Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Forrest Richardson on June 07, 2003, 09:19:30 AM
-
I have been outspoken here when posters refer to "restoration", and in return I have received plenty of criticism for my opinion that "restoration" is mostly a falsehood in our great world of golf.
Golf courses are ever-changing, and to "restore" any portion of a course is a near impossibility. "Restore" to what? If you are "restoring" to a particular point in time you are not restoring, you are "partially restoring", and whatever is accomplished is pseudo of the original at best. Often it would have been better if simply re-done in a fresh way. Change is good for golf so is tradition. Part of the tradition in golf is change.
I also take exception to the notion of restoring based on cryptic plans and written accounts. This is is remodeling under the disguise of "restoration based on interpretation". In my view, it should be called such. We influence history when we refer to such work as "restored".
I was amused at the comments about the Road Hole Bunker being an awful job compared to the original: There never being a green or bunker there in the first place, what has existed for the past 100 years is in and of itself a remodeled addition to The Old Course. Certainly the bunker in its Robertson days was nothing like it was in 1960, 1970, 1980 or 1990. No one has ever restored the Road Hole Bunker, nor ever will. They will change it and this change cannot (should not) be cloaked as "restoration".
Golf course architecture is about designs, holes, conditions, edges, roughness, plant growth and death, changes in terrain, personal influences, green committees, players gripes, preparations for tournaments, changes due to equipment, changes due to the environment, owners wishes, etc. these affects are what makes the game so interesting. In my view we spend far too much time worrying about "restoring" and too little time finding the new blood; the new frontiers; and, of course, the appropriate links to the past.
So, I ask you each to dig deep and give up some thoughts. Is it possible we are using the wrong word? I await your arrows.
-
Do you think it was a mistake to restore Frank Lloyd Wright's house and studio in Oak Park?
It had been converted into seperate apartments some years ago--certainly a very efficient use of the property. I do not believe anyone is using the place since it has been restored.
-
Tom,
You have used this analogy previously. Although a building cannot fairly be compared to a golf course, I will answer you anyway:
Yes, it was likely a mistake. But with walls and mortar (a building) you are more apt to preserve and restore, so change becomes an issue of the "growing" things that go along with a building: landscape, use, furnishings, art adornment, and the effects of age and weathering, which can be quite charming.
Would you compare eating an artichoke with an orange? Probably not...unless you like orange peel.
-
By the way, Wright did very few consultations on remodeling, so he would have gladly razed or remodeled his own buildings had someone slipped him a mickey strong enough that he forgot it was his work!
-
My thoughts are that if you like what you have then maintain that landscape. If not, rebuild it or repair that condition. If the green doesn't drain properly, or the fairway ponds - as they are today - study that condition, make note of it, and recommend that something should be done. In other words, correct the problem, and don't use spin to call it "restoration".
You are right, Forrest, change should only be recommended when nature's evolution will not solve that problem.
-
Have you visited his house and studio in Oak Park?
If I'm not mistaken it evolved over time...Wright was constantly remodeling it as his family and his career expanded. Isn't that also true with Taliesin...he tinkered with it often? I believe he also added on to Fallingwater.
I suspect Wright would say the reason most of his designs were not remodeled is because they were perfect to start - not unlike MacKenzie's attitude. And if they needed to be altered for whatever reason--my take is these men wouldn't appreciate their work being touched by the unclean hand of a inferior architect. I can appreciate their attitude.
In my opinion there is a difference between a single architect altering his own work - like Ross at Pinehurst #2 - and a William Mitchell redesigning Alison's Timber Point. There are few modern architects who would have the balls (or stupidity depending on your point of view) to change #2 - Fazio is the only one that comes to mind. Maybe Fazio is right and the others are wrong....what do you think?
Do you believe there are/were architects whose talent and creativity stands out above the others? For example do you think FLW, Fredrick Law Olmsted and Dr. MacKenzie were masters in their given art?
-
Forrest- You left off intent on your list. And you could argue how is it possible for someone to know someone else's intent, unless it was specifically put down on paper.
It does seem to boil down to semantics, but any attempt to restore versus renovate shows consideration for the one or group of individuals who originally conceived what ever it is that's worth restoring.
-
Tom,
I've not been to Oak Park. But Taliesin, yes. I do think there were masters...some of which by the way, tinkered with others work in the process of becoming such. This, perhaps, is key to my thought: With all of the hype about "restoring" layouts are we stifling the creativity. Should we be saying: "Change is good, do what is right seek transformation, remodeling, rerouting or be less bold and just partially restore it? Will this not foster greater designs and better courses and a greater distinction to those that stink as a result of such an approach?
P.S. I do not know if Fazio is right or not.
Adam,
I've written plenty on paper and here and will likely look back and disregard a bunch of it as being "of the moment". I would suspect all of the greats have writted things and explanations that could not possibly be regarded as an edict to their designs.
-
Forrest- I think what you are describing above is the next phase of growth after this period of belt tightening and conservation. It also seems as though those future great designs will be 10k yds long and require much in the way of efficeincy to maintain.
-
Forrest:
This is a good thread of yours and one who's subject is something we all talk about on here in one way or another almost daily.
Personally, I would advocate the use of the word restoration in golf architecture, though, and maybe strongly advocate it.
The reason I say that is more for the perception of what it indicates than the actual dictionary meaning of what it indicates and how the word translates to golf course architecture which obviously is an ever-evolving canvas.
But restoration sort of implies that something has changed for the worse and needs to be put back again to something resembling the original. Sometimes it seems that some on here are far too doctrinaire that what's to be restored be done so purely that it may not take into consideration the changing necessities of the game. That's when many architects who are otherwise considered to be the best "restorers" use words such as "interpretation". The purists don't seem to like that word or thought and reject it as some kind of corruption of a real restoration. Personally, I think not. Many of the best architectural restorers I know think that attitude is one that basically lacks an understanding of the realities of architecture in the field. I also feel that much of good restoration is as much recreating a look than anything else.
But again, I think the word restoration at least connotes the correct perception. Obviously an even better perception would be to use the word "preservation'.
-
TEPaul,
I like your thoughts. Regarding what you just wrote, "I also feel that much of good restoration is as much recreating a look than anything else" does this eman that you advocate recreating a look in terms of being the best our profession/interest has to attain? I.E., is recreating what you feel is at the heart of decent golf design? Or is this just reserved for those places that today we view as being worthy of some degree of recreation?
-
Forrest:
All I meant by "recreating a look" was that if an architect is going to restore something like Merion's bunkers, as an example, to say 1930 that the "look" of 1930 should be recreated as exactly as possible. Even if an architect decided to move a bunker for playability reasons at least make it look like 1930.
-
What would Wilson do if he had not designed a course and magically appeared in 2003 and was asked to improve it? Would he restore elements to some time period? Or would he begin by improving just doing his job independent of some push or influence to pay tribute to a previous look?
-
Forrest Richardson,
I think each "alteration/restoration" has to be evaluated individually.
I know courses where a green chairman or president altered a feature. On many occassions, there is documented evidence of what was altered, how it was altered, and what it looked like before and after it was altered. In those cases where the alteration was recent, it's usually easy to "restore" the feature, IF that is the intent. Often, some want to restore the feature with modifications, and that is where the problems begin.
In other instances where alterations have occured beyond the collective memory of the membership, and photographic and physical evidence doesn't exist, interpretive restoration is the best the club can do.
In other situations, an exact restoration may not be prudent.
As an example,take a hole that had a fairway bunker removed, and tees altered. To restore that bunker, in its original form and location may not serve the architectural purpose intended by the original designer. Restoring it to its original location may result in the bunker being totally out of play. Restoring the tees to their original locations is almost out of the question today, and less likely in the future.
Before a restoration begins, an evaluation of the original alteration should be undertaken. A determination should be made with respect to: Should the feature be restored in its original form, or should a modified restoration take place, or should a further modification take place.
Each situation should be judged on its own circumstances.
I believe that "restoration" isn't the simple process some would have us believe, and that one must look at restorations in the context of the play of the golf course today, and into the future.
-
Forrest, who says restoration is "simple?" I've been writing for years that restoration requires interpretation, and that it seeks to bring something back to a more pristine form than it was ever in before. But surely it has to do with identifying inherent strengths and then deepening rather than vitiating that basic identity.
You know very well the difference between restoring and modernizing. For you to efface that difference or to pretend that it's all somehow a process of renovation is a betryal of basic architectural knowledge. Perhaps because you've spent so much working in areas of the American West where there was nothing worth restoring and everything was modern when you saw it - perhaps that would lead you to evaluate classical courses the way you apparently do.
There's a very different aesthetic at work in the East and Midwest. Here, far too many of your colleagues have made a trade of ruthlessly renovating without looking seriously at classical design virtues. They dismiss the past with the wave of a CAD program.
Is restoration easy? Hell no, it requires thought, study, decision-making, interpretation. But it also requires a serious study of architecture tradition, and to dismiss that is really kind of casual.
-
I think that in discussions on this forum the term "restoration" is used interchangably with "renovation" or "rehabilitation."
Here is a widely accepted definition of "restoration" -
restoration means the act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appears at a particular time by means of the removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work."
A rehabilitation or renovation occurs for a variety of reasons. Let's take a bridge that was built in 1925... cars were a different size and weight in 1925 and so safety standards were different than those of today. If it was endeavored to bring the 1925 structure back to its glory it will need to meet today's safety standards... these compromises may cause it to be less authentic and thus a "rehabilitation".
Definition follows...
"Rehabiltiation" or "Renovation"-For historic properties or portions thereof which are of historical or architectural significance, renovation or rehabilitation means the act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portios or features of the property which are significant to it historical, architectural, cultural and archeological values.
I hope this helps clarify your question Forrest. :)
-
Patrick,
You cannot, I submit, restore any portion of a golf course accurately using old photos or written accounts. A golf course is too fluid to allow this. Rather, you are changing it back to, as you say, some of the values it once had. And you are good word: interpreting.
Now, today we have a wonderful technology called LIDAR, which is laser beams bouncing millions of times per second literally which are then received and recorder to form very accurate mapping of landforms, even down to the detail of blades of grass if that's what one desires. So, it WILL be possible to restore courses today in 100 years providing the LIDAR records and maintained. And, with GIS data, it will be possible to even restore to the exact moisture content of turf, dryness, or whatever.
