![]() |
| proto courtesy of Clive Barber |
Yesterday I found out about Angus Glen’s ambitious plans to
renovate the South Course this fall. They plan to make major changes including
four new ponds (not sure where they would go), some fairway re-grading, renovate
the bunkers and rebuild all 18 greens. The work won’t be done by the original
architect Doug Carrick.
A few years back Mike and I were approached about taking on
this work. We declined, not because it wasn’t an interesting project, but
because the course was a key moment in Doug Carrick’s career. I told Mike that I
could not in good conscience work on a course designed and built by the man who
gave me my start in golf design.
I do know when it comes to renovation work on older courses
I have no ethical or moral issue with taking work from any architect if a client
clearly wants to change. It’s tougher with new projects and personal
relationships (or a lack of one) do play a role in your decisions. The quality
of the original work does as well.
Mike and I declined the opportunity and I have often wondered about
that decision. It was a high profile project in a key centre that would have
been good for us. There have been moments where I have reconsidered that
position.
| Ballantrae - courtesy of fairways magazine |
One of the projects built for Doug was Ballantrae Golf &
Country Club. I consider the original version pretty much my project. A few
years later they had an opportunity to take 1 ½ holes out of play and shift the
holes over to yield more housing. When the change was made, Doug (and Cam)
rebuilt those holes without any involvement from me. That hurt my feelings and
played a role in me leaving.
It is a small business. A business where you maintain
friendships with your peers despite the fact you are fighting hard to take
their work. I run all my ethical decisions through my wife and two close
friends. I’ve also used a small group of peers to deal with decisions like the
one above. My peers said there was no ethical issue about taking that work, but
half felt they could not have done so.
It’s possible to maintain friendships with other architects,
but each and every time you go head to head it strains those relationships. If
someone loses a key project that is the moment where friendships are tested and
many fail. Laval has strained friendships I had with the staff at Rees Jones
office. When they made the change, I was the architect they saw taking work. I
understood their feelings, this can be a tough business.
That is why I feel for Doug today. Somebody else is going to
rebuild a course that was very important to him at that time. If he’s similar
to me, he will likely never play Angus Glen again. I played Ballantrae once
after the changes (to see them) and have never gone back to see one of the most
important moments in my career.

Nice to see that somebody has ethical standards these days. Who would be better than Doug at understanding the design and the changes that are contemplated to Angus Glen.
ReplyDeleteFeelings are easily hurt in this and many other businesses. Think about computer programs for instance.
ReplyDeleteThrough the years, I have seeen some of my best work (Beverly) critiqued by others such as sportswriters and superintendents who convinced the board of directors or owners to "improve" their golf course and hire another architect. I can only imagine how MacKenzie, Ross and others if still alive would feel about the changes that restoration experts are making to their best designs.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThere are no "ethics" that prevented me from taking that work on. I went through this with a group of ASGCA members. I was curious to what should the standards be. If the other architect is paid in full and they don't want to use him or her anymore, there is nothing ethical to prevent you from taking on that work.
The choice was personal.
I may not make the same choice down the road.