[Peter Zarlengo]

Maybe this has already been discussed here, but when choosing to restore a course, how much of the pervious work should be restored? Does it ever make sense to restore 100% of the previously found features? What are some examples where partial restoration was the best option in the creation of a master plan? I think that there is probably a sense that when undertaking a restoration, architects, committees, ect. feel the need to restore everything. Where does and doesn't this make sense?

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

If asked, I always end up recommending that those interested in returning a course to its former glory do a 100% restoration.

If you go to your committee with a pick list that's already been edited down below 90%, you can almost be assured that not only won't you get a whole loaf, you'll be lucky to get something resembling bread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

The choice depends upon the ultimate goal, the mission statement.

In looking at many "restorations" almost all of them involved additional "tweaking" or modernizing.

Because the process is so subjective, and usually controlled by committee rule, it's rare that you see a "pure" restoration.

In addition, many courses have been altered numerous times over the years so it's difficult to tell what's original.

Tom MacWood had an interesting theory.
He believed that restorations should be made to the "architectural high water mark"  The problem is, how do you determine that ?  And, Who determines that ?  And, what do you do if the club's archives and resources can't ascertain the "true" architectural history and pedigree ?

In a great number of cases superintendents or in-house projects were responsible for alterations.

As we move further and further away from a club's origins, what members remain available to remember what existed in the begining ?  And, if there are some, how reliable is their memory..

It's a difficult process that needs at it's core, an extensive research project, before any goals are determined, or worse yet, pre-determined.

[Kirk Gill]

Tom MacWood had an interesting theory.
He believed that restorations should be made to the "architectural high water mark"  The problem is, how do you determine that ?  And, Who determines that ?  And, what do you do if the club's archives and resources can't ascertain the "true" architectural history and pedigree ?

To take this notion even further, how do you really know what the course was really like at ANY point in its history? Photographs? Aerials? People get shouted down on this site all the time for making judgements on courses just from photographs.

As to people who may have played the course or had some knowledge of a course still being around and active, I am reminded of a quote from a book I read once: "Truth exists in the moment. Before that moment there is only conjecture, after that moment, only opinion."

Isn't every restoration effort, or any tweaking that is done to a golf course going to eventually come down to the opinion of one person, or the consensus opinion of a group of people?

Of course, there's never going to be a shortage of people who believe that they know better than the other people who have made changes to a course (or even the original architect), so changes will continue to occur. But even if you want to go back to the original version of a course, or some high-water mark for a course, how can you possibly know how close you are getting? To whip out two cliches in one sentence, can you "go home again," or has that ship already sailed.........?

[Mark Chaplin]

At Royal Cinque Ports we are 3 years into a renovation process. It would be impossible to "fully renovate" as in our case there are/have been numerous old bunkers in the 150yd range from the tee. The only golfer they catch is the poorer player for whom the links is hard enough. Using traditional revetting techniques is not only expensive but time consuming for the greens staff. Many have either been filled in or remain as grass traps giving a flavour of the old hole.

Likewise bunkering in the 220-240yd range now only catches the average member and the young and not so young bucks fly them with ease. Therefore the filled in short bunkering is leapfrogging the "members" traps to the 285yd area to catch the better players.

What we are restoring is traditional methods of keeping the links by reducing water and chemicals to promote the return of natural links grasses. This is painful to many of the members who loved ultra shaven, heavily watered and fertilized meadow grass which produced fast but unlinks like surfaces.
 
Sadly technology means a full restoration would be outdated and severely reduce the challenge presented.  

[Scott Witter]

Peter:

This HAS been discussed before, to great length and heated debates.

"It's a difficult process that needs at it's core, an extensive research project, before any goals are determined, or worse yet, pre-determined"

This is Pat's best statement and the one I agree with the most.  I don't necessarilly agree with his view that "tweaking" is some form of 'modernizing' but he doesn't elaborate, nevertheless, IMO, tweaking can simply mean minor shaping and I mean very minor to a bunker to recapture its original character, or restoring a putting surface to the corners or to reinstate a false front, or an intersting roll-off next to a bunker.

No matter what, it is essential IMO to perform the research to learn and educate the members regarding what they have now and to document how it has evolved over the years.  They may also discover interesting information about the original architect that helps to guide decisions.  Somewhere, sometime, someone needs to and will make decisions about what to do, it is inevitable...right or wrong, so education will go a long way toward assisting them to make the best decisions for the club and the course.  Additionaly, some practical/functional decisions will need to occur...drainage maintenance/agronomics, pace of play and again educated minds will have a better chance to determine a balanced approach that satisfies historical issues/values as well as present day elements.


It has been documented on this site and by other respected architects,  designers and historians that rarely does a 'true and full' restoration make sense for all involved.  Even so, during the process of research, the hopeful discovery of drawings and especially construction or soon after opening photos will tell much about what was really there.  The more material the better, so decisions are NOT made solely based on one form of historical data.  Only then, IMO can the club properly assess their best move.

I think it is a mistake to believe that nothing should be done to address present day concerns and issues during a 'restoration'  but when considered, it should be done to improve the course, not the handicaps and personal outlooks of the committee members involved.  We are not playing in the 1920's or 50's for that matter.  Mother Nature, irrigation and maintenance have for the most part changed many original designs, so unless members are prepared to elimniate irrigation and throw away much of their high-tech maintenance equipment, a 'true' restoration will not happen.