But, to honestly use the word "restore" relative to golf courses today that were built long ago I don't buy it. The matter of whether we SHOULD evoke the styles of the past is another decision. I applaud such movement backwards in certain instances. But I almost always prefer the combination of old values and new values. It's more exciting.
I appreciate your comments. As to the green chairman's changes, well, that's part of the game. Usually not good, however, especially when a professional is not a part.
-
Brad,
Do you really think that many people read what you write? Get real, man, all of us here read it, but the lookouts in the crow's nest are too busy managing, playing and having fun!
(The above was meant to bother Brad, but he will never admit it.)
Let me be clear: I do not think changing courses is simple.
I take exception to the term modernizing. What does this mean? If a natural condition changes a course is that modernizing? If I change some bunkers on a Bell course so they are better than present but not quite Bell, is that modernizing? I suppose it's modernizing if it's done today...right?
Regarding the East / Midwest / West thing, let's discuss ratios. You are correct, there may well be less to appreciate in the West. But percentage-wise, which side of the country wins? And, just what constitutes a win?
Also, let me be clear about this: I am all for classical design virtues. You have been a great teacher of such values in your writing you know, the great pieces and works we all read, but...
Seriously, you have been a tremendous source of inspiration for classical design virtues but I really want to help propagate the race of these design values. Therefore I am more interested in the balance of embracing the old at times, but almost never at the cost of allowing design virtues which will be seen as classical in the next century.
-
nperiod,
Very thoughtful. You are correct, partially, my thread was meant to discuss this word we all use, but incorrectly in my view. Also, and perhaps greatest in importance, do we really ever want to approach "restoration"? In my view, it is the least crucial to golf's future and not entirely a good idea.
-
This is a very tough topic for those who don't understand the wideness of the swath that has been cut through the courses designed by Raynor, Ross, Tillinghast, etc. by lesser Architects, Club Presidents and Green Chairmen.
I am talking about golf courses that were at one time in the country and are now part of the near suburbs. Those that were graced at one time by the arrival of one of the above-mentioned gents. Those courses that had from the beginning a contiuity of style and form. Those courses crafted by the use of the land and a phenominally imaginative mind.
These are the thousands of great old courses that were built to be 6,500-7,000 yards and have no excess land to expand.
The real professionals of the Architecture business in the old days actually drew plans which we have today. Numerous governmental agencies have been kind enough to take aerial photographs of these courses, which are available to the public. When these tools are put in the hands of today's responsible professional Architect a course can be reconstructed fairly well. At least much of the original intent can be reinstalled and the contiuity of style will not be as horribly interrupted as it was under the hands of the renovator.
I have played hundreds of classic golf courses and can say that I have seen thousands of altered holes. In nearly all cases I have felt the impact on the course of the adulterators. I have seen practically no altered holes that have improved from original drawings or any that made the course more cohesive in style.
The work of the restorer is to remove from altered holes those elements that set it apart from those holes which have not been altered. It is difficult work, it takes a good deal of research and enormous attention to detail. For the lazy, egotistical architect (usually one with little or no stering in his credential) it is much easier to cut and paste modern appointments on a canvas that has been created by one greater than himself. That Architect is seeking the creation of a Ross/Moron course to enhance his reputation. The Professional Architect, on the other hand, will study the canvas and return it as best he can to a Ross course.
I know that true restoration can take place. It is difficult, ofttimes unpopular and certainly given to criticism from those who do not understand. The proof of its' benefit to our game, however, is in the ground. Go to Salem, Wannamoisett, Holston Hills, Pinehurst #2 and others and I feel you will understand much better.
-
Micheal,
In all due respect, Pinehurt No. 2 is nothing like it was when Mr. Ross first "finsihed" it in fact, he never finished it. How would you propose the subtle details of 200 acres be "restored" by looking at plans no larger than a coffee table and reproduced in crude form? Like I said, without LIDAR (or similar) technology we are but guessing and pondering what was there based on third and fourth hand information. Yet many would have us believe that we are being somehow loyal to the original architects with the word "restoration".
I guess I leaning toward "bunk" we change, pure and end-of-story. We might change to appear like the past, and embrace the past and uphold its ideals but we do this clearly in the modern time and we are better when we do it with our own creativity and zest.
If Tillinghast was a contributor to GCA he would agree with me, I am certain.
-
Ironically the best candidates for restoration are courses that have been left more or less pristine condition....they have evolved naturally and gracefully and have kept architects away for the most part. Courses like Addington, Chicago, Garden City, Royal Melbourne, Myopia Hunt, Essex County, Mayfield, Cypress Point, Yeamans Hall and St. Louis. Trees are a problem, greens shrink and perhaps a feature here or there has been lost, but the remnants remain and it can be recaptured without too much trouble. It is a major advantage to use the existing well preserved course to guide in restoring that same course, simply replicate what is already there instead of starting from scratch.
I think the problem in the past has been a lack of appreciation for the architects that came before. I think Forrest's attitude is continuation of the RTJ, Dick Wilson and Jack Snyder attitude. Few architects were really interested in the past (it wasn't a subject that they felt inclined to study--in fact the subject was pretty much ignored with the execption of a Wind) Some of these architects and their proteges might pay lip service, but that's about it. Very few went out of their way to study those maestros of the past--to discover why Ross or MacKenzie or Colt or Thompson's work was endurring. Some might visit their premier courses...but it seems to me they were more focused on what they percieved as weaknesses instead of focusing on why these designs worked so well. As result we are left with far too many less than inspiring courses--and ironically the same very old courses still dominate the seen. On the positive side I do see a change in attitude among many younger architects...and the recent results are evident.
The best arguement for the preservation and restoration of the past great designs is Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Rustic Canyon--those course are the fruits of architects that did appreciate and study the past.
-
Forrest:
-
Sorry, but do you think you can come in from nowhere and "restore"? Where are you going if your premiss is a void?
Or only a suggestion? Please define "Bunk"!
-
Tom,
I may not be as great a student of the past as you, but I have spent a great deal of time studying the past. I take from it what makes sense to a project or the need. I love Pacific Dunes, but most all of my friends from the UK would wonder why it was not more original to an American ideal. I would argue with them, but to no avail. Most Brits would find more to love about Pebble or Oldw Stonewall, a Hurdzan Fry layout that makes no sense in terms of what golf was meant to be, but is clearly American ingenuity at its best.
Oakmont might be the poster child for the American ideal "To heck with the British ideal", said the Fownes'. "We will do what we please and we will make it an original and CB MacDonald can have his link to the past what we are doing will define America in terms of golf courses."
Tom, it is very hurtful for you to suggest I may have no regard for the architects of the past. Gosh, I love the work of amnyb of these great architects and minds. What I am suggesting is that the very notion of continual bashing of new ideas on old layout is a very good direction to kill new thinking. We are in a different time. Do we need to embrace the past? Sure. But at what cost? I say let the creative juices flow and allow positive change to take place. It will not all be good, but what is all good? I am pretty much crying now at some of your comments, so please allow me some time to retreat with my family and watch a video. If it makes you feel better, I'll suggest a b/w film. OK?
-
Sorry about the typos, but I am truly hurt by Tom's cutting remarks.
Willie I do not buy the notion that anyone can literally "restore". Restoration is mostly not a good idea. What golf needs is a balance of old ideas combined with new ideas. Golf needs to be shaken up. Restoration, in its pure sense, will kill the spirit of new architects and all who love of the ever-changing canvas we play upon. I also have made some good points that you cannot "estore" to any degree of accuracy. Tom Doak did a wonderful job of changing the bunkers at The Valley Cklub, but with all of the other changes there his bunkers do not play, nor do the holes play, like they did originally. he made them better and he opted to link them to the past great. But his terrific wisdom also made them better, probably, than they were originally. This is not true restoration it is change. I applaud it. By the way, while he was there he could have improved some holes and I wish the cloub would have allowed it. My opinion.
-
Forrest Richardson,
I think the single most important factor in the mind of the architect has to be:
INTENT coupled with HONESTY
-
Forrest
To be honest I have no idea what you have studied and what you haven't studied. I am conservative by nature and cringe at anyone saying change for the sake of change is good - to me that seems to be a ludicrous notion with tragic possibilities. I'm all for creativity and originality but from my experience the most original and creative have a strong foundation in the past. In my mind preserving and restoring the most creative and original works promotes new creative and original artists.
If you have an attitude of new holds barred pretty soon you destroy the designs that will help guide and inspire new artists. It would be like stating "change is good lets blow up the Louvre" or "changes is good lets burn down Katsura and start over."
As Darwin said about the 9th at St. Andrews, no doubt it can be improved, but to alter it would not only insult tradition, a tradition that has endurred, but more importantly ruin the ballance and brillance of the golf course. It is easy for a student of golf architecture to analyze the 17th, 14th or 11th, but how many study the 9th, its weaknesses, and why it is perfectly placed.
I find it interesting that Simpson and Darwin went out of their way to praise bad or imperfect golf holes. Perhaps the same holes that you and Tom Doak would like to improve at the Valley Club.
-
Tom,
You make good points. Can you ever do it, though, without resorting to comparing a golf course to a building?
-
Patrick,
I think you have hit on a really important element. But the most important factor is to create a lush playground for the mind if that involves a link to the past, even restoration, then great...go for it. But if the site and condition calls for something else, best go for that. I suppose that is honesty, right?
-
I consider the Louvre a repository for great paintings, not a great building, and Katsura is an old garden.
I agree with your premise that restoration is an abused term. Bethapge, Aronimink and Olympia Fields are not restorations in my view. But I don't think the concept of preserving, protecting or restoring is an unrealistic or ill advised one.
-
I'm only familiar with the garden of Katsura. I've never been there. I think I may have flown over it at 30,000-ft. But I take the position that most gardens can and should change as a natural part of their growth which includes tinkering. In the case of such a famous garden, care should be taken to uphold the ideals of the original forms. It may well be that it SHOULD always be restored, and never changed.
