" with some members who had been involved with what work they had done earlier to the golf course.  This kind of thing happens and you deal with it as it is their club and they can do as they please, no hard feelings.   The best part of the story, however, is Gil Hanse was one of the architects they called in to do a new plan.  He called me because he knew I had been working for the club and asked me to send him what we had prepared.  He loved the plan ended up taking it in with him for his interview and said he would only take the job if he could implement that plan together with some minor tweaks.  They said no so he got tossed out too


But some clubs embrace the educational part and really learn from it.  One story has to do with trees.  I was presenting a completed Master Plan to a portion of the membership at a club in Colorado and halfway through my presentation a past President and prominent member interrupted and said, "Mr. Fine why are you recommending removal of all these trees?  They are perfectly good trees, they were planted with a purpose, why do we need to take them all down?"  Before I could answer a past Grounds Chairman stood up and said, "Back in the 70's I was Grounds Chairman and we got this great deal on evergreen trees and planted them in all the empty spaces we could find.  We didn't have a damn clue what we were doing!" 


Took some guts for him to stand up and say that but sometimes education can be a great thing and make all the effort very rewarding 




Mike Malone,

You know very well that just because you have the "original design" doesn't mean you have your plan!  You know for example someone like Flynn often didn't add all his bunkers until after his course was played for a few years so he could see what really made sense.  If you only had his drawings you could be making a big mistake.  While they help immensely, you need a lot more than just notes and drawings.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I began this by recalling that, around 20 years ago, Gil Hanse urged our club to adopt his master plan into our by-laws, which I found inconsistent with his recent observation that great architecture occurs on site, not on paper.  Something else happened 20 years ago.  Before Gil's master plan was presented to the membership, it was tweaked by the then sitting administration, which rejected some of his ideas, including his belief that our course should have areas of wildly growing grass.  So, what was presented was a Hanse master plan, as modified by some members of the club.
   This experience begs this question - what input does a club have in creating a master plan?  Assuming there is some input, isn't that another reason not to incorporate it into the by-laws?  Why should the whims of those in power at a given time be given any more credibility than later whims?

[Joe Hancock]

Jim,


Club input is essential to the process. They are the end users.


The architect can learn a lot about how the course functions...where golfers are frequently, or not....areas of safety concerns, in part because equipment has changed...and so on. An architect can’t walk onto an existing property and understand how the course is utilized better than members who may have hundreds, even thousands of rounds under their belt.

[JMEvensky]

In my limited experience,the people whom you'd trust to do the right thing, don't need a Master Plan. And those whom you wouldn't trust,would easily find a way to ignore it.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Most of the master plans I have seen all do the same thing.


They describe the course, give some history, discuss each hole and present proposed changes with some having various degrees of drawings, renderings and images.


Then the club gets a bill for $20 to $40k.


(No, this does not apply to RGD and their enviable client roster.)


The grounds/greens chair then brings it to the next board meeting like a kid with a new puppy. Or the GCA presents it.


He’s met with skepticism, cynicism, some various levels of support, tons of question, but more than anything else, confusion over what exactly a master plan really is.


“This just looks like a description of the work this guy intends to do. That’s not a plan.”
“Why should we pay $xxxxx for this when all it is is an outline for the work that is being proposed?”


I think this also contributes to why clubs hire GCAs, get plans done only to seem them fizzle out or get trashed and replaced by a new one when a new board and committee takes over.


Forget the situation at top, top tier clubs.
Tom, I’m not advocating that a GCA focus on finance and ROI over product delivery. I’m saying that if clubs were counseled or educated on how master plans can be integrated into their operating practices that can be actionable items that get memorialized at meetings, there may be more work that get done.

[mike_malone]

   I began this by recalling that, around 20 years ago, Gil Hanse urged our club to adopt his master plan into our by-laws, which I found inconsistent with his recent observation that great architecture occurs on site, not on paper.  Something else happened 20 years ago.  Before Gil's master plan was presented to the membership, it was tweaked by the then sitting administration, which rejected some of his ideas, including his belief that our course should have areas of wildly growing grass.  So, what was presented was a Hanse master plan, as modified by some members of the club.
   This experience begs this question - what input does a club have in creating a master plan?  Assuming there is some input, isn't that another reason not to incorporate it into the by-laws?  Why should the whims of those in power at a given time be given any more credibility than later whims?

Those grasses appear in the plan.

[Forrest Richardson]

Interesting thread, and topic overall.

Tom D opines "it is just a piece of paper" yet I look at most of our built environment — Golden Gate Bridge, Manhattan, South Rim of the Grand Canyon, North Rim of the Grand Canyon, Smithsonian, Washington Mall, my local Apple Store, Central Park, the Breakers (Palm Beach), Pebble Beach Golf Links, Cypress Point Golf Club, EPCOT, the Guggenheim, my daughter's room, the Starbucks in downtown Vancouver by the Harbour, etc. etc — and I see places that began with a simple piece of paper and perhaps a pen or pencil. To discount a master plan is probably not fair. This extends to on-going improvements...all of the above examples have evolved, and all have needed work (renovation) over the years.

And, to be certain, it is also not fair to suggest in any way that golf courses happen 100% as a result of a "piece of paper." I do not believe anyone here is suggesting that.

What we have are the two schools of thought: #1 the "I believe in a roadmap...a plan crowd" and #2, the "It's useless crowd." In the end it remains the club and its leadership who decides which club to belong to.

As for the bylaws question, it can be couched with some clarification...words such as "roadmap", "guide", etc. are all good to convey the essence and intent of a master plan. I have never seen one that is static. There ARE ways to incorporate a well crafted plan to bylaws, or at least to guiding principals. (I like Tom D's 'mission statement' comment, but his idea of one does not have drawings and diagrams...while mine usually does).

What I have witnessed is enthusiasm, motivation, interest, and — of course — follow up questions and funding resulting from a well devised master plan. What I will submit is that incorporating a master plan to some formal guiding principal is probably much more detrimental to the #2 crowd above (e.g., those who have no use for such documents     ) than it does to the #1 crowd.