Merion Article in Philly Inquirer

[aclayman]

Jeff- I did put an abundance of credibility into Merion Member #60's Post. I felt that if the atmosphere is half what he alluded to there is prophecy in some of the earlier ramblings (warnings) that this venue theorized.
Not all TommyN either, but his use of the term vandalism seemed to be not only directed to Mr. Fazio but the crew hired to do the surgery. Now, if the committee is acting in the best interests of the club, I don't think it's out of line to keep all of them informed, other than by invoice.

[Daniel_Wexler]

An additional point that (still) seems to be overlooked, at least by the Philly Inquirer:

The club says they gave Fazio 1930 photos and instructed that "this is what we want," or words to that effect.  Okay, what we've seen here may not necessarily be a fair, representative sample of the finished product.  Future pictures and angles may appear a bit different and if so I'll surely amend my opinion.  But...

The bunkering that we've seen here DOES NOT seriously resemble the bunkering in the old 1930 aerials-- a point in time at which, for the most part, the hazards had taken on the rounder, smoother look most familiar to those who've studied William Flynn.

So, is the Fazio organization simply incapable of recreating a specific shape in a specific spot?  I sort of doubt that (not to the degree suggested by Tommy's pictures, anyway).  Thus I too have to wonder if the 1930 explanation is, as Geoff suggests, a line of reasoning concocted after the fact.

[Witness Prot. Program 383]

Mr. Wexler gets to the basic question that is never asked or answered in the article.  If 1930 is the restoration date then why are the bunkers so modern looking?  Do they look like the 1930 pictures?  If they don't, why is that?  Could it possibly be that the bunker work was scheduled and planned and contractor's hired for other reasons than a 1930 restoration?  If work began 5 years ago as part of a total restoration to 1930, as they article suggests, it was the best-hidden secret since the Manhattan Project.

I would think that such a large, complex, and probably expensive project would be something that the club would be touting to some extent.  Yet, even they seem to be realizing that something is amiss with the bunkers.  Where are the club voices proudly proclaiming, "look at the wonderful job we did restoring our bunkers!  Don't they look wonderful?"  Instead, it seems the new motto, even from those in the article and on this website who are defending the work is "Merion's bunkers...see...they're not so bad."

Is that the outcome everyone was hoping for?  Just based on the reputation these bunkers have had over the years (even their own nickname), I would sense that's probably why people are upset.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Witness Protection Program # 383,

Dear Geoff, Dan, et. al.,

Can we stop relying on photos ?

Can we get knowledgeable GCA'ers to Merion to view the bunkers with their own eyes and report back on what they see and their evaluation of same.  

Can we get someone to look at ALL OF THE BUNKERS, not just one or two, and tell us what they see.

Do I have to fight suburban Philly traffic for myself.  

Let's get there, see them, play them and evaluate them !

I know what I want to do.

I want to go play Applebrook and Merion on the same day.

[Witness Prot. Program 383]

Mr. Mucci,

Who's relying on pictures?  I've seen 'em.  

The question I asked is whether the new bunkers accurately represent the 1930 pictures described in the article, or if club officials even believe they do.  One would think it would be a very easy thing to verify.  They also don't seem to very proud of the bunker work at the moment, almost defensively apologetic, actually, so I'm guessing something went wrong along the line.

I also wonder how many of you people who write on here would actually give your honest opinion of the work if you actually DID get the chance to play Merion and see the bunkers and thought as I do.  Wouldn't criticism of your host in a public forum likely result in those playing privileges being revoked?  That sort of explains my preferring not to use my name.

[Patrick_Mucci]

WPP # 383,

Depends on how solid and strong your relationship with your host is, And...
what his relationship is with the club and project stewards.

I also find that if you're up front with everyone, they know where you're coming from and what to expect from you, so there are no surprises or disappointments with an OBJECTIVE critique.

I can see how people get in over their heads, in projects beyond their ability to fully understand and  manage.  It happens at every level in life.  Perhaps the intentions were good but the level of expertise required was lacking.  Only time will tell.

I still want to play Applebrook and Merion on the same day.  Care to join me ?

[Joe Pataliano]

I found these pictures in one of the other posts.

