Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Nick Ribeiro on July 12, 2018, 12:01:26 AM
-
Anyone out there have any info on the work Rees Jones is doing at Torresdale? He was recently hired to complete a master plan and redesign the course. Was wondering what changes will be made and thought the club just finished a renovation a few years ago?
-
I tried to provide info to a decisionmaker that would direct them to accomplished restoration architects.
Unfortunately that failed. T/F may be the best candidate for restoration of any course in Philly. The first requirement as a great candidate is that the original be special. This course should not be renovated but preserved to stand at the top echelon of classic courses in Philly.
-
*
My momma taught me well.
-
Cobbs is being restored.
-
Mike - Do you have any plans or info on what the club decided? I thought when Union League bought Torresdale they did a bunch of restoration work which wasn't too long ago. Wondering if they just weren't happy with what was done or they are looking for something different for the course?
-
http://www.reesjonesinc.com/union-league/ (http://www.reesjonesinc.com/union-league/)
I am awaiting information from an insider; however, given Jones' history and statements on his website and elsewhere, it's predictable what he'll say about this "redesign" project:
http://www.reesjonesinc.com/golf-course-restoration.php (http://www.reesjonesinc.com/golf-course-restoration.php)
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/rees-jones-discusses-medinah-no2-restoration-project (http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/rees-jones-discusses-medinah-no2-restoration-project)
There's a lot of different interpretations of the terms " redesign" " restoration" and "renovation" within the community as has been discussed on this Forum many times.
-
Cobbs is being restored.
;D
-
Cobbs is being restored.
;D
Mike,
I think Mike is really on to something here. Why not Rees? ;)
-
;D
-
A little birdie tells me part of Rees' work at Torresdale will be a short game area to the right of the current range.
-
A little birdie tells me part of Rees' work at Torresdale will be a short game area to the right of the current range.
Funny, lets be honest, Rees doesn't just do short game areas!
In all seriousness I heard earlier the club really wants to host a US Open which is why they are bringing in Rees. I just cant picture where he can lengthen holes? I just don't see the room for it..... Union League is flush with cash so who knows, enough money can find you land and Rees Jones.....
-
???
Pretty sure Stephen Kaye did some tweaking when the Union League came on board at Torresdale.
Not sure how extensive and whether it was "restoration" 🤓
-
???
Pretty sure Stephen Kaye did some tweaking when the Union League came on board at Torresdale.
Not sure how extensive and whether it was "restoration" 🤓
Found this article - http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/golfers-enjoying-restored-course-at-philadelphias-union-league-golf-club
Appears a 3 million dollar tweaking was already done. Raises more questions than answers as to whats to come....
-
Today's course is about 80% Donald Ross original design.
It will be interesting to see what that % is after.
-
Can’t those guys that are involved in the Cobbs project get involved at Torresdale? ;) ;D
-
I would think that The Union League would value a classic.
-
Today's course is about 80% Donald Ross original design.
It will be interesting to see what that % is after.
Assuming the club is after changes that will make the course "championship caliber" I am not sure it's possible to remain remotely close to the original design???
It was announced yesterday Oakland Hills is going through a 2 year renovation making the course 7500 yards... What % of that 7500 yard course will be original design????
-
Ni[size=78%]ck,[/size]
I believe the Oakland Hills restoration is to try to bring the Golf Course back to as much Donald Ross as possible although others may have more details.
Beginning in 1951, Robert Trent Jones made significant changes to the bunkering throughout the golf course and a lot of trees were planted over time. Other architects such as Arthur Hills left their mark.
Thankfully, my understanding is that most of the green complexes have gone untouched through the years so that's a big start for them.
From a philosophical standpoint, I really don't have much problem extending the golf course where possible in terms of length, particularly if the original angles of play can be maintained because to do otherwise would deny the fact that Golf Course technology has really gotten out of the bottle in the last few decades in terms of overall distance and even overall straightness.
-
Ni[size=78%]ck,[/size]
I believe the Oakland Hills restoration is to try to bring the Golf Course back to as much Donald Ross as possible although others may have more details.
Beginning in 1951, Robert Trent Jones made significant changes to the bunkering throughout the golf course and a lot of trees were planted over time. Other architects such as Arthur Hills left their mark.
Thankfully, my understanding is that most of the green complexes have gone untouched through the years so that's a big start for them.
From a philosophical standpoint, I really don't have much problem extending the golf course where possible in terms of length, particularly if the original angles of play can be maintained because to do otherwise would deny the fact that Golf Course technology has really gotten out of the bottle in the last few decades in terms of overall distance and even overall straightness.
I agree the technology has gotten out of hand, I believe we will continue to look for ways to lengthen golf courses even further. Tons of talk about solutions but nothing set in stone.
I started this post looking for plans on the "redesign" as that is the classification I have seen so far and that's it. Any insight as to what changes could be made would also be great. Instead lots of short handed comments regarding the designer and questioning of whether or not Union League values a classic.
Why so quick to judge when nothing has been announced yet?
-
If past is prologue, I think it is the historical track record of the architect, Nick.
-
If past is prologue, I think it is the historical track record of the architect, Nick.
Are we talking from 15 years ago? When he was altering classic design to accommodate the US Open because of technology in equipment giving players the ability to walk all over classic design which didnt fit the US Open Tournament? Has he done anything recently, or have you heard anything that makes you believe Union League is asking him to do the same thing to Torresdale? The course at 6600 yards is already hard. I am interested to see what he does to make it championship caliber if that is what they are interested in which is just my assumption.