It is obviously easier to truly restore a garden than it is a golf course. Depends of course on the size of the garden. Katsura, I believe, is quite small. To created detailed plans would be significantly easier and more common than finding such detailed as-built plans of a golf course. There are some terrific as-built plans of Oakmont, for example, but they are circa 2001 and guess what? They show a golf course changed hundreds of times. Are there any super accurate plans/records of classic courses? No. There are super accurate only of classic courses in their modern day state.
The Louvre is a building which is a vault for great works. I would never suggest we delete it or its holdings. It is there for that purpose and that purpose primarily. A golf course is not there for the sole purpose of housing golf holes as if museum-ed for ever. (By the way, some good friends of mine were a part of the architectural team which remodeled the Louvre and they did a great job as I can tell.)
Let me pose this question, Tom: If it IS possible to truly restore a golf course using old plans and records, then couldn't we conclude that such plans and records are, in and of themselves, enough of a record for us to cherish. Do we always need to attempt to preserve the actual golf course itself? Of course, my position is that we can't accomplish this in the field as too much will change. hence "restoration" is a bunk term which needs to be re-thought.
Again, the heart of my question to GCA-ers is whether we are being honest when we talk of "restoration". I say "no" with very few exceptions. Most all of what we have done to golf courses, and will do, is change them. The change we refer to as "restoration" is change which many times is falsely communicated as being "authentic" when in fact it is just using old and classic looks, most all of which are just attached to the course by approximating and borrowing from a kit of parts.
-
Again, it seems pretty fruitless to me for any of us to spend time on here discussing and arguing over exactly what the meaning of some word is.
At my course, we planned to do a restoration of our Ross course and to call it a restoration but the membership didn't seem to like the sound of the term "restoration" so we called our project an "improvement" but it really didn't matter at all because we did exactly the same thing as we planned to when we called it a "restoration" in the first place.
So in many ways the terms used are sort of meaningless, except regarding perception, but this remark by Brad Klein pretty much encapsulates the actual process of architectural restoration to me;
"Is restoration easy? Hell no, it requires thought, study, decision-making, interpretation. But it also requires a serious study of architecture tradition, and to dismiss that is really kind of casual."
Interpretation, if that's truly necessary, following a serious study of the architectural tradition of your golf course is the key idea to me. It has to be that way or one might restore something of even a great architect that never worked well in the first place, as well as the fact there're certain things that've come to pass that can actually make great old architecture even better than it ever was at its best back then. Elements involving agronomy particularly are such things.
Tom MacWood might say he doesn't view a course like Aronimink as a real restoration and perhaps it isn't in a technical sense. Ron Prichard went to great lengths to explain the need for certain "interpretation" to make Aronimink play better with today's game than it would have if he exactly recreated what Ross (or probably McGovern did there in the late 1920s or mid 1930s).
The question then becomes does Aronimink play better with its recent "Ross restoration" given a certain amount of interpretation in the spirit and tradition of Ross than it would today if it was more exactly recreated to what it was back then?
In my mind there is no question that it's better today in every way--playability, look, everything. And the fact that so many people, which includes plenty of so-called architectural purists who've seen and played the course with its recent restoration seem to feel that, is truly the proof of the pudding.
The real point here and the message of it is that Aronimink and Prichard tried as best as they knew how to both recreate what Donald Ross did architecturally on that golf course and at the same time make it work as well as it could with today's game.
The message, the perception and the central theme of it was DONALD ROSS and not something new and different from a Dick Wilson, Tom or George Fazio, Robert Trent Jones or Ron Prichard! And that's a very important perception and message to send out. The fact that Jack Nicklaus didn't seem to realize or understand that says nothing negative at all about Aronimink's recent Ross restoration, in my opinion. And what Aronimink has just done is about as good an example as can be found of a project dedicated to wiping away the evidence of what had become a redesigned golf course and returning it to Ross's design intent.
-
I have been exposed to the work of Ron Pritchard in my work in the golf course remodeling business. I have seen many self-annoited restoration experts but none have the vision to see what was in place before aggresive green chairman and ego dysfunctional architects "sharpened up" the original features. Mr. Pritchard has the ability to think like the original architect, check out the Seth Raynor restoration at Wanumetomony in Rhode Island to see a non-Ross restoration. His construction plans are true works of art. Nobody can interpret on paper what he wants in place like Ron Pritchard. Combine Mr. Pritchard with an experienced golf shaper and you have a happy client.
-
Ginger:
What you just said is the truth of it--I completely agree with you. If a club doing a restoration with Prichard can contract a really good shaper Ron can communicate with and have some faith in doing what he wants when he isn't on site the club is going to get a real good restoration project and product. But just like any other phase of restoration architecture the club just can't assume that any or all shapers are interchangeable when it comes to the finished product--far, far from it in fact.
It all gets back to the disagreement I have with Pat Mucci on this sort of stuff. Pat seems to think that the total responsibility rests with the club. In a way it does provided they understand upfront that not all architects or shapers and restoration crews are interchangeable. A golf club can ask for the exact same thing of different architects, shapers and crews and even in minute detail and the products still have the potential of turning out different--sometimes real different.
The best way to avoid this--the only way really, is for the club to just get out there and see what various architects, shapers and crews have done previous. For some reasons some clubs assume they're the first to be going through this process so they sometimes go through it in a bit of a vacuum of understanding despite how hard they may try to do the right thing and that's always a perscription for potential problems and dissatisfaction.
Communication, collaboration and education is the name of the game in restoration architecture. It just ain't as simple as most people think. And it sure isn't as simple as a lot of so-called architectural purists think. I used to think it was but the more one learns the more one understands that's not reality.
-
Forrest
As Japanese gardens go--I believe Katsura is pretty large. It is my understanding that one of the guiding principals of Japanese garden art is preservation. The scene you can see today is very similar to the scene of 200 or 300 years ago.
It seems to me that the purpose of the Louvre and other art museums is two fold. First to allow lovers of art to view and enjoy great works of art. But is also a place for young artists to study and appreaciate the methods of the past.
Oakmont has changed countless times, Pinehurst #2 was altered often, as was Myopia--all three were more or less labratories of architecture for a single architect. No one is claiming a golf course can not change--there are numerous examples of golf courses being improved. But as an admirer of great achitecture, when Fownes, Ross or Leeds leaves us an architectural masterpiece, and it has been for the most part preserved for many decades following their death, I don't want to see RTJ or Wilson or Forrest R tell us they can do it better, they can improve these courses, and change is good. Leave it alone for architects of the future to appreciate and to study. Build your own damn architectural experiment. Like the Louvre I see the purpose of Merion, Cypress Point and NGLA as two fold--the golfing pleasure of their membership and as great designs to be studied by future generations.
Regarding the idea of restoration being bunk. Obviously you can not restore a golf course EXACTLY to some date in the past--and not every golf course should be a canidate for restoration. But depending on the golf course it can be restored to a very close approximation of its architectural high point. IMO the best restorations are done in house--slowly and deliberately without the assistance of an architect (or minor assistance). I agree with your point about courses being altered or damaged in the name of restoration--I have voiced concerns with what has happened at Bethpage, Hollywood and other courses because it is my opinion unnecessary changes were made to very important designs.
The problem I have with your logic is that you seem to be saying it is impossible re-establish an exact copy (so restoration is futile) and that change is good. I understand your concern with shoddy restoration, but I don't understand your attitude that anything goes if we think we can improve an important golf course. Maybe you point of view is true with 95% of golf courses, but this site is about the other 5% and we should do everything we can to preserve and protect those courses.
-
Tom MacWood:
I couldn't agree more with your last post. I don't know whether it's 5% or what it is but I think too that certain courses have gotten to that point in their history where they not only deserve really accurate restoration if something went awry but certainly preservation if nothing has gone awry. It does get to be problematic and complicated,though, when some of that really great architecture and some of those really great courses hold tournaments like the US Open--or try to.
-
Forrest:
Horsefeathers:
"but we do this in the modern time and we are better with our own creativity and zest".
I would have loved to be able to curtail the "own creativity and zest" of the army of bad Architects that worked on Ross courses over the years. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent undoing this "creativity and zest".
Why do Architects insist on changing old classic golf courses yet shy away from the crappy courses that were created in the 50's. 60's and 70's? Simple, an Architect gets no notice for fixing a course of no reputataion.
I no not one person that says don't design a course this or that way. If you have a blank canvas do what you will. I'll play the course at least once. If I like it I'll go back. If not, well that is what makes ballgames.
The essence is that the Masters of Design only did so much work. Do you really feel that that work should be sprinkeled with the work of an uninitiated? If you do you really should not be in the business.
-
The arrows are coming and I am ducking. But I'll respond anyway.
1. I've never said the idea of "restoration" is ill-advised; only that in its literal sense it is mostly impossible.
2. I absolutely support the careful and thoughtful "interpretation" of classic courses, especially those that are so well preserved already and also those that are so worldly admired.
3. I do not think plans and aerials and written accounts can truly put a golf course back to an exact point in time and the fact that it may get restored only puts it to a specific era, not what it was after the day it opened. Yes golfers believe this many times; thinking they are playing nearly exactly as it was.
4. Why shouldn't we discuss the terminology of golf architecture? Our language is important and so are written accounts.
(Observation: TEPaul's ascertion that this is a useless discussion means he only writes 600 words instead of 900!)
5. Future generations of golfers will benefit from a balanced approach to golf architecture in today's world. Existing courses are part of the canvas of designers and really no canvas is totally blank as there are always restraints which are part of the fun and charm. If a course may be improved and "interpretation" made that will bring old looks and strategies into the holes and this is right then it should be done. But also, if there are new ideas and improvements and even daring designs that are right, then these should at least be welcomed with open minds.
6. Re-read No. 2 above.
7. Golf courses are living, breathing entities. They are not museums, although some are nearly such as they have been so greatly preserved that they are wonderful to visit and learn from. Most all of these, however, have been "interpretaed", not "restored". Perhaps all of them. The pictures on the walls of the locker rooms are the better history lessons as these give us a better record of what was there than the ground itself.
8. Regarding the 95% and 5% comment, I find this "talking down" to the world of golf a very disappointing feeling among posters here. Our role should not be to curl up around our collective fireplaces and never venture out. We need to embrace the uninformed and the casual golfer and bring them into our thoughts. We need to show them good, bad and ugly. There may always be a trend to discuss the 5%, but this does not mean we tune out or elevate ourselves.