[Merion Member 60]

Quoting from Patrick Mucci  posted August 27, 2001 11:02 PM            
“It is also important to remember that the Members ELECT the Board to REPRESENT them.
And, there is never UNIVERSAL approval with regard to any project a club undertakes.”
            -------------
This is a beautiful theory but I come back briefly to make the point that in our case this is all done behind closed doors. It was just announced after the annual meeting what the official changes were in board members. The current President who I can’t say nice things about  (and won’t to keep your regulars happy - I am a guest here.) is the brother in law of the decent last one and brother of the very nice lady who ran our Girls JR event.  They don’t cast a wide net for any of these positions.

This project was dumped on us in a letter that flew like a lead balloon. The tree harvesting and other changes were not included in the discussions, just the bunker project and a variety of other expensive non-course related items. If they had just come clean and used the regular mailings of information to include these discussions, way before and during the project, we would feel more in the loop.

[Witness Prot. Program 383]

Mr. Mucci,

If you can arrange that, I would certainly make every effort to attend.  Thank you for asking.  I also agree with your comments about objectivity and honesty when doing critiques, but the atmosphere around this bunker issue seems particularly charged at the moment, given the recent article.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm not quite sure if I remotely qualify as a "knowledgable GCA'er", but I've personally seen "all of the bunkers" and offered my honest, detailed opinion on another thread at that time.  I also brought up the bunkers along the creek on the 5th during the same discussion.

For several reasons, I'll decline commenting further at this point.  I'd only encourage others who might be interested to make their own assessments, and if they feel like sharing those on this board, pro or con, that's great.  

Despite several attempts by Tom Paul to get people talking about the actual construction and architectural issues involved (that could possibly benefit MANY courses considering similar projects, as well as possibly Merion down the road), that kind of discourse does not seem to be possible here at the moment, also probably due to multiple reasons.  That's too bad.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Patrick:

I thought my disclaimer was pretty clear, no??

[Ed_Baker]

Dear Blessed Lord,one of our more passionate contributors was correct,it is vandalism!

It looks more like Vegas or the Grand Strand than Merion.Talk about out of character,wow.

Was photography that bad in 1930?
Another moustache on the Mona Lisa,sad.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Merion Member 60,

If the club, or Project committee didn't provide ongoing communications to keep everyone informed, from start to finish, that is certainly a Cardinal Error.

Ongoing communications, or status reports make most members feel as if they are actively involved in the project.  
And, while many members may disagree in principle with the project, ongoing communication tends to ameliorate or silence dissent from the membership.

When I went undertook a substantial project, I wrote MONTHLY status letters to the membership that were four (4) to seven (7) pages long in order to keep everyone well informed.

Even then, opponents would complain about an issue that they indicated they were unaware of.  I would simply refer them to my letter to the members dated __-__-__, which clearly outlined that facet of the project.  Some were satisfied, others weren't, but I had fulfilled my obligation to the membership to keep them informed on the project they voted for and funded.

Something doesn't seem right !

What I don't understand is:  How did Merion get approval for obtaining and/or spending the funds if they didn't go to the membership for the approval ?

I would think that no committee could spend funds without Board and Membership approval.
And, most clubs have a unauthorized spending threshold, above which, membership approval is required by their by-laws.

Perhaps you could explain to us how the project and funding were approved without membership participation or how this process was skirted.

Thanks.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The protypical Merion/Bill Kittleman/Joe Valentine bunker. It details not only the history, but the evolution of Merion Golf Club. Unfortunately, it no longer exists. This is one of the Hanse/Kittleman restored bunkers. In examination, it reveals the attention to detail that was needed and the time that was more then neccessary to get it "just right."

Dress the new bunkers up in all of the Scotch broom and fescue they want. They will never have the same character as these. However, it will detail in the years to come the dreadful mistake the club and its green committee have made to this phenominal piece of golfing ground that stood the test of time until the year 2000.

I celebrate the fact that the Merion Green committee is making an effort to improve the course by properly removing intruding trees and restoring lost fairways. However, I will never be able to fathom how in their minds that they could ever remove their most valuable asset--The White Faces.

It is sickening.

Mean spirited? Yes, maybe. especially after seeing what can be done to something so perfect.

Uninformed? Well, I'll let history decide that. Something that YOU people used to know about until you decided to leave your mark.

My reactions are based entirely on the love of the game and the hopes that it survives the melee of green committees that are destroying it from the past, to the present, and in the future.

[Mike_Cirba]

Damn...

Tommy, if you are uninformed, then maybe we need less information and more believing what our eyes and hearts tell us in this world.