Why pass judgement without knowing what the Union League has asked him to do?
-
Hi Nick,
My opinion and impressions are based on playing 20 of his original designs and 17 where he did some type of renovation, whether intended to be restoration or revision. In the case of the latter, I think he makes everything look like a Rees Jones course no matter who the original architect, whether by intent or inadvertently.
I really like the Torresdale-Frankford course and think it has great bones. I hope the Union League effort is successful in getting what they want.
-
Hi Nick,
My opinion and impressions are based on playing 20 of his original designs and 17 where he did some type of renovation, whether intended to be restoration or revision. In the case of the latter, I think he makes everything look like a Rees Jones course no matter who the original architect, whether by intent or inadvertently.
I really like the Torresdale-Frankford course and think it has great bones. I hope the Union League effort is successful in getting what they want.
You have a lot of exposure to his work. From my personal experience, his courses are hard, especially his original designs. One of the first I played was The Currituck Club and I remember foolishly taking on more than I could over a forced carry and putting a bunch of tee shots in the water. I took a 12 on the hole and ended up shooting 78 which would have been one of the best rounds of my life had I been able to par the hole. When it comes to his original designs they are without a doubt hard and not courses I would recommend to beginners. I personally believe developers higher him for original design because of his work on US Open courses and they want championship caliber courses. I think many of his "redesign" work on classics was done to make those courses more challenging for US Opens. Golden Age architecture simply can not accommodate a modern US Open without drastic change.
With that said, I cant understand how Union League went through a 3 million dollar renovation and decide to change architects and hire Rees for a redesign. I am expecting drastic changes, but is that Rees or the club? The club obviously knows what they want and interviewed many architects. Also starting to wonder if the minimalism approach to architecture is being over done? Maybe Union League wants something very different? Will be interesting to see....
-
I think Mike Cirba has been very fair in his critiquing of Rees Jones original work. Just my recollection from this site.
As for the Rees work on the classics..... I think it has been a complete failure. Granted, it can only be judged in the context of the clubs mission statement and what they "want" but twenty years ago, when Rees was doing a lot of his butchery clubs were not very educated on process.
I suspect he is selling the same stuff he always have but because of the great work in revision of others it is a lot harder sell.
His work on my home course was an unmitigated disaster, perhaps self imposed, but I tend to think not when he had the gall to criticize the team (architect as well as those within the club) involved in truly "restoring" the club.
In 2018 who in their right mind would hire Rees for any golf project especially one on an older course.
-
There are more talented design/build architects out there than ever before.
-
Living in NJ has afforded me a front row seat to a number of Rees debacles, including one at a club I subsequently resigned from because I was unwilling to fund a large assessment for Rees' work. In my opinion, reasonable minds disagree about the merits of his original designs, but as a "restorer" of golf courses, he is simply not very good. In large part, I think this is because his conception of what constitutes a "restoration" is quite different than his peers.
At a meeting he ran at the aforementioned club from which I resigned, I listened to his presentation and then asked the following question:
"Mr. Jones, during your presentation I heard you use the phrase 'Ross-like' four times, 'in the style of Ross three times' and 'patterned after Ross' twice. Can you please explain to the club why you think a renovation is more appropriate than a restoration?"
Jones demurred that what he was proposing was a restoration. After I pressed him further on his definition, he said it was "restoration style," sat down abruptly and referred my follow-up questions to his assistant who did an admirable job of trying to defend his plan. I left that meeting with the impression that Rees was temperamentally unsuited to doing restoration work of the type that this site seems to adore. That type of work implies subordinating much of one's own ideas to the recreation of another architect's work. I just don't think Rees likes doing that, but he bids on the projects because that's pretty much all that's out there.
Lastly, I'd say that even someone like me who thinks the evidence has borne out that he is not good at restorations, would say the problem is he's got a prominent enough name to get projects at really top flight clubs. To my first point, take a quick look at how many clubs have hired other architects to remove Rees' recent work (Hollywood springs to top of mind or Montclair where he volunteered his services and the club subsequently hired someone else). To my second point, it's not that he's THAT bad, it's that he's a poor choice for clubs doing restorations that turn out like the currently critically acclaimed ones.
I wouldn't hire him, but that's a personal choice and one based on my belief that when he says "Restoration" he means "Rees-storation."
-
Hi Nick,
My opinion and impressions are based on playing 20 of his original designs and 17 where he did some type of renovation, whether intended to be restoration or revision. In the case of the latter, I think he makes everything look like a Rees Jones course no matter who the original architect, whether by intent or inadvertently.
I really like the Torresdale-Frankford course and think it has great bones. I hope the Union League effort is successful in getting what they want.
Assuming you didnt like any of the 17 renovations / restorations / redesigns, where there any original designs you liked?
-
I think Mike Cirba has been very fair in his critiquing of Rees Jones original work. Just my recollection from this site.
As for the Rees work on the classics..... I think it has been a complete failure. Granted, it can only be judged in the context of the clubs mission statement and what they "want" but twenty years ago, when Rees was doing a lot of his butchery clubs were not very educated on process.
I suspect he is selling the same stuff he always have but because of the great work in revision of others it is a lot harder sell.
His work on my home course was an unmitigated disaster, perhaps self imposed, but I tend to think not when he had the gall to criticize the team (architect as well as those within the club) involved in truly "restoring" the club.
