[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

What are some of the ethical challenges that golf architects face?

[Tim Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Are there things you had in mind?

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, I think there may be different answers depending on who is responding.  I bet the owners/developers have one set of ethical issues they think are relevant, and architects have another.  

I sense that the issue of an architect having their own construction entity bidding on the building of the course they designed in an open bidding scenario, may be one category of issue, with many secondary issues to that.  But, they all seem to be organized along very different lines, and operate on different philosophies and methods, that it is hard to single any good or bad aspect out without getting into project specifics.  Once we start talking about said specifics, there could be much misinformation or incorrect facts and that would lead to our own unethical dilemma within the discussion.  I just heard a tale of woe from a developer/owner.  But, I only heard one side of the issue, and I simple couldn't say if the archie was unethical, or the owner, naive.  It wouldn't be right to provide specifics, even though if the case could be presented to us in an even handed factual manner, the lessons would be very valuable to all people contemplating similar projects.  

[Bob_Huntley]

I would say that a breach of the Ethical Standards of the Society, would be the examination and use of another's plans provided to them by a member of the search committee. It has happened.

[Doug Wright]

Building a new course quite near a separate, existing course that he designed for someone else, such that the ensuing competition from the new course could disadvantage the existing course? Certainly a conflict of interest if not an outright ethical issue. Do owners/developers put clauses in their agreements that limit the ability of their architects to do that?

All The Best,

[Tom Doak]

Doug,

No, those clauses are quite rare.  They are generally applied only to the Nicklauses, where the developer believes he's buying a "name" and doesn't want the neighbor to buy the same name.

Most architects work regionally, and would not want to sign themselves out of part of it for any length of time.

[Doug Wright]

Thanks Tom. I thought your business was a little different from the Burger King franchise in a strip mall.   What other "ethical" issues might you encounter in your practice?

All The Best,

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

This isn't really an ethical "dilemna", since the right thing to do is pretty obvious, but...

The moral compass should be examined of an architect who would make changes to an existing course mostly to provide himself with work and/or recognition, rather than in the best interest of the historical integrity of the layout.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Ethics seems to be a hot topic. WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Clinton, Torricelli, Traficant, etc....it is near epidemic.

Golf architecture is a strange profession. No formalized education or training. No liscensing....what is to prevent me or anyone off the street from claiming we are golf architects?  The association for the industry is somewhat exclusive, so not all practitioners fall under it rules of ethics, if it has rules of ethics. Architects, physicians, lawyers and other professionals have fairly well defined codes of ethics. Do golf architects?

I'm also interested in the ethical considerations of weighing what the client wants with what is in the public interest. And weighing what is best for the game/golf architecture and what is best for your firm/keeping food on the table. And other possible ethical conflicts and conflicts of interest.

[Tony Ristola]

Tom:  The ASGCA, EIGCA, former ESGA and BIGCA have code-of-ethics.  I've studied them fairly carefully and they have clauses which made me shake my head.

1. What the ASGCA and EIGCA call code-of-ethics are often freedom-robbing rules.  For example, both state there "should be no self-lauditory advertising/publicity." (paraphrasing closely)

2. Architect Associations claim honest representation of work on projects should made.  This is a joke.  

Of these two claims, the first is a great way to suppress opinion or make someone conform...I know this first hand...having been on the receiving end from members of both associations...for being honest in opinion and basing opinion in fact.  For offering services and comparing them to the industry norm!!!

The first rule is a professional challenge for those breaking into the industry and have something to say.  You risk pissing off those controlling your future vote (if you want to join an association...and I had one member spell it out to me so clearly), or you end up censoring what you have to say, perhaps killing your unique position in the market in the process.  This could lead to lost projects, and at worst loss of financial independence. It is certainly a loss or curbing someone's most basic human rights.  This is CODE!  In any way you look at it,  it is bad for those seeking membership, but great for the existing members.

The second claim is so abused it is actually funny to read.  How many members of architects associations have sold their souls to Golf Pro's (see Mark Fine's post on Do I Really Need a Golf Pro), and let the guys really doing the work hang-out to dry? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of the membership?  The signature professional debacle would NEVER have happened had the ASGCA honored their Code of Ethics...Never would have happened.

The BIGCA (don't know if the EIGCA adopted this beauty) prohibited architects from visiting other architects courses and making an opinion unless they called the architect who designed the project first!  More restrictions on speech and movement.

Yes there are Rules of Behaviour, Codes of Ethics, but they are often undemocratic protective measures...the bureacracy defending itself, and they are used.