Thanks for the memories...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Daniel Wexler,

I don't understand the disclaimer you're referencing, so please explain it again thanks.

Tommy Naccarato,

Having seen Innescrone and Applebrook I have an enhanced appreciation for the work that Gil Hanse and his staff perform, and perfer that look to what has been presented as the look of the bunkers circa 1930.

With limited facts at my disposal I would be inclined to agree with Geoff's viewpoint that the 1930 explaination may have been an afterthought, not an original target.

[RJ_Daley]

While it is reported that Fazio donated his time for free, I don't believe the laborers worked for free, or any of the other suppliers or subs.  So, could anyone tell us if funds for this project come from a grant by USGA, PGA, or other local association or society.  Sorry, if this was answered and I missed it...

[Daniel_Wexler]

Patrick:

Before commenting on the new bunker look, I acknowledged that we've only seen a couple of photos, and that I would certainly amend my opinion if subsequent evidence proved these pics to be inaccurate.

No doubt that seeing the work in person would be better, but 3,000 miles on short notice just isn't going to work right about now.

[TEPaul]

Again, golfclubatlas contributors should try to stick to architectural analysis--period!

Certainly anyone would probably feel for a member of a golf club who pays the same dues as everyone else and wasn't really consulted for some reason, or felt he wasn't. But is it for people like us to get into questioning a club's project "process" through a membership of a restoration effort? Not in my book it isn't!

We should talk about the benefits of really good research (something that clubs can come by on this site, if they would only come on here and ask and discuss) and the finished product (what it looks and plays like)--who can do it best (architects and contractors) and how it's done, the techniques used (constructions, methods etc, etc). Or even a discussion and opinion on whether something should have been done at all, architecturally speaking.

But should it be our concern how decisions are made--either by a single czar or a totally democratic and informative process? I don't think so! We can talk about what it takes to make a really good informed decision architecturally or even the rationale it might take to convince golfers (members) of the logic and commonsense of a particular architectural decision and result, but that's about all.

For Golfclubatlasers to get into trying to advise golf clubs of how they should communicate, inform and gather a consensus as to how to bring off a really good restoration effort is basically none of our business! That's up to the club, and all clubs are vastly different that way. But the architectural research and architectural decisions are things that some on Golfclubatlas have an excellent handle on for certain types of designs, in my opinion. Maybe they even have a good handle on all styles of design!

Pat, there is no mystery regarding what the  bunkers at Merion look like today and what they looked like two years ago. It is not as if noone has seen them and played them. You may not believe that, but you should, by all means, come to Philadephia and see for yourself if that's what you need to do to convince yourself of some the accuracy and validity of what has been mentioned and discussed on here.

Frankly, I can tell you that the photos above (all of them) are very representative of what you would have seen two years ago (the one with the stone house in the background is the Hanse/Kittleman restoration, I belive) and what you will see if you come and see or play Merion today. Is it totally wrong, totally right or something in between? At this point most can tell that really does involve plenty of subjectivity! Is it what Merion wanted? Only they can answer that and very likely that will take some time.

The $64,000 question still for me is if those "surrounds" (everything that is grass and sod around the internal sand areas) needed to be redone, restored or even touched in this Merion restoration project.

I think it's safe to say that the drainage and sand of Merion's bunkers (probably all of them) needed work and restoration. But did that mean that the "surrounds" had to be done too? Essentially the "surrounds" were the largest part of the evolutionary "White Faces" of Merion and their "look"! Did the membership hate what they had become? Did the membership struggle with playing them (the "surrounds") after all these years? Was it only the Hanse/kittleman restored bunkers the members were struggling with and the club was having difficutly maintaining? Or did the green committee see the "surrounds" as an ongoing maintenance headache, or even more perplexing, did they see them as an indication that for some reason Merion appeared to be "falling apart" because of their rugged and "unkempt" look?

And then there are other questions that haven't been much talked about. Like, how do the new bunkers play compared to the way they used to? How did the Hanse/Kittleman bunkers play compared to what had not been touched? There's a ton of analysis left in those subjects alone. One contributor to this site mentioned that the bunkers of Merion may play more difficult since they've been restored. In a general sense, I have no doubt that he's right, but for reasons that have not been much talked about on here!

And then there's the more esoteric question of bunker-wol, or whichever bunker lining Merion is now using throughout their new bunkers. That's not a subject I personally have any opinion on as to whether Merion did it right of wrong. But it's a subject I would like to know more about so I can have a better informed opinion about whether it's something my own club should do or not in our bunker restoration project.