In 2018 who in their right mind would hire Rees for any golf project especially one on an older course.
The only information I have seen has classified the work at Union League as a redesign as posted above. ~
http://www.reesjonesinc.com/union-league/ (http://www.reesjonesinc.com/union-league/)
Did your club hire him for a restoration or redesign? I ask the question because I am wondering if you were unhappy with your boards intentions? If they just did not know what they wanted? Or if they just told Rees do whatever you like and you were unhappy with the outcome?
-
My concern is that the club may have hired him for his name and expect a restoration.
-
My concern is that the club may have hired him for his name and expect a restoration.
Mike,
The GM of Union League is highly regarded as possibly the best GM in the country? From a financial standpoint its amazing what he has done for that club. I assume the board at the UL he deals with is part of the clubs success. Rees announced on his website he was specifically hired for redesign. I have a very hard time believing a GM of Mr McFaddens caliber and the board members of the Union League don't know the difference between a restoration and redesign.
-
My concern is that the club may have hired him for his name and expect a restoration.
Mike,
The GM of Union League is highly regarded as possibly the best GM in the country? From a financial standpoint its amazing what he has done for that club. I assume the board at the UL he deals with is part of the clubs success. Rees announced on his website he was specifically hired for redesign. I have a very hard time believing a GM of Mr McFaddens caliber and the board members of the Union League don't know the difference between a restoration and redesign.
A GM's bailiwick is on the business end. As long as the project remains on budget for what the membership are willing to pay, the GM will likely have very little to say about the matter one way or the other. In the end does it really matter what we think? It's his membership and his bill to pay.
-
In the end does it really matter what we think? It's his membership and his bill to pay.
It's the Union League, of course it matters what we GCA goobers think!! Seriously, they can change their name, but if they use the "Abraham Lincoln" card on their website, (and they do) I retain my right to comment !!
(http://civilwar.gratzpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/012-766x1024.jpg)
That said, I have never played Torresdale, so I will not comment on the need to restore vs redesign! :) I honestly don't know.
-
My concern is that the club may have hired him for his name and expect a restoration.
Mike,
The GM of Union League is highly regarded as possibly the best GM in the country? From a financial standpoint its amazing what he has done for that club. I assume the board at the UL he deals with is part of the clubs success. Rees announced on his website he was specifically hired for redesign. I have a very hard time believing a GM of Mr McFaddens caliber and the board members of the Union League don't know the difference between a restoration and redesign.
I was contacted by someone on the selection committee looking for info on the top restoration architects. He lost in his effort to expand the search.
-
Nick
I was involved in a highly successful renovation/restoration project and I am not even sure how to describe what is currently going on. I do know most all people like to hear the term "restoration" and I am sure that is what Rees and others fly with.
That does not mean what they propose is what they do?
My club had little documentary evidence the things we had detailed photos we restored (that was easy because they were Macdonald concept holes or ones with bold features) the others we renovated.
That said, and I am sure a cop-out, I continued to say restoration because Hanse/Bahto restored a classic look.
Rees worked at the club in the early nineties and though I do not know the mandate what he did was architectural malpractice. I would be hesitant to say all this but Rees also had the gall to also critique in a most ungentlemanly way the work we were doing. Work that he had not seen in person and work that wound up showing how terrible his work was on our course.
Glad we are still listed on his site as a client. :)
-
Nick,
I like his very early work like Arcadian Shores and also am a fan of Olde Kinderhook in Upstate New York among his original designs. As far as his original courses, if someone likes that style I see no reason why they shouldn't do it.
My issue is that on his supposed Restorations the courses end up looking exactly like his original designs.
-
My concern is that the club may have hired him for his name and expect a restoration.
Mike,
The GM of Union League is highly regarded as possibly the best GM in the country? From a financial standpoint its amazing what he has done for that club. I assume the board at the UL he deals with is part of the clubs success. Rees announced on his website he was specifically hired for redesign. I have a very hard time believing a GM of Mr McFaddens caliber and the board members of the Union League don't know the difference between a restoration and redesign.
I was contacted by someone on the selection committee looking for info on the top restoration architects. He lost in his effort to expand the search.
Obviously as they decided to go with a redesign which was the reason for my interest. Makes me think they are getting land as I don't see how they can expand holes with the current land they have.
-
Nick
I was involved in a highly successful renovation/restoration project and I am not even sure how to describe what is currently going on. I do know most all people like to hear the term "restoration" and I am sure that is what Rees and others fly with.
That does not mean what they propose is what they do?
My club had little documentary evidence the things we had detailed photos we restored (that was easy because they were Macdonald concept holes or ones with bold features) the others we renovated.
That said, and I am sure a cop-out, I continued to say restoration because Hanse/Bahto restored a classic look.
Rees worked at the club in the early nineties and though I do not know the mandate what he did was architectural malpractice. I would be hesitant to say all this but Rees also had the gall to also critique in a most ungentlemanly way the work we were doing. Work that he had not seen in person and work that wound up showing how terrible his work was on our course.
Glad we are still listed on his site as a client. :)
Corey, The project has not started yet and Rees clearly lists the project on his website as a redesign. ~ http://www.reesjonesinc.com/renovated-courses.php
I think its safe to say after UL interviewed candidates a restoration is not what they are looking for. Rees is advertising he was hired for a redesign. I do not know why they want to redesign the course or what they are after but I don't think its fair to judge the project before its even broken ground on the architect who was hired by the club. Ultimately he is in business to do what the client wants.