9. Uninitiated? Hummmm. I am not wild about some of the changes to The Old Course, but I would hardly call the men who spent time "sprinkeling" their thought across it "uninitiated." Many Ross courses have been changed, and many not for the better. Fortunately, some have been changed, and some for the better. There is some great Ross writing and imagery. This, together with the mostly-preserved courses, are fine with me. A student can find out all he wants about Ross much more than most classic era architects.
Thank you all for your comments and thoughts. I will await the next volley of arrows.
-
Forrest:
I don't think this is a useless discussion at all just that constant nitpicking over various words is to me--and I really love words and terms. A really good restoration under any other name is still a really good restoration. I think it's important to talk about what a really good restoration is given the necessities of today's golf not just what it's called.
And about the 95% vs 5%--I don't see anything wrong with categorizing it that way. Probably not much more than 5% of American architecture is worth restoring anyway. That's seems to be the way Tom Doak feels about it anyway.
And as far as some architects being good restorers and others not--frankly I really don't think it's all that hard to tell the difference anymore--at least I don't think it is for me. I believe I can sense in about one minute if any architect is really interested in the old classic style architecture and restoring it and if he really isn't.
That's what was so interesting about listening to Tom Fazio speak about it in a restoration forum. He doesn't even pretend to be particularly interested in restoration. He even mentioned he swore 25 years ago he'd never do it again since he lost so much money doing restoration with his uncle. That's why I think an architect like that should stick to what he likes, knows and is very good at--new course construction.
-
So this has been reduced to a discussion of semantics. No you cannot completely restore a golf course. If you restore it to a time period it is changing the golf course.
If you want and have the talent you can restore a course to nearly its beginnings. If you work real hard you can return it to a time period. In either case you are changing the course. If you can return the continuity of style and design you have probably succeeded at doing something very good, but Forrest does not call this "restoration".
Well, Forrest, I live in the burgh of West Hartford, CT, the home of Noah Webster. Upon consultation with his dictionary, I find the return to style and design to conform with the definition of restoration.
As for the creativity and zest, put a sock in it. Destruction of classic golf courses by those who have never dione any work of note is desecretion and egotism of the nth degree.
-
It's not "restoration" unless you can somehow prove to me that something is being "restored". When you restore an ideal or a style, that is, as someone pointed out, "interpretation" to a classic style. When John Doe architect, who let's say is very good at knowing classic styles and is a great student of a particular architect, attacks a course he is changing it as if he were the original architrect, maybe in some areas almost exactly. But in most areas, he's just making changes based on a language that the original architect left behind.
And that is similar to building re-created Five and Diners with signage and details which evoke the original. Cool, very cool. But we only need so many in my view.
-
Left sock or right sock?
-
Forrest:
From the looks of things on this thread it doesn't just seem to be a 'volley of arrows' as you were expecting it seems to be more like cruise missiles and a squadron of F-16s. I think it's a pretty good subject when it deals with just architecture and not necessarily what it's called. And no, I really don't want to parse the differences or similarities in meaning between arrows and cruise missiles---all I know is both fall from the sky and both can sort of smart if they hit you. ;)
-
As I said it has become semantics.
Honestly, Forrest, do you think that we should encourage the work of green chairmen and fledgling Architects on the courses of the Masters?
There are a lot of Picasso's, Renoirs and Monets, should we decide the lesser works and restyle the other canvasses?
There are thousands of crappy golf courses to fix. Fix them and leave those that were designed by people who actually knew what they were doing alone.
You have been walking the fine line of intellectual dishonesty from the beginning of this thread. Now it is time to fish or cut bait. Do you think that the Green Chairman at your course should be allowed to say renovate Merion? If your answer is no, then the thread is moot. If your answer is yes, I can recommend spas for people who are deeply disturbed.
-
"I can recommend spas for people who are deeply disturbed."
michael j fay:
I thought spas were for people who drank too much or were too fat. Sanitoriums are for people who are deeply disturbed. And if someone was so disturbed that they didn't care for any attempt at remediation in a sanitorium they could always move to New York or New Jersey and feel right at home. Pat Mucci lives in New Jersey and frequents New York, BTW--and one can hardly get more deeply disturbed than Patrick!
-
TEPaul,
In your response to Ginger,
You conveniently left out the critical if not vital ingredient.
A knowledgeable leader with vision.
That's what makes the difference.
Brad Klein,
It was my understanding that there was no committee at Seminole.
-
I began with the following: "Golf course architecture is about designs, holes, conditions, edges, roughness, plant growth and death, changes in terrain, personal influences, green committees, players gripes, preparations for tournaments, changes due to equipment, changes due to the environment, owners wishes, etc. these affects are what makes the game so interesting. In my view we spend far too much time worrying about "restoring" and too little time finding the new blood; the new frontiers; and, of course, the appropriate links to the past."
This was also written in context of the idea that it remains a problem for us to use the word "restoration" when we really are talking about change and in the case of most GCA-ers, this change (what they might call "restoration") is the kind of change they embrace, which is to say, change to a style and influence they THINK the original architect may have wanted.
I'll fish, thank you. I detest cutting bait and would rather drink vodka over lake ice and fish without any bait. In fact, I once got tired of cutting bait and simply hooked a lure to my line viola! Caught the best walleye of the day.
Michael, I do not expect to win this debate with you. Especially over use of the word. I have never suggested it is good to have a green committee or chairman redesign. But it is a reality. It is part of golf. As for having a handle on who knew what they were doing and who didn't, I applaud your mastering this for all of us. That is quite an accomplishment. I'd suggest that you write a book so we can all learn from your thesis on this subject. I'll put a copy away for my daughter so in 60 years she can read it and see how your 2003 opinions stack up.
Of course, by that time, she will have just completed her latest "restoration" of a Fazio course maybe even a "restoration" of a Fazio "restoration" of a Golden Age architrect's work which had been "restored" by some well-regarded "restoration expert" who "restored" this early work which had already been "restored" by several others, including the green chairman. The good news is that she will have lots of photos, plans, records, the entire digital content of GCA and your book alerting her of the tragedy inflicted by those you deem un-masters.
-
Forrest
Hang in there. I fought this fight a few years ago on this and won. Even Tom MacWood had to concede then that some "renovations" of great courses led to better venues. You only need to go to the "Ross Flashed Bunker" thread to see that even with some of the leading Ross scholars and admirers and both of the Duelling Doyens involved, NOBODY has a clue as to how the greens at Pinehurst #2 came to be what they are!--we'll, actually each of them pretend to have a clue, but each of their clues is completely different......
So if, for example, you wanted to restore P#2's greens to Ross's "original intent", or whatever, what would you do? Anybody?
-
While you debate this and trash me I'll be headed to play golf. Enjoy.
-
"In your response to Ginger,
You conveniently left out the critical if not vital ingredient.
A knowledgeable leader with vision.
That's what makes the difference."
Patrick:
I realize that, but how many clubs have a knowledgeable leader with real architectural vision? And it appears to me you're still willing to place the blame for architectural mistakes squarely on any golf club and its membership no matter their leadership and you seem to hold all architects, contractors, whatever, blameless no matter how inexperienced memberships and their leaders are. What you say sounds good, it sounds convenient, but architects know better than most of us what goes on with the leadership and memberships of most golf clubs. And all architects and contractors simply don't look at restoration or classic architecture the same way.
I know a couple of clubs who got a really good restoration product and will probably never really understand how lucky they were just because they happened to pick a great restoring architect without knowing it not understanding that all architects aren't basically the same. And I know a few other clubs who really tried hard to do the right thing and were disappointed because they also thought any architect and any contractor could do a great job for them if they just told them what to do.
I don't know why we keep disagreeing about this. A leader with vision is really important of course but you show me a leader of vision that picked any old architect and any old contractor and got a really good restoration on a classic golf course. If a golf club had a leader with the kind of architectural vision you seem to be implying he probably wouldn't even need an architect. But how many people at clubs doing restorations know as much about restoring classic courses as the restoring architects you and I know and respect?
-
Is your goal to become a target of arrows or do you believe everything that you spew forth? I sense you get some sick pleasure out of being contraversial....a quick way not be taken seriously. :)
1. I've never said the idea of "restoration" is ill-advised; only that in its literal sense it is mostly impossible. You must have an unrealistic definition of restoration.
2. I absolutely support the careful and thoughtful "interpretation" of classic courses, especially those that are so well preserved already and also those that are so worldly admired. We agree.
3. I do not think plans and aerials and written accounts can truly put a golf course back to an exact point in time and the fact that it may get restored only puts it to a specific era, not what it was after the day it opened. Yes golfers believe this many times; thinking they are playing nearly exactly as it was. Who restores golf courses with only plans, aerials and written accounts? I assume most resotrations--especially sensative ones--rely on many tools including walking and studying the site and archiological probing. Archiological probing...I'm not sure that's legal in many small towns in Ohio.
4. Why shouldn't we discuss the terminology of golf architecture? Our language is important and so are written accounts. There is nothing wrong with the terms just the people using them.
5. Future generations of golfers will benefit from a balanced approach to golf architecture in today's world. Existing courses are part of the canvas of designers and really no canvas is totally blank as there are always restraints which are part of the fun and charm. If a course may be improved and "interpretation" made that will bring old looks and strategies into the holes and this is right then it should be done. But also, if there are new ideas and improvements and even daring designs that are right, then these should at least be welcomed with open minds. Ballanced approach--what the hell is that? It sounds like code for I think I might be able to improve the 9th at St.Andrews. I disagree that the important works can be improved and interpretations made --as soon as you start moving hazards from their natural position and imposing your ideas of strategy over the ideas of the architect, the course is on its way to being ruined as the work of that past master architect. Who said that a hazard that effected a shot seventy years ago needs to effect a golfer today? And what about a hazard that was out of play seventy years ago that now dominates. Leave it alone, the architecture has a funny way of adjusting on its own. Most of these old guys understood how the strategy of the Old Course changed as the gutty was replced by the Haskel.
