Dunlop White,
I would agree with most of what you state, but take exception to the statement that the architect chooses the contractor.
An architect will recommend a contractor, but clubs frequently bid the work as well, and select from the competing bidders the firm most qualified to do the work.
The architect must oversee the construction of the bunkers and sign off with his approval, as should the Club's designated project manager (individual or committee).
A club doesn't wake up one morning to find 140 bunkers built to specifications. The process is sequential. The bunkers initially completed are approved, rejected or modified, setting the stage for the balance of the bunker work.
But, in the ultimate, after the project is completed, only the members remain to play the altered golf course.
The architects, consultants and contractors, like ELVIS, have left the building. The CLUB has the ultimate responsibility to their members to insure that WHOEVER THEY HIRED, architect, consultant and contractor, GOT IT RIGHT.
Mike Cirba,
You may remember a Thread I posted which dealt with obtaining, architectual second opinions, prior to undertaking a project. Some, including architects, objected to the idea.
While I agree that too many cooks can spoil the broth, a misquided project can ruin a course for years to come.
I'm a strong advocate of second opinions because clubs normally take about 20 years before they will consider another project, and I'd rather take the extra effort to get it right the first time.
Willie Dow,
The 1991 report you cite is quite an interesting bit of information, and would seem to support some of the work done by the architect and contractor, but it doesn't explain a construction process that left the bunkers difficult to enter and exit.
TEPaul,
I think Geoff Shackleford mentioned that clubs must decide first, why they want to alter their course, or why they are hiring an architect to propose changes.
I agree and think clubs have to have a clear vision of what they want to accomplish before setting out to find the instruments of change.
Unfortunately, as time goes by, fewer and fewer members have an experience based historical link to the clubs past.
So, who does a club draw upon to supply information relating
to the original design or play of the golf course ?
Someone who's been a member for 15 years
![Huh? ???](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)
Many, if not most clubs don't have the invalueable archives to assist them. Most clubs have gone through many changes over the last 60 plus years, wrought by greens committees, boards, and presidents, and their wives. It is getting more difficult to document the clubs architectual history, hence the history to the clubmembers becomes less and less important.
How many clubs are fortunate enough to have a member like Tom Paul, who has a historical connection to golf, spend the time and effort to research, understand and publish a detailed architectural history of the club
![Huh? ???](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)
Very, Very few.
One last bit of OPINION.
The ego/s of the club usually feel that they are quite capable of making the changes they want without any outside help.
BUT, when the work is done, that same ego/s are not prepared for the discerning scrutiny of their work and the finished product, resulting in them presenting a highly defensive posture and little in the way of data to support their decisions.
REMEMBER,
WITHOUT CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM,
PROGRESS IS IMPOSSIBLE