I would have personally liked to see them continue the path they were on and restore the course to the old Donald Ross design but maybe their members want something different? How can you criticize the people who are hired to give them what they are asking for? Just seems like a lot of biased opinions and quick judgement when no one here has yet claimed to see a plan or even except the fact the architect was hired for a redesign.
-
My information is that one powerful person was stuck on Rees.
I don’t think the average UL member would know the difference between redesign or restore.
I speak only for myself when I say T/F is a classic that should be restored and I fear it will be altered.
-
My information is that one powerful person was stuck on Rees.
I don’t think the average UL member would know the difference between redesign or restore.
I speak only for myself when I say T/F is a classic that should be restored and I fear it will be altered.
Mike,
Why would you expect any different? The club has spent 3 million dollars restoring it since they purchased it and just decided to go in a different direction, a REDESIGN to be specific. I think the club has made it obvious they are not interested in doing any further restoration.
I am not sure how this thread turned into a debate about architect, and a refusal to acknowledge the Union League wants a redesign after for what ever reason not being happy with the 3 million they spent on restoring. Hopefully a plan will be released soon. With all the backlash on here, and I am sure the criticism the board faced, the board knows most golfers who appreciate architecture are not going to be happy with their decision to do a redesign. Obviously around here, that decision will some how turn into the Architect holding plans in one hand and a gun to the boards head in the other hand.
I expect something very different then the path they were on before this. Perhaps a long, very hard course, something modern, which makes them unique to Philly Golf??? Will be interesting...
-
There are plenty of mediocre courses where such a plan would be ideal. T/F can be the Union League’s best moment like Winged Foot is for the N.Y. Athletic Club.
-
A modern course unique to Philadelphia Golf?
There's a Rees Jones course within 30 miles, Lookaway, and another Hurdzan/Fry just about same distance - along with the Militia Hill Course at Philly Cricket. Not to mention other courses by Ault/Clark, Bobby Weed, Gil Hanse, Tom Fazio, and Tom Doak all within the district.
I'll be saddened if they go the route of a completely new golf course. This was the site of my first "away" match in High School and also my first Donald Ross course. I understand the business appeal to it since they can bid out all the work to various contractors but.... well.
-
My concern is that the club may have hired him for his name and expect a restoration.
Mike,
The GM of Union League is highly regarded as possibly the best GM in the country? From a financial standpoint its amazing what he has done for that club. I assume the board at the UL he deals with is part of the clubs success. Rees announced on his website he was specifically hired for redesign. I have a very hard time believing a GM of Mr McFaddens caliber and the board members of the Union League don't know the difference between a restoration and redesign.
A GM's bailiwick is on the business end. As long as the project remains on budget for what the membership are willing to pay, the GM will likely have very little to say about the matter one way or the other. In the end does it really matter what we think? It's his membership and his bill to pay.
Kyle I have met him, he is one smart cookie with great business and people skills. My bet is he is knee deep in what's going on there. His ideas on customer service are outstanding, he is not going to allow any pooch screwing.
-
Nick
Rather than get caught up in semantics, or mission statements, or even Rees pompous and entitled attitude why don't we measure the man by his work on courses he did not design.
Which is his best?
I know more than a few and would politely say disappointing at best.
What classic era course made a good decision to hire Rees rather than others?
-
Nick,
One thing that the club may be thinking is acquiring new land. I don't know the boundaries of the present property but I just looked at an aerial and it seems land is available going towards Academy Road in the northwest quadrant, and there may be more due north nearer the clubhouse.
Indeed, one of the limitations of the current course is that it's on pretty tight property. Originally, the Ross 17th and 18th holes were quite different, both being long par fours (as memory serves), but in the 1960s (I believe) Grant Avenue was expanded and the club lost some land along that side, leaving the par three and shortish par four finishing holes done by William & David Gordon.
At that time they also extended the par five 13th and created a new green. I believe most of the rest of the course is relatively intact Donald Ross, albeit a little tightly constricted in spots.
-
Nick,
One thing that the club may be thinking is acquiring new land. I don't know the boundaries of the present property but I just looked at an aerial and it seems land is available going towards Academy Road in the northwest quadrant, and there may be more due north nearer the clubhouse.
Indeed, one of the limitations of the current course is that it's on pretty tight property. Originally, the Ross 17th and 18th holes were quite different, both being long par fours (as memory serves), but in the 1960s (I believe) Grant Avenue was expanded and the club lost some land along that side, leaving the par three and shortish par four finishing holes done by William & David Gordon.
At that time they also extended the par five 13th and created a new green. I believe most of the rest of the course is relatively intact Donald Ross, albeit a little tightly constricted in spots.
8 and 9 were changed due to a routing quirk. I believe the original 8th green had the creek behind it and not in front and then the 9th played back away from the clubhouse, but I could have it backwards. Either way, it was clear that the 8th the water hazard behind was rather novel.
-
Nick,
One thing that the club may be thinking is acquiring new land. I don't know the boundaries of the present property but I just looked at an aerial and it seems land is available going towards Academy Road in the northwest quadrant, and there may be more due north nearer the clubhouse.
Indeed, one of the limitations of the current course is that it's on pretty tight property. Originally, the Ross 17th and 18th holes were quite different, both being long par fours (as memory serves), but in the 1960s (I believe) Grant Avenue was expanded and the club lost some land along that side, leaving the par three and shortish par four finishing holes done by William & David Gordon.