6. Re-read No. 2 above.#5 contradicts #2.
7. Golf courses are living, breathing entities. They are not museums, although some are nearly such as they have been so greatly preserved that they are wonderful to visit and learn from. Most all of these, however, have been "interpretaed", not "restored". Perhaps all of them. The pictures on the walls of the locker rooms are the better history lessons as these give us a better record of what was there than the ground itself. Homes are living breathing entities; Japanese gardens are living breathing entities. Neither one of them are museums...however when they become recognized as great works they are preserved, protected, restored and studied. Golf courses are no different...unfortunately the practioners of the craft...the golf architects....have historically been unable to recognize this, they have been the biggest enemies to their own profession's legacy. Ironic that the best way to preserve great architecture is to keep architects away from it.
8. Regarding the 95% and 5% comment, I find this "talking down" to the world of golf a very disappointing feeling among posters here. Our role should not be to curl up around our collective fireplaces and never venture out. We need to embrace the uninformed and the casual golfer and bring them into our thoughts. We need to show them good, bad and ugly. There may always be a trend to discuss the 5%, but this does not mean we tune out or elevate ourselves.You misunderstood. 5% of the golf courses are what this site is about not 5% of the golfing public.
9. Uninitiated? Hummmm. I am not wild about some of the changes to The Old Course, but I would hardly call the men who spent time "sprinkeling" their thought across it "uninitiated." Many Ross courses have been changed, and many not for the better. Fortunately, some have been changed, and some for the better. There is some great Ross writing and imagery. This, together with the mostly-preserved courses, are fine with me. A student can find out all he wants about Ross much more than most classic era architects.You can learn more about Ross by visiting his untouched 9-hole courses sprinkled throughout Ohio than you can by reading Golf has Never Failed Me. If you have both even better. Hopefully I haven't let the cat out of the bag and I'll find an Arizona liscence plate in Lancaster...Forrest working his 'interpretation' magic.
-
TEPaul,
I never said that architects and contractors were blameless.
I indicated what was necessary for a successful project, and it starts with a knowledgeable individual, with vision, and control.
I realize that some clubs don't have that resource.
On the other hand, some clubs do, but don't consult with them, and it's not only regarding architecture, but a myriad of issues. Politics plays a role, sometimes a major role, and determines the final outcome of any project.
Another factor is, what is the collective architectural IQ of the membership, and their connection with their club's architectural history ?
-
Forrest, your thread title implies that this a black or white matter.
Now wouldn't that be a tidy package? ;)
Here are the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Its what is agreed upon as a standard and
the best we have for now.
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other properties, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
-
I hesitate to jump in because I really feel that the two Toms and ginger (who I wish would participate more) have eloquently stated many of the things I believe, yet can't express so well.
But, I don't fail to appreciate the efforts of Forrest to stimulate and hang in with a fascinating debate that really makes this website sparkle. I fear this comes with Forrest getting a bit of the spanking in the woodshed, as opposed to the stings of arrows. But, Forrest is a gutsy architect who does have the balls to participate in this website discussion and sometimes take his lumps, and perhaps one of about 2-3% of architects in the wide spectrum who are so engaging. I dare say most professional archies in the world now know of this site, yet are unwilling for reasons (perhaps fear or ego) to be challenged on their own ideas, (those that have them).
To continue to challenge Forrest's sensitivities further, I will make the observation that he seems to be one who is perhaps contemplating an opportunity to "interpret" via reconstruction techniques a certain classic and olden age golf course originally done by a recognised master. If so, perhaps Forrest came to the one place where he is going to get some serious discussion about the ethics, sensibilities and demand for accountability for such work.
Personally, I think that one should only approach one of the <5% truly historic and traditional restorations/interpretations of one of the masters after gaining experience having done such minor league work on some of the other 95% of good old courses that have elements and flashes of brilliance from the bygone master's days. One won't know if they have what it takes to lay hands on the tiny few worthy old classics left, unless they develop the skills, techniques, team of constructors-shapers whom the archie can truly communicate with (as Ginger said). After the archie makes his bones on some of those less than holy yet great old courses in the 95%. Then and only then can he step into the big leagues. I think probably Pritchard, Doak, Forse, and Silva have reached that level with the right crews.
-
Well, Tom, I've checked with my wife and you are, in fact, wrong on most accounts. I am sorry to inform you of this, but that's the way it is sometimes.
And, yes, I do believe everything I "spew" forth, as you put it. At least my spewing seems to have chunks, whereas your's is rather a weak dribble of comparisons pitting golf courses against buildings, Japanese gardens and museums.
Trust me: Trying to restore any portion of a classic golf course using any available means is, at best, a 30% certainty. It will take a professional's input to get it even partially straight. The question is not "why bother", but to what end do we go to restore and be able to call it a restoration?
I do undertstand your opinion and will rest knowing you are firm in your belief that a golf course can be restored. I respect your opinion in this regard, and the others.
-
nperiod,
Did you that edict come from a Monty Python script? Tell me, has The Old Course been "restored"? Give me some examples so I can understand how such a place as TOC has been "restored".
-
Forrest,
I agree with you.
The Old Course has never been restored, it evolves with every change of Head Greenkeeper and still does. I spoke to one of them last year and his attitude was that they do listen to advice but then go about their business doing whatever THEY feel themselves is right for the course.
The course has changed and has never been restored. Thank goodness for that or we would still be playing 22 holes up and down and not the 18 holes we have now. We wouldn't have the 17th hole as it is now or even the first green put in by Old Tom.
These were the professionals of the day in the same way that Architects these days are the men that are the professionals.
What is restoration...? Restoration to WHAT?
With a restoration (if we are going to call it that) there will always be a certain amount of evolving as well. To restore from old drawings is a good start but if people here really believe that all old drawings are accurate then they are GREATLY mistaken.
Do people here really believe that a constructor actually builds acurately to drawings drawn by the architect?
Yes, most of the time they are close but thank goodness many times they use our drawings as a good start and if they see something better then they go with their instincts. Many times they get it spot on and the odd time we have to change it. We produce professional drawings and they are accurate but I still rely on a good shaper and an understanding foreman.
Looking at Ross' drawings in Kleins book there is a lot of guesswork still left to the constructor. Even the beautiful green drawings are left to intrepretation by a professional constructor. Speaking from my experience as a constructor I could do a lot with with those drawings that are probably not even close to what Ross would have wanted.
Can anyone show me drawings of golf courses from the golden age that are As-built..? I have seen many drawings before construction but I have never seen ANY after construction..
If we were to do a restoration to a MacKenzie course from his drawings...god help us. His drawings leave so much to intrepretation it is ridiculous to even wonder what he wanted sometimes. That is why he usually left in the hands of a man he trusted.
So lets imagine for a minute..Cypress Point is now looking like shit...the greenkeepers have filled in bunkers and the edges have gone and you have MacKenzie's drawings and you have an aerial photo of Cypress Point from when it opened.
Do you really believe you could restore Cypress Point to what it looked like on opening day? No Way. It just cannot be done.
Restoration...there is no such thing. How can you restore a living thing? If you cut your hair are you restoring it or are you just looking after it? If you start training and quit smoking and quit drinking are restoring your body to what it was or are you just looking after your body?
When an Architect is brought in (hopefully one as sympathetic as Prichard) he will help not to restore a course to it's former glory but help and guide the club to start looking after it again and show them what they had or can have.
Another good example is Ron Prichard's drawings. They are much better than Ross' drawings and much more constructor friendly....this is the evolution of our profession. Look at page 303 of Kleins book and you will understand what I mean.
I don't like the word restoration or renovation. I don't know what we should call it. To me we are just doing our job and hopefully making a lot of people happy by showing them what they had and by looking after it correctly it will evolve over time without too much change to the character. The Old course has changed and evolved but it is still The Old course to me and you.
Brian
-
Mr. Phillips
What restorations have you seen in person that can back you post?
-
Forrest
You have some very strong opinions on the subject, but you've never defined what you are talking about. What is your definition of restoration? What are some the better restorations you have undertaken or seen?
Your 30% number is similar to the tone of your opening post. "Golf courses are ever-changing, and to "restore" any portion of a course is a near impossibility."
You seem to want to turn restoration into a process of absolutes. It would seem to me that every situation is unique. Is a restoration of a Raynor course comparable to a restoration of a Strong course? Is it a 30% certainity that the superitendent at Chicago GC - I take it you consider some superitendents professionals - could restore it back to a close approximation of 1924? What percentage would you put on Pebble Beach (1929), Bel-Air (1927), Oakmont (1935), Timber Point (1927), Merion (1930) or Lawsonia (1933)? Any of these higher or lower than 30%?
IMO each of these courses would present different challenges.
Brian
Do you believe the current in-house restoration at Cypress Point has been a failure?
Is a Raynor bunker a living thing? Is a Travis mound a living thing? What about expanding the surface of a Ross green....is that impossible because the green is living? What's your thought on choping down Old Gramps tree....impossible because a golf course is a living thing?
I personally do not believe the ability to draw is the key to restoration (or new work for that matter). I would think craftsmanship and an intimate familarity with the subject matter would be key.
Other than Prichard who has said they restore a golf course by following an old architect's drawings?
-
No one wants to restore the Old course. No one has ever wanted to restore the Old course. The Old course has been about preservation for the last 50 or more years. To bring into a converstaion regarding restoration it seems to me just muddies the water.
-
Reestauration,
I have never seen a restoration as they don't exist...
I played Aronimink last year and would not class it as a restoration more of an interpretation of a classic and isn't that what Prichard also stated..?
Not that I know much about the course but I do understand how a golf course is built and designed.
I think some of you are missing the point Forrest is making.
Can anyone really restore a course back to it's ORIGINAL design?
With new greenkeeping practices and the way golf is played today is it possible and where is the proof that a perfect restoration has taken place?
When someone shows me an As-built drawing from a course that is older than my Dad with all the heights and distances on it then I will believe that a course might be restored.
Tom,
Is putting concrete underneath the bunkers to retain the shape a restoration or an improvement? I haven't seen the changes so I cannot comment.
How can we ever prove that a restoration is possible and what is the definition of it in golf terms?