[Mike_Young]

Since golf architecture is an unlicensed profession there are no ehtical standards for the profession.  There may be codes of ethics within the associations of the industry.  Yet a client would only be affected by the ethics of the individual architect.  IMHO Ethics is a part of ones character and travels with a person no matter what the profession.
The most common breach of ethics that I see in the industry is constant condemnation of architects by other architects.  One never knows the "whys" of anothers project unless he was there.  I see this site slam different archs constantly without knowing what their "charges" were.  I see architects that are used to large budgets  slam other architects that are working with small budgets never once taking budget into consideration.  And in many cases the slam is from an associate in the office that has never had to produce on his own.  It is often  that the best supts. learned to work on a small budget.  Notice how several of the Pro Signature" firms have added different levels to their design fee structure in the last year so that they can market to different segments of the market without looking as if the price was cut.  All are looking for ways to cut budgets so that golf can survive.  Architects used to slam others for green specs that were not USGA.  Not anymore.  
 Golf architecture is a vicious industry and people talk constantly not knowing what they speak or without any reason.  Yet common sense tells one that if a person has low ethical standards he will not continue to get work.  Therefore I would not question the ethics of working architects. And it seems to me that the one that seems to have one of the highest fees and maybe the most work is also the one that I have never heard speak of another unless it was complimentary.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
What difference does knowing what the architect's 'charge' may have been? If the result is poor or not in the public interest or ultimately bad for the game/golf architecture, why should the architect's mandate matter? Is the 'charge' you are given an ethical consideration?

[John_McMillan]

Some ethical decisions come-up related to compliance of the design with environmental regulations.  I've heard a general rule of thumb that the first course built at a multi-course development receives the greatest "pass" when it comes to the watchful eyes of the environmental regulators.  There have to be times when the situation becomes, "can we get approval for this?" --- "let's try it and see what happens."  

In Doak's book on golf architecure, he mentions dealing with tree-loving owners by crediting tree-removal to a particularly violent thunderstorm, or misunderstood instructions by a dozer-operator.  

There's also the common practice in the industry of the same firm both designing and building the course.  Those situations give rise to the usual problems of contracting, including bidding low to get the contract, then completing half the project going back to the client for funds for "over-runs."  

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I am saying that since there are no set standards how is one to judge.  It may be that in ones opinion a particular element of design is wrong yet where would you define wrong.  For instance, the owner says I can only afford 5 foot wide asphalt cart paths and another sees this and states that the architect did a bad job with the paths.  Or balls start to land in a swimming pool on the inside of a dogleg and the architect designed the hole being told there would not be a lot there.  Another architect sees this and says it is incorrect.  Is it?
If an architect adheres to" industry standards" which may vary and he sees that the contractor applies specifications then he has performed in an ethical way.  Just because another doesn't like his design features or routing doesn't mean he has done something unethical.  It is funny how many of the courses that really make money in this country don't have pedigrees or "approved standards" in their make-up.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
My post was in reponse to your comment, "I see this site slam different archs constantly without knowing what their "charges" were."

If you hate asphalt cart paths and you build them anyway, is that ethical? Is it ethical if you choose to accept a job with un-trustworthy client or a financially strapped client who may be forced to compromise your design?

Is a design's ability to make money the determining factor; should criticism stop if the course is profitable or vice versa?

[TEPaul]

I think the primary ethical desision any architect should confront is definitely do not sleep with the owner's wife--even if she is gorgeous!

If an architect does that, at least before construction is finished it can be a terrible price to pay. He's going to get fired anyway and if he hasn't finished construction the remainder of the course may end up being severely out of character with what he already did and of course that alone is both an architectural and an ethical disaster!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I suspect with this thread and the AIA/ASGCA threads, you have something specific in mind.  If its your question regarding the "pulblic interest" the only conflicts I can see are mentioned by John MacMillan, whereby an owner tells you to avoid environmental, ADA, or generally recognized safety regulations regarding adjacent land uses.  Then, you have a tough call.  If a kid gets killed by a stray ball, I wouldn't feel any better by having a letter in the file protesting the owner forcing me to put the houses to close.

You seem to hint that even the quality of design, perhaps restoration versus renovation, or designing a certain style may be in the public interest.  I don't think so.  While it would have certainly been a waste to put a pitch and putt on a site like Bandon Dunes, it would be the owners perogative, no one elses.  If the architect couldn't talk him out of it, then he should do the course the owner wants, or not, but who else would determine the "right" thing to do on the owners property?  

I think all architects face the dilemma of underbudgeted courses at some points in their career.  That is not an ethical dilemma, per se, and even business success is not in the realm of golf architecture.  I don't do feasibility studies that claim a course should be built.  I recommend they get an independent one.

I have looked around the office, but haven't found the ASGCA code of conduct to post for you.  As Mike says, it is pretty simple, and stuff you should do anyway, like not speak ill of other professionals, especially because you don't know what difficulties he faced and how they shaped the design, not going after a project anohter designer has under contract, representing an owners interests (ie no under the table deals with suppliers or contractors that benefit you w/o telling the owner) and following applicable laws, and doing your best effort to create a technically competent and pleasing project, which is obviously a grey area to decide, etc.