At that time they also extended the par five 13th and created a new green. I believe most of the rest of the course is relatively intact Donald Ross, albeit a little tightly constricted in spots.
I looked up the property at work and found the land you are talking about is owned by the neighboring church. I assumed a long term lease or purchase deal is possible, and the announcement of Rees Jones and a Redesign had me interested. I was hoping someone here had some plans or further information confirming any of this be true. I know there is a ton of biased regarding Rees Jones and obvious judgement but figured maybe people were past all that. Personally I think a lot of his changes in the 90s were decisions of the clubs he worked for in order to accommodate high US Open scores. It's really not fair to blame the guy who actually does the work. In construction design flaws happen all the time, and like golf course architecture the builder is always blamed. The other side of the story is never told which is usually the builders side who did what his client told him to.
-
Nick
Rather than get caught up in semantics, or mission statements, or even Rees pompous and entitled attitude why don't we measure the man by his work on courses he did not design.
Which is his best?
I know more than a few and would politely say disappointing at best.
What classic era course made a good decision to hire Rees rather than others?
Corey,
I do like some of his original designs, some are not so good (in my opinion) but its no different then any other architect? I like ALL golf, there really isn't any one course I could say I HATE. Naturally when any architect does so many designs there are good projects and bad. No designer can have all perfect projects unless those judging are sheep.... Is there any Rees project you like? Or you just naturally hate them all because that is what you been taught?
-
Nick,
The difference I think you are seeking is in the method of taking design from construction.
To my knowledge, Rees Jones has never run a bulldozer on one of his projects and I highly doubt getting every hole to drain into the centerline of a hole corridor was marching orders from a client.
-
Nick,
The difference I think you are seeking is in the method of taking design from construction.
To my knowledge, Rees Jones has never run a bulldozer on one of his projects and I highly doubt getting every hole to drain into the centerline of a hole corridor was marching orders from a client.
Kyle,
I do not know whether Rees has ever ran a dozer or not? It is my understanding the client hires him with specific needs and wants and he carries them out. Are there uber wealthy clients who just say do whatever you want, I just want a championship course.. I am sure there are especially given his US Open work. Which designs are those? Are those specifically the ones you do not like? It almost seems you dislike Rees over jealousy? As if it's not fair "we think" he's the only designer ever to not run a dozer. Did any of the golden age guys run dozers? Did any of the golden age guys even over see the work? Was it possible during that era? I think not which is the big issue at Aronimink. Which design was JB and which was Ross?
I think the more valid argument or reason not to like Rees is his design is just to hard. Rees gets knocked for not giving golfers enough options. I agree on some of his designs, he forces the player to hit the shot. Forced carries are also tough for high handicappers, especially forced carries to greens. If you are a high handicapper and cant hit the ball high, a Rees design is most likely not for you, but neither is Pine Valley. As stated earlier my first experience on a Rees design was The Currituck Club and I took a 12 on a hole with poor course management and taking on more then my ability at the time allowed. After playing more of his designs, which grants many are "hard" in the same ways, I have come to appreciate a course the best players enjoy.
Have you played any of his original designs? What passionately upsets you?
-
Nick,
I don't know what a "Championship Course" is.
Nor do I recall ever giving my opinion on Rees Jones as an architect.
I've worked at two Rees Jones original courses in past phases of my career. Both are within an hour drive of Union League. Both had acute construction and design issues which lead to unsatisfactory compromises in playability for extended periods of the golf season. Compromises which do not compete well given the other options - public and private - in the Philadelphia area.
His heavy-handed approach at Bethpage Black, the only Rees Jones renovation I've played to my knowledge, is well-documented here. I prefer Bethpage Red but I am not certain if that has anything to do with the work Rees did on Black.
I don't particularly feel the need to whip anything else out on the table. Rees Jones was kind to me while I was a student in High School so I have nothing against the guy personally nor professionally.
The success of a golf course construction project is as much about the guy building the golf course as it is the about the guy designing it. When those two roles are filled by the same person, I feel the product is much more likely to succeed.
-
Nick
Unlike you there are some courses I absolutely hate, in fact I played one the other day.
I would also offer that I have not been "taught" in regards to Rees...I have learned.
I have not played much of his original work though in this day and age I would question why anyone would hire the man. I have played many of his re-works.
Again, regardless of what he was told or the mission statement, the work itself is lacking and in some instances amounts to architectural malpractice.
We are now in a different era so if a club would rather hire Rees than Doak or Hanse or Devries or Ian A than more power to them.
We can talk about any of his reworks that I have played if you like? Or some of the reworks where the club has drastically changed or covered up the work since Rees left?
I thought however it would be easier if you or someone provided me with an example of his best re-work?
I stand by my comments in regards to his character as he made some insulting and derogatory comments in front of me about others in the business that he can't hold a candle to.
I'll play this game.