I agree that drawings are not the only important thing during construction but without them how is an architect supposed to restore something? Investigate as much as you want but without accurate drawings you will always come down to INTERPRETATION of photos and hearsay from old members and greenkeepers.
Brian
-
No one wants to restore the Old course. No one has ever wanted to restore the Old course. The Old course has been about preservation for the last 50 or more years. To bring into a converstaion regarding restoration it seems to me just muddies the water.
The Old course is not about preservation. It changes more than people even realise..It evolves every year and new tees are put in all the time without most visitors actually knowing anything about them.
Bunkers have been filled in and dug up again, hotels have had extensions on them the greens have been top dressed, the cutting edges have changed on the greens and only until recently did they decide accurately where they where. Why? Because the course evolved and installed irrigation and now use the heads as guides to where the greens should be cut.
Brian
-
Brain
Regarding CPC, I believe you said ' No Way. It just cannot be done.' So I guess you would characterize their on going attempt as a futile. Correct?
Are you saying you can not look at a shrunken Ross green and with the assistance of an old aerial restore the green to its former size?
Why did they rebuild the bunkers every so often at the Old course....I thought it was in an attempt to preserve them?
-
Since it seems semi-impossible that anyone will come to terms or any kind of agreement about what restoration is or can be I'd like to list a number of courses that've gone through what's been called restoration and tell you what I think about those projects.
1. Merion. Plays better than it did pre-restoration although I've been on record for a long time as saying I think the "look" of the bunkers missed the mark. The rest of the restoration has basically been very strong though.
2. Philadelphia C.C. A restoration that's made the course play better than previous and also look better.
3. Lancaster C.C. Same as #2
4. Gulf Stream G.C. The course plays much better than it did as long as I've known it although I'm not certain what was removed in the intervening years that was original Ross before the restoration. The course looks too clean to me though.
5. Mountain Lake C.C. The course plays much better than it did previous although like #4 I don't really know what the club did in intervening years that altered original Raynor before the restoration. The look of the restoration seems pretty interpretive to me and almost a Raynor carricature but again it plays much better.
6. Fox Chapel G.C. Plays better than previous although the look may be a bit the same as #5 but again plays better.
7. Oakmont. Both plays better and looks better than it did previous.
8. Huntingdon Valley G.C. Plays better and looks better than it did previous.
9. Plainfield G.C. Plays better and looks better than previous.
10. Aronimink G.C. Plays much better and looks much better than previous.
So I'm not real sure what anyone wants to call those projects exactly although all the clubs seem to call them restorations to some time or another. But all in all I think the projects should have been done and in most cases should be considered a success.
But there're are some others that I can't get so sanguine about such as Sunnybrook, Riviera, perhaps what Manor is about to do. I wish the C.C. of Cleveland the very best of luck and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. And I really wish despite even the up-coming US Open that Shinnecock would leave their "look" alone (and restore some of Flynn's sandy waste areas) although it's fine with me that they're using up some of the remainder of Flynn's elasticity where they should and the way they should.
A couple of other excellent restorations in my opinion are TCC and Kittansett. And my own club GMGC seems to have come through its first phase very well.
-
Forrest,
I've enjoyed following this thread and reading the spirited debate. This is another one of those "no one is right and no one is wrong" situations. It's all a matter of personal opinion and intrepretation.
My own feeling is that we all know it is near impossible to take something that naturally evolves and return it back to exactly what it once was. Something that naturally evolves will by definition, change. Sometimes those changes are for the better, sometimes for the worse.
The key to me is understanding (as best one can) the design intentions of the original layout and deciding if what was originally there was a better and more interesting design then the present. An architect who studies a course in that manner, who has an appreciation for what the orginial architect was all about, and who utilizes all the information he can gather, at least gives "some respect" to the past design and then can proceed accordingly in the best interest of everyone.
I have a problem when someone comes to a course ready to make a presentation on how the place should be improved and states, "Now who was it who designed this course"! It's a total lack of respect. Unfortunately, most guys are looking to leave their own mark and couldn't really care what was there in the first place.
The secret to a successful "course improvement project" is to find someone willing to study and properly intrepret the evolution of the design and make recommendations from there. At the end of the day, it is still a judgement call what gets done but at least most bases were covered in the assessment.
The beauty about dirt, is that though expensive, you can always move it again.
Mark
-
Mark
When I hear an architect claim he undrestands the original architects 'design intentions' we are on the road to destruction of that golf course. Trent Jones claimed he understood what Ross was doing at Oakland Hills, same with the Fazio group at Riviera, didn't Rees say he was going to finish Bethpage for Tillinghast?
The secret to a successful "restoration project" is to find someone willing to leave his design and interpretations skills at the door.
-
Forrest,
I am not suprised that you, with your hard posed opinions, are unfamiliar with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabiltiation. This path is worn from the travel of many before you. I have offered you guidlelines and definitions already established and in use and you dismiss this as comedy.
I hope you will consider this to help give you comfort...there is such a thing as an "historic adaptation of the orginial property" where "a property can be significant not only for the way it was orginally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing attitudes, and uses over a period of time."
One other thing, one can assume the impossiblity of creating an exact and true restoration of anything. That understood one can move beyond the nitniod into the world of adapations and rehabiltiations, of which there are both good and bad examples.
Herein lies the arbiters' bounty.
Enjoy!
Wink, I'll do the rest.
-
I'd appreciate a simple answer to a question from the architects and people in the business who think they can improve old classic golf courses.
Why don't you just use those talents to build great modern golf courses from scratch and leave the work of others alone? Why the need to touch and improve upon the work of others when you can build greater courses yourself? Why the "need" to do renovation work at all?
-
Tom,
I hear what you are saying and you are right in many circumstances. At the end of the day, however, if any changes/improvements/restorations call them what you want, are going to be made to a course, someone has to oversee that work and make a judgement what should be done and what the finished product should look like. There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle that need close review and intrepretation.
Mark
-
Tom,
If the intention of CPC was to 'restore' the bunkers to the same as opening day then yes they are attempting something futile and pointless. If they are attempting to preserve or protect something like bunkers then they are not restoring then they are protecting or preserving. The work at CPC (from what I have heard) is not a restoration project but a protection project.
The bunkers at TOC have to be resodded every 5 years or so because of wear and tear. The current (as in the last twenty years) Road hole bunker looks NOTHING like the original road hole bunker it has evolved. The original bunker was not even that high it looked more like a Royal County Down bunker than a real sodded bunker. The bunkers at TOC change all the time. Hell bunker is not as high as it used to be this year as they struggled with the construction this year. It fell down once..so rather than risk lives it is not as high as it normally is.
Did you know that there are sprinkler heads in the turf of the wall on this bunker to keep it moist?
Geoffrey,
If as a mechanic you were asked to fix an old car that looked tatty and you knew or thought you could make it look better would you not attempt to do it? The problem with many of the human race especially us architects is that we sometimes have too much confidence in our own work.
I think this website helps and now the interaction between architects is improving that we might see a change over the next coming years.
I don't think all architects should involve themselves in trying to improve the classics but how many of us have the balls or the honesty to turn down work like that?
I think Pat is right on many accounts but the most important point is the CHOICE of architect and the reasons for choosing the architect. To improve without an ego trip is the most important message I would like to give anyone.
Brian
-
Thank each of you for your comments.
nperiod I do realize that the historic restoration of property is a legal term in the U.S. In 1985 we had an option to restore an old farmhouse, but it was so far gone at the time that the technical restoration was futile. So we embraced a plan to put back what we could, use historic colors, etc. It went very well and, when done, we had a nice farmhouse that did not fall down. I officed there until 1998. I guess I "Interpreted" the charm and details of 1917, but did not follow the guidelines of "restoration". I also paid a higher tax rate!
Mark Fine, you make good points. The comments about architects who do not even know who designed the original are obviously malpractice-based. I do not think anyone suggests this is good policy, or acceptable behavior. Now, if the course's history is so confusing and chopped up, I can see whay, at some point, one might opt to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.
Brian, thank you for clarifying some of my points. You are an excellent editor! Regarding CPC, just for the fact that trees, some of which are now "sacred", and drifts, and erosion (water and wind) have changed the course; putting bunkers or some areas back to the original would be, yes, "futile". Is what they are doing currently "futile" no! But they are not as much restoring as they are renovating and improving and adapting and interpreting changes based on what MacKenzie and Hunter left behind. And they are doing this with great regard for TODAY's conditions and needs. MacKenzie himself would not come back and profess to be able to put things back exactly not only would he have forgotten many things, but he also would recognize the need to make it better, play more to today's game, and place less stress on the greenkeeper wherever possible.
Let me share a story:
At Oakmont just a few weeks ago, Jack Snyder gave a short talk about his time there in 1950-52, and also about his dad's time on the crew beginning in 1907 (caddying) and later working to build features and take care of the course. Here, some fifty years after Jack's tenure as Superintendent of Grounds, the Oakmont historians had the story behind the No. 8 green pretty much wrong. How is this possible? This is a big club with historians, records, some drawings, about $20,000 worth of aerial photographs, a line of architects who have done work (many living still) and, without question, a bunch of very smart individuals at the helm. But even with all this they held the idea that the No. 8 green was re-built to accommodate the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Hogwash! Snyder re-built the No. 8 green because it was simply too difficult for people to hold a ball when played as a par-3. Even the pros who played there were at 1-in-4 when facing the 8th. So, Snyder carefully created a rise at the right side, re-shaped the surface so one might be able to better hold a shot, and put in a new forward tee for the ladies. It was not so subtle, either. But no drawings and very little record keeping. So, now we have people thinking one thing about an area of the course that is but only 1/18 or less of the total. Imagine the stories of all the other areas.
Golf is about CHANGE. Brian's comments about The Old Course are well written to support this. We can call it "restoration" if you all think that is fair and representative...but to me, the honest and most appropriate term has not yet been offered here. Golf is unlike any other pastime it is my viewpoint that we need to describe what we do to golf courses this "restoration / interpretation / change / betterment / etc." with a term (or terms) that have been carefully chosen so we do not leave a false impression of what has been done. I say this because I see what happens we later generations take literally some of the accounts we leave behind. Will it be assumed in the year 2042 that CPC was, in 2003, put back exactly like it was originally? Well, it might if we call what is going on today a "restoration".