BTW, the GCSAA has similar guidelines to what Tony alludes to, where a super cannot go on site and offer an opinion to an owner w/o the existing supers consent.  And I know some supers who have been called on the carpet for doing just that to pick up $500 consulting fees.  Its just being treated as you want to be treated.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
You say " if you hate asphalt cartpaths but you build them anyway, is that ethical?"  YES  If I hate "quick couple" irrigation and the owner can only afford that, is it ethical to install?
You say " if you choose to accept a job with an un-trustworthy client or a financially strapped client who may be forced to compromise your design, is that ethical?  Many times the financial problems etc of a client show up later in the project so my answer is YES under those circumstances.

Of the 17000 courses in this country the majority need to be profitable and design determines a great deal of the profitability.
Do not take these answers as my preferred method of operation .  I have replyed to this topic only to emphasize how many courses are not in compliance with the design principles, construction principles and agronomic principles that many on the high end of the business would consider proper.  If one considers these elements an ethical mistake then golf would be even less affordable.
Let me ask one.  Is it ethical to make a visit or in some cases not make a visit, route a golf course, send the routing to the course and say you designed it?
Mike

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
I don't no the answer to that question. What do you think?

Jeff
The reason for that thread and this one was due to what I have read recently about Architecture and the ethical dilemmas that Architecture acknowledges/debates/discusses. I have seen very little written or discussed on the subject as it pertains to golf architecture. Perhaps the code of ethics actually prevent ASGCA golf architects from actually publicly discussing the subject.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I play at a good course that was designed in such a way.  The ethical side of the issue would depend on what the club was told they were paying for.  To do 400 courses in the old days, it was probably done this way often.  Today many would consider it unethical if one just did the mentioned and called yourself the designer.  Look how many landplanners do a routing and give it to a developer to hand over to another.

[jim__janosik]

Does ethics come into play when an architect gives his
fishing buddy contractor a look at the sealed bids for a project so he can get the job? Its called having a "last look?

Or when he specs a Toro over rainbird system because Toro
sends him to the Jim Russel Racing School?

These are true stories.

[ian]

The ethical challenges that affect me most:
1. other architects methods of getting work, if they are less ethical than your own.
2. having a site that is not suited for golf, too steep, too sensative, do you turn it down if they will continue without you.
3. having a club that wants to make changes that I don't agree with (I try to stall for a new committee first, but occasionally it doesn't help)


Tom, You do what is right for you, you concider the public and listen to the owner; but with a reputation and future at stake, an architect designs for themselves first.

Tony, if architects want to join with pros thats there choice. It has nothing to do with ethics, it has everything to do with getting work. Not my choice, but I don't look down on anyone that chooses that route.

John, "can we get approval for this?" --- "let's try it and see what happens."  is about how it works on every project. Every course has some regulations that need ammending. It gets approved or it doesn't, I fail too see an ethical dilema in this. Owners are generally very aware of the enviornmental regualtions and don't get lead down the garden path by consultants looking to get a few thousand dollars on a dead end project.

Jim, one of my favourite (and verified) stories is about a very well known architect from the past having 3 different construction companies. He would tender the work to all three and have the same crew do the work regardless of the winning company. Design/Build has a lot of potential to be unethical.

The key one for me with renovations is to insist upon the previous architect being notified of there services no longer being required before accepting a project. Do on to others.....

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Do clients requests and your desire to meet those requests ever challenge your ethics...not necessarily from an evironmental or legal aspect, but from a good taste standpoint or what is good golf architecture standpoint?

If you were asked to redesign the Old course would there be any ethical considerations?

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tony,

That was an excellent analysis.  I greatly appreciate your post.  

Briefly, a person can not use the term architect unless they are a licensed architect or landscape architect.  So, when Nicklaus has said he prefers to be called a designer and not an architect, legally he could never call himself an architect because he is not licensed in either profession.  

I am aware of some situations where ASGCA members have told prospects that people like me whom have chosen not to belong are unqualified because we are not members.  That is unethical and a lie.  One of the rigors of membership is producing plans which if applied to every member would probably disqualify some.  I do not think not being able to do plans should disqualify you because people like Pete Dye deserve to be in whatever organization there is for golf course architects.  There is no way the ASGCA would want to not let Pete Dye into their organization.  However, allowing him in does set up at least two standards.

Code of ethics are important, but if you do not live by a code of ethics in your personal life what good is a code of ethics in your business life.  To me, there is no distinction between a code of ethics for your personal life and your business life.  I once played golf with a guy that heads a marketing company out of Manhatten, and the jerkoff cheated the whole way around.  That was a personal decision he made.  But, I never contacted him for business purposes because I was certain if he cheated in his personal life he would cheat in his professional career.  There can be no higher standard of conduct than the standard of conduct by which one conducts their personal life.  You do not need a business code of ethics.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tom,

Yes, there is ethical considerations in being asked to redesign a course like St. Andrews.  I would not accept the commission because there are other architects more qualified to examine a course of such special distinction.  Courses of special distinction like Ross courses should at the very least require the architect to contact namesake societies or other persons of distinction like Brad Klein, unless of course you are Ron Prichard or an other architect that has proven themselves worthy of dealing with such courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()