-
Corey,
I believe the original architect would want the design to remain as intended. I have not seen much of Rees "re-work" because a lot of it has been renovated, and in most cases (maybe all) should have been in my opinion. I don't think clubs appreciated the original intent in the 90s the way they think they do today. They just wanted to keep up with equipment, stay relevant, and host majors. Rees did that for them by way of redesign. I don't think just because a club was desperate enough to stay relevant that means we all hang the guy hired to do the work. At the end of the day I wonder how some of the golden age architects would feel about some of the "restorations" we celebrate. How would Donald Ross feel about a 7500 yard golf course at Oakland Hills? If it were me I would say stop ruining the game with technology. Play my course with the clubs I designed the course for, AS INTENDED. Turning a 325 yard par 4 into a 475 yard par 4, scaling out the green, fairways, and bunkers is just as much change as redesign anyway at the end of the day. There are still a few courses out there that refuse to give in to modernization and I have a lot more respect for the club that truly preserves the course as intended then one that tries to keep up with the moderns by changing the course, whether it be redesign or adding distance and making everything bigger.
This debate could go on and on. What about these "restored" courses that have 13-14 green speeds when they were built and intended for 5? Again drastic change from what was intended.
You should take a look at some of Rees original designs and make fair judgments, if possible. I have a hard time believing someone who melts down when hearing Rees was hired to redesign UL without even seeing plans is capable of being fair, but it's worth a shot. Your missing out on at least SOME good golf!
-
I've yet to hear anyone provide example of a classic club that experienced a major "success" by (whatever standard the club wishes to judge it) with Rees. On the opposite side of the coin, there have been plenty of us who have had firsthand experience at classic clubs that we feel made a major mistake by hiring Rees and provided those examples. I also echoed Corey's thoughts about what I felt was a total lack of professionalism in his presentation. Frankly, my impression was that he was a jerk.
I also made the point in my prior post that I thought his original designs were generally uninspired, but not awful. They're usually at very expensive, "exclusive" clubs in neighborhoods where most of us would prefer one of the neighbors. That said, there's a tremendous body of very poor results at classic clubs he's worked with. Additionally, the market certainly has spoken. What was the last high profile restoration job he landed? I can think of a lot more clubs that have had to hire someone else to rework Rees' work (Hollywood, Baltusrol, and Montclair in NJ all spring to mind).
This isn't a hatefest on Rees Jones by people who have heard he's not great. In my opinion the record demonstrates his work on classic courses is objectively quite poor. He's got a record and it's not good, so questioning the decision by a classic club to engage him is reasonable.
-
I do not have to look at Rees original designs to make fair judgments when it is his re-works that I am commenting on. I hope his original stuff is better than his re-works.
[/size]I hardly consider it a melt down when someone comes on the site asking for information, and I give forthright and valid opinions on his re-works. [size=78%]
[/size]Is it really a "melt-down" to ask what his best re-work is? And BTW, I don't need to see the plans to understand what is coming but I would offer, for re-work stuff on a course I cared about, I would only hire a guy that I trust implicitly so I would not have to see any plans. Do I need to edit Tom Doak?[size=78%]
-
Hollywood is a good example of Doak vs Rees. Here is Ran's review from the Rees era of 2010:
http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/hollywood-golf-club/
and here are Joe Bausch's pics from the post-Doak renovation:
http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/index3.html?
#4
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Hollywood4.jpg)
(http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/mediafiles/l24.jpg)
#12
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Hollywood13t3.jpg)
(http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/mediafiles/l63.jpg)
It would be nice if Tom could explain the cart/work path on #12, as I think that is new....
-
I do not have to look at Rees original designs to make fair judgments when it is his re-works that I am commenting on. I hope his original stuff is better than his re-works.
I hardly consider it a melt down when someone comes on the site asking for information, and I give forthright and valid opinions on his re-works. [size=78%]
[/size]Is it really a "melt-down" to ask what his best re-work is? And BTW, I don't need to see the plans to understand what is coming but I would offer, for re-work stuff on a course I cared about, I would only hire a guy that I trust implicitly so I would not have to see any plans. Do I need to edit Tom Doak?
[size=78%]
I have played a bunch of Doaks courses and enjoyed them as well. Tom def does his history homework and many of his restoration projects look very similar / exactly like historic photos he finds. I wonder if he interviewed for UL? I would guess not if its a redesign they are interested in considering I've never seen him do that type of work? Or at least personally do not know of any classic design he redesigned. Would he even be interested in such a project?
Is Rees such a bad guy for supplying a service the club asks for? I said in an earlier post Id rather see the course be restored also, the UL wants a redesign. That's not Rees fault...[/size]
-
Hollywood is a good example of Doak vs Rees. Here is Ran's review from the Rees era of 2010:
http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/hollywood-golf-club/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/hollywood-golf-club/)
and here are Joe Bausch's pics from the post-Doak renovation:
http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/index3.html? (http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/index3.html?)
#4
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Hollywood4.jpg)
(http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/mediafiles/l24.jpg)
#12
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Hollywood13t3.jpg)
(http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/mediafiles/l63.jpg)
It would be nice if Tom could explain the cart/work path on #12, as I think that is new....
I was there last fall and do not remember the cart path either. Also the bunkers didn't have fescue around them. Such a great hole!
-
I've yet to hear anyone provide example of a classic club that experienced a major "success" by (whatever standard the club wishes to judge it) with Rees. On the opposite side of the coin, there have been plenty of us who have had firsthand experience at classic clubs that we feel made a major mistake by hiring Rees and provided those examples. I also echoed Corey's thoughts about what I felt was a total lack of professionalism in his presentation. Frankly, my impression was that he was a jerk.