-
Brian
Myopia Hunt Club is an old relic, a museum piece if you will. Its greens are for the most part disks on the land cut to greens height. To use your analogy, its like a Model T car. As a mechanic I could absolutely improve its performance by installing a Corvette engine, some new brakes, a firm suspension and racing tires. Why not just buy a Corvette and leave the museum piece alone or better still fashion custom parts to restore its original engine, replace the leather on its seats, custom fit the old tires to factory specs and give it a nice new paint job?
Your statement "I don't think all architects should involve themselves in trying to improve the classics but how many of us have the balls or the honesty to turn down work like that?" is pretty telling and dangerous. Brian, please go out and build your own/ the next modern Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, Harbortown or set the next modern trend with your original work. Don't touch the Myopia Hunt Clubs unless you have the patience and thoughtfullness to keep a model T as a Model T and NOT make it into a Corvette.
-
Geoff,
I'm all for keeping Myopia Hunt Club in its current state and with its charm of old. While I've never visited but would like to I have an appreciation for it and other clubs with the same great attributes. But, from what I can discern, even it has evolved over the years. Are you for keeping it the way it is because it exists as it is now during your generation here on earth? Or, do you think the current evolution is the very best it has ever been and it would not be better to go back to another point in time and change it back? And, finally, if you do believe it has never, ever been altered, explain how you have come to this belief.
-
Geoff,
I forgot an analogy: My father, who passed away a few years ago, spent his life as an engineer and restoring cars. Front-wheel drive Cords, mostly. He improved them, but always kept the original intest. But, even if he were to 100% RESTORE a Cord, he would have a good chance as it is made up of gears, metal, interlocking parts, and a bit of wood. All elements which can, with exactness, be re-created and truly RESTORED. A golf course is, by design and magic, none of these parts and none of this exactness. So, I think your Model T comparison is no better than Tom's reach to Wright buildings or museum collections. I have other thoughts on this, but later.
-
Forrest
My Model T analogy was a direct reply to Brian's post where he answered my question with
"Geoffrey,
If as a mechanic you were asked to fix an old car that looked tatty and you knew or thought you could make it look better would you not attempt to do it? The problem with many of the human race especially us architects is that we sometimes have too much confidence in our own work."
To answer your questions (Are you for keeping it the way it is because it exists as it is now during your generation here on earth? Or, do you think the current evolution is the very best it has ever been and it would not be better to go back to another point in time and change it back? And, finally, if you do believe it has never, ever been altered, explain how you have come to this belief.)
I used Myopia as an example because it is as much a museum piece as any course I can think of un the USA. Hopefully it can show us how perhaps the best course of its time over 100 years ago looked and hopefully a bit like how it played. I'd certainly be in favor of keeping it as representitive of that state as possible. I'm not the one to decide whether that's from today, 1930 or 1898. We could be talking about Merion, Riviera, Yale, Fenway, Plainfield, Aronomink, Cypress Point or many others with equal merit.
I believe that Myopia has a couple of new greens (built by Cornish, Mungeen and Silva I think) that look very complex, modern and out of place with the others on the course. I don't know why they were built.
-
Can I bring back that favo(u)rite of my words--palimpsest?
Myopia, which I have played a few times, many years ago, is a fine "museum piece" as Geoff notes. It is also, as is every golf course--the good the bad and the ugly--unique. This is due to its landform which can never be re-created by man, regardless of what laser measurement and terraforming tricks one can think of. As far as I know, making any significant changes to geomorphology is beyond the human ken, at least for now. Even if you could find a similar landform somewhere else in the world, it would not be South Hamilton, with all the ancillary historical interest (most of which is not related to golf) and cachet.....
In the early days of civilisation great pieces of writing media were as scarce as were hen's teeth (until very recently--genetic engineers have found ways to grow them) and as today are landforms such as the one on which Myopia has been built (and possibly "improved" as Geoff bruits above). So, the ancient scribes "wrote over" old documents when they thought they had something more interesting or useful to say. They called these "improved/restored" media/documents "palimpsests."
So.......why not consider the landform of Myopia and its environs (or any other course) as a palimpsest upon which some contemporary architect could overwrite an even more interesting venue (and in the long run, perhaps one even more influential to the development of golf and GCA).
Isn't that what has been done to Shinnecock and TOC and Dornoch and many others? Where would we be today if those courses has been "preserved" the way they were in their early days, or even "restored" to those "primitive" routings? Very much the poorer, I would say.
-
Rich
So if the membership at Dornoch voted tomorrow that they wanted their (YOUR) course improved AGAIN (after all it has been a long time since the last improvement) and interviewed Forrest Richardson, Brian Phillips and Tom Fazio for the job, you would not protest? ;D
If we discovered the Raynor routing of Cypress Point tomorrow and some in the membership liked it better and wanted it built would that be OK with you?
-
Geoff
Vis a vis your Dornoch hyoptheitical, what I would not do is a knee-jerk protest against change qua change. I'd listen to the arguments pro and con (and perhaps even develop some myself) and then decide what to do. I might support it, I might try to fight it. Who knows?
Vis a vis Cypress, if the members wanted to go back to the old Raynor plans, it would be their right, and they might, just might, end up with a "better" golf course. Nobody could build a dog on that landform.
-
Brian
The bunker restoration work at CPC is 'futile and pointless' because your definition of restoration is so narrow and rigid (every blade of grass, every tree, every bush, every leaf, every centimeter of the bunkers must be absolutely identical) that it is impossible to achieve or is it 'futile and pointless' because even a close replication is a negative result in your opinion?
I'm aware of the evolution of the bunkers at the Old course, Colt's redesign of Muirfield originally had bunkers in the County Down mold. I'm not interested in restoring the Old course, I'm not aware of anyone calling for the Old course be restored to 1900.
Forrest
What is your definition of 'restoration'? And what are some of the better restorations you have done or seen?
It appears to me this argument may be nothing more that disagreement over the definition of the word - if so this discussion has been 'futile and pointless.'
Your view on CPC is another example of your desire to look at this process in terms of absolutes. Because the dunes have moved/changed and trees have grown (encroaching into playing areas), does not IMO prevent the club from recapturing lost green space or restoring bunkers. Are you saying that its an all or nothing proposition? I have no problem if CPC restores the bunkers today (and does it slowly and deliberately in-house) and then perhaps looks at the trees at a later time. The trees should (and can be)addressed. I'm not sure anyone would be interested in altering the dunes...in fact other than additional grass and ice plant the dunes don't appear to have changed too much.
Interesting story about Oakmont. How would you feel if the club now restores the 8th green to Fownes' orginal vision? I'm sure Fownes was spinning in his grave when Snyder made the course more playable.
I'm not surprised the architects didn't know the history of Oakmont...from what I know, few architects have the time or inclination to do extensive research on a given course. If I'm not mistaken you have requested and received help researching a golf course--I give you credit for asking for help. You are trying to get the info. Like architects club historians knowing the architectural history of their golf course is definitely hit or miss. Are you saying that because some architects or club historians don't know the facts that we should never restore a golf course?
I'm not sure I follow your concern about our brothers in 2042. We shouldn't restore CPC in 2003 because - not being a perfect replication - a very close approximation might confuse and mislead some poor slob in 2042. Interesting logic. I say if some guy is confused in 2042....oh well.
The history of many important designs is quite diverse. Dornoch went through many improvements...one of the most important occurring in 1946. CPC and Bel-Air were spectacular the day they opened. Muirfield was completely redesigned by Colt...the original course was not too well thought of. Pebble Beach was redesigned by Fowler, MacKenzie and Egan. Macdonald was often improving the NGLA, same with Ross at #2. Timber Point's high point was likely near opening day, it was resigned with a new nine in the 1970's. Sea Island was one of Alison's best designs, Fazio completely redesigned it a few years ago. Garden City was redesigned by Travis, Tillinghast and Emmet also made changes, RTJ redesigned the 12th which is now considered out of place.
Because a course was improved at different points in time, does not mean athat every course are potential canidates for improvement. And just because a course has been improved - like Dornoch, #2 or Oakmont - should have no effect on whether the course is a canidate for restoration. They are seperate issues.
Each course has a different design story - their architectural high points vary - it might be 1926 or 1952 or today (or tomorrow). Evaluating the appropriateness, scope or feasibility of a restoration varies from course to course. For that reason asking the question if restoration is bunk or not is not something that can be (or should be) answered universally...each situation is unique and should be evaluated individually.
-
Good stuff Tom M
BTW- Those last two sentences from your last post I think highlights our differences over Bethpage.
-
Tom
Good post. I think you are closer to Forrest that you might want to admit. I hear you saying vis a vis the preservation/restoration/improvement argument "It depends." I fully agree. You seem very willing to acknowledge that the improvements made to Muirfield and Shinnecock were steps forward in the profession of GCA, despite the fact that both venues had significant historical importance when they were completely overhauled in the 20's and 30's. If this is the case, why object out of hand any attempt by a membership, assisted by a modern-day Colt or Flynn, to improve CPC or NGLA or even Dornoch?
-
Rich
Yes both Shinnecock and Muirfield were historical courses, but the difference in my mind is that neither was considered very good golf course.
Muirfield had been criticized from the beginning when they moved from Musselburgh. It was basically a flattish inland course surrounded by walls on all sides. They had some unutilized dune country to the north. And golf architecture was at its zenith. The old course was the product of an acknowledged poor era.
Shinnecock had been a hodge podge from the 1890's. And really hadn't been considered a championship course for decades (if it ever was). Even after Raynor and Macdoanld renovated it, it was still very short and awkward. I think it was Darwin or Hutchinson who described it as feminin. Plus a new highway forced their hand.
The courses that were lost were not of architectural significance. The new courses have been recognized as great designs for seventy years and have remained basically unalterd throughout that period. Some have the opinion that these courses are the very best designs of Colt and Flynn respectfully.
When a course is recognized as both a superior work of architecture and a historically significant example of golf design - I don't believe they should be 'improved' even if there is chance they actually might be improved (because odds are there couldn't be).
-
Great posts Tom. And I agree with your gist.
The problem is that as long as historically significant courses like Muirfield and Shinnie hold major tournaments, it will be a losing battle to immunize them from "improvements".