So again, let's stick to architecture--period--and steer clear of blame, slamming people and a golf club's internal affairs.

[Tim_Weiman]

TE Paul:

I share your feeling that discussion of a club's internal affairs probably doesn't make sense for this site if we want to broaden participation.

But, how can we avoid it?  And, for that matter, isn't a club's leadership part of the "architecture" story?

Don't we, for instance, owe part of what Pine Valley is all about to certain key individuals who have managed the club so well over the years?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I would disagree with you with respect to understanding the "process" because the process determines the outcome of the architecture.

The process entails the mission statement, the directive to the architect and contractor, and the field work and supervision, and finally, the finished product.

Fully understanding the process doesn't direct fault, blame or praise.

And since the parties that be at Merion feel that everything is hunky dory at Merion, what's there to be afraid of in determining and discussing what the process was ?

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Yes, you're right, a club's leadership is surely part of their architecture story.

And I'm sure such things as HOW architectural decisions are made by a leadership at any club and moved through the membership will always be of some interst to people like us.

But I do think that we should concern ourselves more with WHAT architecutural decisions are made and not so much with how a club "processes" their decisions through their memberships. All clubs have vastly different ways of operating but that does not mean that they can't all arrive at what valid architectural decisions are all about in their own unique way.

For people like us to start delving into the internal affairs of golf clubs and making recommendations about the best and proper way for any club to get architectural matters through their memberships should just not our business or concern, in my opinion. It's another example of "one sized suit fits all" that is not a good thing to recommend.

A pretty good example would be three clubs right here in the Delaware Valley--Pine Valley, Merion and Gulph Mills. Each has their own unique and very different way of operating and all are just as capable of making intelligent architectural decisions provided the people that are involved make sound assumptions, do their research and make sound decisions. It is also of added interest that those three clubs and their vastly different styles and structures have a ton of cross-over members all with each other!! Those decisions and how they get translated onto the course should be the things that people like those on Golfclubatlas should analyze and discuss. What decisions are made not how they're approved.

In the entire eighty five year history of Pine Valley only four men have made architectural decisions! That's damned amazing and is the classic "benevolent dictator" style. Merion is clearly run by a committee and that's the way they've operated. Gulph Mills, at least now, has a style that can involve the entire membership if they so choose.

As different as those three are they can all come to correct architectural decisions and that's the part we should be interested in.

And I'm sure I could easily find you three other clubs that have those same three vastly different styles and structures as mentioned above that never even come close to making sound architectural decisions. So it's what happens architecturally not so much how that "what" is taken through a membership.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Either you and I just disagree about this kind of thing or we are not on the same page on the definition of "process".

If by "process" you mean how the people who make architectural decisions (whether it be a single czar, a committee or an entire membership) arrive at those decisions, then I agree that is of interest to people like us.

But if by "process" you mean how those decisions (once made) are moved through a membership, then I disagree with you and say again that is an area that is none of our buisiness.

This came up on this topic, I guess, because of a few posts by apparent members of Merion who don't appear to be discussing the architecture or the "product" that Merion has given its membership. They appear to be only discussing other issues and that whether or not that product is good, bad or indifferent that Merion did not present it to them very well, in their opinion. I feel for those members, I suppose, but still we should be discussing what was given to them no matter how it was given to them.

We should be discussing the product that Merion put on the ground and not whether the club created a perfect consensus among its  membership or whether they did the whole thing in secret and beat the membership over the head with it.

It's the same damn product and we should discuss whether architecturally it's any good or not, period!

[Tim_Weiman]

TE Paul:

Your clarification on "process" makes sense to me.

Patrick:

Do you see things differently?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's your first option, behind curtain # 1,
how the decisions are made, not how they're passeded to the membership.

This is the crux of the issue.

What was the objective of the project ?

How and what were the decissions made in striving toward that objective ?

Questions regarding time frames or constraints, cost, philosophy of design and construction, are all of interest to me.

On a project like this, it would be interesting to read the committee minutes, if any were kept, and not sanitized.

The Hanse bunker is in such stark contrast to the bunkers pictured, that the minutes dealing with the change have to be infomative regarding the entire process, project and outcome.

I must say, at this point, with many facts still unknown, that I have had a change of mind regarding my view of the project.  But,
I must reserve my final judgement until all the facts are in.