I also made the point in my prior post that I thought his original designs were generally uninspired, but not awful. They're usually at very expensive, "exclusive" clubs in neighborhoods where most of us would prefer one of the neighbors. That said, there's a tremendous body of very poor results at classic clubs he's worked with. Additionally, the market certainly has spoken. What was the last high profile restoration job he landed? I can think of a lot more clubs that have had to hire someone else to rework Rees' work (Hollywood, Baltusrol, and Montclair in NJ all spring to mind).
This isn't a hatefest on Rees Jones by people who have heard he's not great. In my opinion the record demonstrates his work on classic courses is objectively quite poor. He's got a record and it's not good, so questioning the decision by a classic club to engage him is reasonable.
I would say back in the 90s the course considered a redesign to be a major success when the pros would come in and not completely stomp the course. That's why the goal was harder and thats how Rees became the "Open Doctor"... Times have changed and now its appropriate to take these courses back to 7500 yards, widen fairways, make greens bigger so they can roll 14-15, as long as Rees isnt the one who does it...
-
I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends. Were they successful when they hosted US Opens? Were they successful when those re designs begot other designs of the same ilk? Maybe. But claiming they were unsuccessful because many of them are being reworked currently is more an indication of style trends than anything else.
Having said that, the link in one of the above replies that included the 2010 review of Hollywood seems to be positive for the work Rees did. The review states Rees started to return the luster to the course, lengthened it and added back tees, which reduced the walking from green to tee and widened the course to regain its links feel. I've never played Hollywood, but it seems this review is indicating Rees' work was a good thing?
It was a different era for sure and I'm enjoying the era we're in more. I'm just not willing to write it off and generalize anyone who was successful then. There are others I would have preferred to re-design F/T if it's supposed to be restorative but I have no idea what they intend to do.
There have been references to Rees committing architectural malpractice? What specifically did he do? I realize that he rubs some the wrong way but I've heard the same of other well known architects. CB Macdonald was reputed for it, so perhaps personality does not correlate with architectural acumen yet is coloring some opinions?
I'm interested to see what work will be done at F/T and will look upon it with a clean slate, free of any preconceived notions.
-
I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.
Apologies for lifting just a small part of your response but it seems to beg a question.
If Rees Jones' work was trendy then, does anyone foresee his work being restored 50 years from now? Isn't there a timelessness to Ross and other ODG's that's more than just another trend?
-
I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.
Apologies for lifting just a small part of your response but it seems to beg a question.
If Rees Jones' work was trendy then, does anyone foresee his work being restored 50 years from now? Isn't there a timelessness to Ross and other ODG's that's more than just another trend?
Good point and I don't know how he gets treated moving forward. But in terms of Ross, there are plenty of his courses that were changed and renovated over time, only now being worked towards his design traits. F/T is a good example of moving back towards Ross recently (although I don't know where they're going moving forward) and Jeffersonville is another. J-Ville was built in 1931 approx. and 70+ years went by before it was brought back. Restoring to a designer's original intent seems like something that's become a lot more popular over the last 10 - 15 years, whereas before that I feel like courses were trying for something else. Take Pinehurst 2. Hosted US Open, was a top 10 US course with Rees work, then decided to go back to what it once was. It was successful by many measures even though changed from Ross' design, but then returned to Ross recently. I'm glad it did.
And I don't know if it was Rees' work that was trendy then more than a certain style was trending that Rees marketed himself as providing and was successful at producing. I also like to think that like other artful endeavors, an individual's style changes, even evolves. Candidly, I belong to a club designed by Rees and to me, I believe it shows an evolved style from other I've played. Whether that translates into an acceptable re-design at F/T for all of us is anyone's guess.
-
Nick,
The difference I think you are seeking is in the method of taking design from construction.
To my knowledge, Rees Jones has never run a bulldozer on one of his projects and I highly doubt getting every hole to drain into the centerline of a hole corridor was marching orders from a client.
Kyle,
I was at a presentation Jim Nagle did the other day for CPGCSA on the relationship between a club and an architect for a successful project. One of his comments that resonated with me was the club deciding on what type of architect they wanted to hire - a dozer operator or a more tradition architect who provides plans and directs the construction. The point was that a good architect doesn't necessarily need to be a good dozer driver and a good dozer operator/shaper doesn't necessarily make a good architect.
I've seen this in the past and had the luxury of fixing the mess from the shaper/architect as he didn't get what was being asked of him (fwiw it wasn't Rees).
So to dismiss any architect because they can't run a dozer is unfair. Ultimately they should be judged on the work that was done.
-
I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.
Apologies for lifting just a small part of your response but it seems to beg a question.
If Rees Jones' work was trendy then, does anyone foresee his work being restored 50 years from now? Isn't there a timelessness to Ross and other ODG's that's more than just another trend?
This is something I've been wondering for a while. When Rees, Fazio, Jack etc become the ODGs will we start to look on their designs like we do with the current ODGs? Will the manicured look come back into it's own in time? If you look at what was built in Ireland in the 90s/00s - they love their American type courses even if the tourists want the traditional ones - will that happen in the US?
Personally I think trends change and in time courses will start to revert back to the more manicured look - it does work for Augusta! That's not to knock what Doak/Hanse/Crenshaw et al are doing as I think it looks great but I think Chris hit the spot in his post when he said that Rees built what was successful for his time - even if that has fallen out of favor today. I don't ever recall anyone saying that Rees's courses were bad back when he was the Open Doctor and if they were, he would't have been successful and hired for those jobs.