[Bradley Anderson]

If you have a victorian house with shag carpeting from the 70's, pine veneer paneling from the 60's, asbestos ceiling tiles from the 50's etc., what you want to do is restore the home to a victorian house. That is with the materials and worksmanship that went into a victorian home. But you also want to add some modern conveniences. You don't want to have to pump water to the kitchen by hand, or load coal into the furnace.

I think the same goes for golf courses. If you have a Donald Ross golf course you want to retore it to the style and workmanship of a Donald Ross golf course, but with some modern conveniences to accomodate  changes in equipment, and the almost universal use of golf cars.

But the thing is, you wouldn't remove an integral wall of a victorian house just to install an 80 inch plasma t.v.. There has to be some accounting for good taste, and that involves some respect for the original artisan, even if it means that you don't get to have all of your modern conveniences. A lot of conveniences are ephemoral anyways, and making them fit may not be worth the loss. But every club has to evaluate that for themselves.

In my opinion you can't go completely wrong if you restore everything to the original golf course. But you can go too far in adding to many modern conveniences.

Wouldn't it be cool if golf channel had a show called: This Old Golf Course, with a Bob Villa type character covering golf course restorations?

[Patrick_Mucci]

To take this notion even further, how do you really know what the course was really like at ANY point in its history? Photographs? Aerials?

People get shouted down on this site all the time for making judgements on courses just from photographs.

There's a reason for that.
Any evaluation that determines how a golf course plays, based strictly on photos is inherently flawed, and close to worthless.

However, determining dimensions, configurations and spacial relationships can be determined from photographic evidence, especiallly if both aerial and ground level photos exist.[/color]

As to people who may have played the course or had some knowledge of a course still being around and active, I am reminded of a quote from a book I read once: "Truth exists in the moment. Before that moment there is only conjecture, after that moment, only opinion."

Some members are invested in the club and possess a keen sense of awareness relative to its architectural history and configuration.  Those individuals are a valuable resource that shouldn't be dismissed.[/color]

Isn't every restoration effort, or any tweaking that is done to a golf course going to eventually come down to the opinion of one person, or the consensus opinion of a group of people?

YES ..... and .... NO.
Unanimity is not a quality usually associated with the work on golf courses, be it an alleged restoration, sympathetic restoration, interpretive restoration, modernization or alteration.

Some architectural features are produced through concrete ideas, others through compromise and others by accident.

The critical issues are:
What does the club want to do with the golf course ?
Restore it .... in a pure fashion.
Restore it .... sympathetically
Restore it .... interpretively
Restore it .... and update it at the same time
Fine tune it
Modify it
Modernize it
Recreate it
Or a combination of the above.

Who is going to be the guiding light and the driving force on the project and what are their goals ?

What's the club's financial tolerance or threshold ?[/color]

Of course, there's never going to be a shortage of people who believe that they know better than the other people who have made changes to a course (or even the original architect), so changes will continue to occur.

But even if you want to go back to the original version of a course, or some high-water mark for a course, how can you possibly know how close you are getting?

I think there are individuals who know, or know how to find out.   Many of them visit this site.
But, it's a far bigger problem when you drill down to the club level.   LUCK plays a big part.

There have been suggestions that the Dead Architect's Societies could be of great help to the clubs fortunate enough to have been created by one of those Icons.

If a club is lucky enough to have a concerned member who is knowledgeable, dedicated and has the time to devote to a project, they should enlist their services in researching the club's architectural history.

TEPaul was that member at his club.
In 1999 he produced an excellent architectural history for his club.

But, due to the unique architectural history of his club, and the democratic nature of his club, the determination of which point to restore the club to became a complicated matter.

Enter "Compromise" stage left.

Was the work done by Gil Hanse "perfect"  was it a pure restoration ?

No, because the club didn't want a "pure" restoration.

And, I think that's where a great deal of the difficulty lies.

I've favored a restoration at Garden City Golf Club that mirrors the architectural features, circa 1936, with the understanding that the length of the golf course be amended from its 1936 distances.

Why 1936 ?

For two reasons.

First, the USGA Amateur was held at GCGC in 1936
Second, because there's an abundance of aerial and ground photos taken circa 1936 that would be a superior roadmap to reconstruction and restoration.

Is 1936 the high water mark, architecturally ?

I don't know.  It could be for some holes and maybe not for others.

But, on balance, due to the abundance of architectural evidence and the significance of the USGA Amateur, 1936 is an appealing, if not the ideal year to fixate upon.[/color]

To whip out two cliches in one sentence, can you "go home again," or has that ship already sailed.........?


The choices aren't limited to those two defaults.
Those are the easy choices, not necessarily the prefered or ideal choices.

In order to proceed with a project, the "will of the membership" must be harnessed and directed along the proper path.  A guiding light must lead the way and them.
It can be a thankless or a rewarding job, unfortunately, you don't know which until you're into the project.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley Anderson,

I don't think anyone begrudges the installation of a state of the art irrigation system.

But, when you alter the Victorian House by blending architectural styles, highly visible to the untrained and trained eye, that becomes a disfiguration, not a modernization or restoration.

It's a delicate balance.

One that should be well thought out, planned and executed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()