NGLA or Prestwick on the other hand....
Bob
-
Tom McW,
I owe you a definition of "Golf Course Restoration" from a few posts ago. Sorry, I've been out.
I've never seen one because I am of the belief that you cannot restore a golf course. You may be able to restore part of one or a detail, or even a part of one or a detail to a particular point in its past.
Only with LIDAR technology could we hope to restore one of our existing courses today at some point in the future. But even so, we would miss things to be sure.
I would define "Golf Course Restoration" as:
Work undertaken to a golf course to put the whole of its parts back into a physical condition, state and relation as they existing at a particular point in time.
-
BCrosby,
My observation/s with regard to this site is/are that a change, restoration, alteration, renovation or modernization is all too often viewed and judged by who did the work, rather than the work itself.
You mentioned NGLA. If changes to NGLA are perceived to be Karl Olson's work they are applauded, irrespective of the work, and if the changes are perceived to be Rees's work, they are panned, irrespective of the work.
Just look at the moving of the 1st tee and the absence of criticism.
Brian Phillips is correct in another context.
In addition to the physical difficulties, if not impossibilities, there is the political difficulty.
There seems to be a false notion of unanimity amongst committee, board and club members when it comes to a restoration.
It's a rare situation when committee, board and club members are in perfect harmony with respect to a restoration project. Even if the process begins in total harmony, somewhere along the line, discord will emerge with respect to specific features.
Each member will have their own ideas with respect to preserving, or eliminating non-original features. And the final product is usually a political compromise. That's why I like knowledgeable dictators.
Restoration, or whatever you choose to call the project, is far more complex then some would have you believe.
-
I am posting some writing here from the Merion thread because Ian told me it was good if you have read it, go on.
- - -
If I was to guess, which I will, the current (golf) generation is in love with an ideal that there are some great things to behold and preserve and also not a lot to love about many of the courses we've created in recent times (past 40 years). Nothing too surprising. Is this a smart generation? Probably not. It is polarized: On one end are the "don't touch a thing" folks, and on the other are the "I don't have a clue" folks. When, in reality, the issue is not about either, nor anywhere in between.
It is (or should be) about creating terrific and fun golf courses no matter what route or approach is taken. Fun, of course, can mean the preservation of a design and charm in order that people can see what was done in days gone by. On the other hand, changing a seemingly historic/classic layout to make it more fun to watch a tournament or play or look out across with a drink in hand is also necessary. We also have an obligation to the future golf architects and golfers, who are infinately more important that those who are dead. Had we not fostered the likes of our great artists no matter the area of their work we would not have the "greats" to behold today.
And the great artists have not just learned from seeing the great preserved works before their time. No. They have also learned from seeing the butchered art and archietcture of their day, and which has also come before them. Seeing bad is enlightening. It is probably what motivates some on this site to chirp so often and loudly.
So, is it OK that Tom or Bob or Jeff or Bill or Mark or Ted or Wendy or Hans (the new golf architects) get a chance to tinker with courses, both classic and non? Yes. Will they make mistakes and annoy some who call their work awful? Yes. But in my book, just one great and terrific new idea that may never have been thought of, which finds it way through the cracks of all this preceived awfulness, is extremely important. Now, do I want to see Tom or Bob or Jeff or Bill or Mark or Ted or Wendy or Hans really screw things up? Of course not. But rarely are golf architects, new or seasoned, given unfair access to do such. It is always a process and whether due to politics or fate or luck or stupidity, it sometimes happens that the wrong person is given a green light to do the wrong thing. Funny, though, that this wrongness is in our present-day perspective and in reality we know not what it will be seen as in 100 years. And, in a 100 years if it is stills seen as wrong it will likely be corrected or changed yet again....as I believe we are doing today, as we discuss.
So, you see, it is a cycle. And in no sport or game or any of the design arts of the built environment do we have what golf has provided: A living canvas on which what we draw is no more permanent than chalk on a sidewalk. For it may last with great heroics but it is not designed to by nature or the movement of people across its skin. The chalk may become messy. It may wash away. But rebuilding and re-drawing it is part of the fun and excitement.
Golf is much bigger than any of us. It will endure past all our opinions as it has gone well past the opinions of others. All of our history of golf is relatively recent. The deepest reaches of it go no further back than 500 years. And almost all of it goes no further back than 100 years. And all that we can say for absolute certainty goes back not much more than 50 years.
The only thing for certain is that the courses we speak about today will change tomorrow morning, and every morning thereafter. Whether from wind, hot air, people, bad ideas, good ideas, or grown men and women with gin and tonics who think they know everything.
-
Pat:
You and I kid around a lot on here and I constantly tell you you're right only about 2% of the time although most know we're kidding.
However, on your post #86 you're about as right as rain!
"Restoration, or whatever you choose to call the project, is far more complex then some would have you believe."
You're not joking. Understanding what might be best in a restoration and maintenance vein on the golf course itself takes a lot of time and study but being effective inside the club itself is every bit as important. A really solid education in architecture, agronomy and maintenance is a great thing to have but you need to be persuasive inside the club itself to be effective. And if you're lucky enough to have both whatever you get accomplished sure better work for that membership day in and day out or even with all your education and persuasion you're gonna get screwed anyway.
-
"...you're about as right as rain!" Don't worry Pat, I'm am having this framed at the all-night frame shop as we speak! Life is great, so is Chardonnay.
-
Forrest Richardson,
It's easy for some to pontificate or posture from the ivory tower, it's quite another matter when you're embroiled in a restoration, or whatever you want to call it, project.
TEPaul has a broad experience with a membership contemplating and undertaking changes, and he can tell you, as I have, that it is a far more complex process than some would have you believe.
There is utopia and idealism, and then there is the reality of a concept put before 300 owners, their spouses and children, employees and consultants.
Purists should be ecstatic if they get 75 % of what they want accomplished.
-
Forrest;
You said a lot that's true in your last post and you've made a convincing plea that the dynamic of the art of architecture should proceed forward with new and fresh ideas. You also said this generation is polarized. Maybe it is but only to about the same extent that every generation is polarized from that generation that preceded it and that generation which comes after it.
But all of us should look closely at the evolution of architecture in about the last 100 years, particularly in America, and learn some lessons from it because although anyone would expect things to inevitably continue to cycle I doubt many want to see things cycle in the future in some of the same ways they have in the recent past!
In the beginning of the first fifty years of the last century the artform of architecture in America itself was pretty badly butchered and that inspired architects to do so much better--ie the initial disgust of C.B. Macdonald with the landscape of American architecture and then his motivation to do NGLA because of that and all that followed for about the next 30-40 years that truly was a remarkable time in golf architecture.
Then in the ensuing fifty or so years from around the 1930s and 1940s on the artform did not just continue to advance in interesting and innovative ways but it proceeded to butcher a good deal of what came before it--ie much of that exquisite architecture of that remarkable era we sometimes refer to as "the Golden Age".
So there's nothing wrong at all with proceeding into the future with a zest for innovation and change in golf architecture but this time and with every future time and cycle at least let's understand a bit better and appreciate a bit more what came before us and not butcher it, as we did, so far only through one cycle in the 100 year evolution of golf architecture in America! That's something we really do need to learn never to do again.
-
I know well the politics and process. Albeit in my own small world. We are currently working on a 27-hole private club where all the members (1000+) came together to set fire to me at a stake and dance upon my ashes singing "Glory be, the architect is dead."
Fortunately I brought Power Point and they became sick at the graphics and had to leave. We are now in the middle of the first nine to be "transformed". I would use the word "restoration" but Tom MacWood might keel over in surprise.
-
Forrest:
I don't know you and I don't know your architecture either but you might have something very important going for you which was once annuciated by Mark Twain and used in the last year or so by Whooooopi Goldberg as she accepted her Mark Twain award for comedy during those dark days following 9/11. Whoooopi said she was thinking of not coming to get her Mark Twain award because of 9/11 but then she remembered Mark Twain's remark;
"NOTHING in the world can withstand the ONSLAUGHT of----HUMOR!
-
Tom
My understanding as to why Shinnecock, Muirfield and others were renovated in the first 30 years opf the last century had much more to do with the demands of technology than the design quality of the original courses. Given that Muirfield held 5 Opens and 5 Amateurs prior to its Colt renovation, I doubt if it was held in too low esteem by the R&A.
Here's an interesting factoid (at least to me):
The Longest Golf Courses in Britain--1904
The Old Course 5,283 yards
Royal St. Georges 5,280
Hoylake 5,236
North Berwick 5,202
Dornoch 5,096
Muirfield 5,085
Prestwick 5,041
Machrihanish 4,999
Source: Herbert Warren Wind
These courses added 1,000-1,500 yards to cope with the Haskell ball, not because their designs were not of any architectural or historical value, IMO.
Hmmmm.......I wonder if such an impetus for change will ever come again?
-
I think you know, Rich, that we are in the middle of it! Look no further than Oakmont, one of the few classics that has room. No. 8 now 280-something, par-3.
-
By the way, Rich, everybody loves Paris. I really don't know what the big deal is. I mean, it's an ordinary, but likable, Texas town. Why must you remind us?
-
Forrest
When I registered for the site I was given the default "I Love Yabbadabba Doo" or whatever. I wanted to change it and the word "Paris" just came to mind. Don't know why. I've come to like the sound of it, however, and think that maybe I might just write a song....
-
Rich
There is a difference between adding yardage and the major overhauls that took place at Muirfield and Shinnecock. Each one of those courses you list has a different story--how they evolved and why.
Those yardages look a little short even for 1904. By the way Muirfield wasn't redesigned until the mid 20's many years after the introduction of the Haskel.
-
And, Rich, do you know if those were the members' (regular) yardages?
-
Tom and Forrest
I too was surprised when I first read these numbers, but it is HWW's research, not mine (pp 22-23 of "Following Through"). I assume he was talking about medal tees (I don't even think there were such a thing as "member's" tees in those days). The numbers do generally corespond with old routings I've seen of Dornoch (when, for example, "Foxy" was a 320 yard (or so) hole).
-
Would a "true" restoration require the removal of all cart paths and service roads built subsequently ?