On a side I've been involved with Rees for 14+ years as I work (grew-in) one of his courses. He has always been a complete gentleman in his interactions with me. I also got to see first hand his thoughts on design and what he looks for/wants. Prior to that I was led to believe he handed you a plan and that was it; however he (and his guys) actually put a lot of thought into his design and how he wanted it to play. I don't think a lot of people get to see this and it's a shame.
The pic above of 4 at Hollywood shows Rees's philosophy. He liked to give you an open option (like that concept or not) and have the course in front of you. He wasn't a fan of blind shots (unless he had to). His thoughts were to present you with the hole. If you played it straight and safe you were fine but if you didn't you'd then get in trouble. Personally I like that concept - but then again I'm a hacker at best...... The picture above sums that philosophy up - the front is open to invite you in and a hacker like me has a chance whereas the other is very penal unless you're dropping a ball in (although it looks awesome!).
-
Alex
Rees Jones has two courses in the golfweek top 100 classic. I suspect in fifty years they will not be restored to Rees regardless of what the trend of the day is.
I do believe the theory that "giving them what they want" and taking orders from the club decision makers is valid to a certain extent but do know many in these positions are not smart enough to know if they are getting what they want once they hire Rees.
That said we can give him a pass on #4 at Hollywood for imparting his belief on the hole....and since you know his philosophy, what is up with the hedge behind the green? Hard to tell how far back it is. What I do know (having been involved in a project) is that most all members think it "protection" (not sure if a tee is back there) and others think "framing the hole" are valid devices.
Glad you have had great experiences with Rees as a person. Great guy.
-
A friend of mine who recently joined the Union League played the course yesterday and said Mr. Jones followed him for six holes.
I wish them well.
-
A friend of mine who recently joined the Union League played the course yesterday and said Mr. Jones followed him for six holes.
I wish them well.
Mike, happen to know which 6 holes he spent some time on? Wondering if they are rerouting the holes by the vacant land between the course and academy road.
-
I do believe the theory that "giving them what they want" and taking orders from the club decision makers is valid to a certain extent but do know many in these positions are not smart enough to know if they are getting what they want once they hire Rees.
That said we can give him a pass on #4 at Hollywood for imparting his belief on the hole....and since you know his philosophy, what is up with the hedge behind the green? Hard to tell how far back it is. What I do know (having been involved in a project) is that most all members think it "protection" (not sure if a tee is back there) and others think "framing the hole" are valid devices.
Rees works with the clubs but ultimately won't do anything he doesn't want/agree with.
I've seen plenty of plantings used for protection - but as you said members want it as protection so how can Rees be blamed for that? We don't know if he wanted it (which I doubt) or if the club planted it themselves. A lot of plantings over the years have been from overzealous green committees not the architect.
-
8)
I distinctly remember playing in a qualifier at Torresdale in my youth and hitting it over the green on number one , a real no no . Looking at the next shot , visions of double danced thru my mind! It was abundantly clear that nothing would keep my chip from rolling off the green and down to the bottom of a large hill save a miracle . Luckily the pin intervened and off to the second tee I walked , feeling like Willie Sutton.
Such was the legacy of Torresdale -Frankford, a gem of a golf course with a blue collar membership stuck in a bustling part of Philadelphia . Much like Pine Valley you couldn't believe it could be there. Hole after hole of beguiling greens and interesting angles and yes , a lot of quirk . Love it ! Despite a lack of conditioning over the years the greatness still shone thru and now that it is well funded it can be even better.
Hopefully the Union League will see the light and restore restore restore . As Mike C says adding distance is fine but a redo isn't needed . Stephen K started the ball rolling in the right direction !
p.s. There is a nice video Stephen Kay talking about his work perhaps someone can google same and post
-
Hopefully the Union League will see the light and restore restore restore . As Mike C says adding distance is fine but a redo isn't needed . Stephen K started the ball rolling in the right direction !
p.s. There is a nice video Stephen Kay talking about his work perhaps someone can google same and post
Which holes do you suggest they just push tees back? What if the goal of the membership is an 8,000 yard course? Is a redo still not necessary?
These clubs today are fighting to be the first to stay relevant to the next generation of golfers. You have kids in there late teens hitting the ball over 300 yards, what will they do in 10 years with growth and 10 more years of technology advancement? I think there are many "redesigns" coming our way.
-
Based on the insightful comments of those that seem to know the project best, the Union League clearly made the right choice.
[/font][/font][/size]
-
??? 8)
Nick , good question🤔
For me there are certain things in golf as in life that should be sacrosanct. All of us have different priorities as to what is most important. For instance I’m ok with hats on or off in the bar depending on my hosts preference or club rules . I’m ok with listening to an iPod while playing , as long as you keep pace and are still part of the banter that makes rounds of golf with friends special . I’m in the minority on many things but ok with going along with the majority of it’s not offensive .
In Golf architecture I am of the mind set that certain places are special , Torresdale being one of them . It has such unique design and lots of quirk , something I’ve grown to appreciate more and more ! Given its history it would be a pity to lose some of the interesting design features that make it so different . I’m a fan of architects individually but certainly don’t deify them . So you are right in saying that changes may have to come with time .
However in the case of Torresdale , you need be real careful not to make it just another golf course , fancy or not !
-
However in the case of Torresdale , you need be real careful not to make it just another golf course , fancy or not !
I will be very sad if lots of dirt is moved in the coming months at Torresdale.