[SriBunraRaya]

First off let me say that I have enjoyed being a “lurker” on this web site for the past few weeks and have found it to be highly amusing and informative.

Without getting into any of the specifics, my home course (Donald Ross circa 1912) will soon undergo a restoration project (starting with a master plan developed by an acclaimed architect known for his work on Ross courses).  There are many issues to be addressed such as overgrowth of trees, bunkering, green shape and size and overall design intent.

I would appreciate receiving comments on the “restoration process” and in particular suggestions on how to work (sell the project) to a divided membership (newer members wanting to see the brilliance of Ross restored and older members seeing the restoration as destructive).  I recognize without the early support of the entire membership problems will ensue and I (we) are trying to avoid these problems.

I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions.

[Ted_Sturges]

Make sure you check out the feature interview with Dr. Henry Terrie from Yeamans Hall Club.  This will be very useful to you.

TS

[Bradley Anderson]

You should call Skokie CC in Glencoe, Illinois. I do not know who the current President or Green Chairman is, but I know that either would be happy to tell you about their own recent restoration project.

They did some of the finest preliminary work ever, and the club entered into the process with overwhelming concensus and solidarity.

[TEPaul]

Sri...;

I'm from a Ross course (1916) that is just finishing up the Restoration Master Plan having taken the thing through the membership. We have not yet started the restoration but the approval process is all but completed now. The process of taking the plan through the membership was not easy and we did make some mistakes.

You don't seem willing to identify yourself or your course. That's fine--I can understand that.

However, I would not like to see you and your club repeat the mistakes we made! You can ensure that you avoid that by being in touch with me offline.

Tom Paul
tpaul25737@aol.com
610-353-2966
Gulph Mills G.C.
King of Prussia, Pa.

[Birdieboy]

Why the secreacy on the course and the architect that is doing the revision?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sri,

You indicate that the club is about to create a master plan and embark upon a restoration starting with the retaining of an acclaimed architect known for his work on Ross courses.

That would seem to indicate that the club has approved the intitial funding for this project, which would indicate there is a movement within the club, supported by the Board, and funded by the club to undertake this project.

Before addressing you question, and concerns, one needs to know more backround information with respect to the genesis and growth of this project.  Who are the prime movers, who is opposed, etc., etc..  More information is needed in order to try to give you a better roadmap to success.

Fill us in.

[Brad Klein]

1. educate the members.
2. gather old photographs and maps.
3. put the orignal plan as placemats so members can see it every day over lunch.
4. hire an architect who loves your course and respects it rather than who wants to change it for the modern age and has contempt for your ground features.
5. go out and peel back layres of tree canopies; push back greens to the edge of the fill pad; shut off the water; walk mow the greens.
6. look at Ron Prichards's work at Skokie (IL), Wilmington Municipal (NC), Longmeadow (MASS); Ron Forse's at Lake Sunapee (NH) and Salem (MASS.);Tom Doak's at White Bear Yacht Club (MINN) and Holston Hills (TENN).

[Hart_Huffines]

Brad,

Could you tell us more about the Wilmington, NC restoration?  Thanks.

[boothill]

Bradley Klein,

You mentioned the original routing on place mats idea at the Ross Society meeting last month.  Any idea how many clubs have actually done this?  I might try to start a collection .I find course maps as interesting as pictures and I find the two together enthralling.  

Wexler's book, "Lost Links" shows Montauk Downs having a cluster of four tee boxes within clear view of one another.   That had to have been a wonderful vista.  

[T_MacWood]

I think the placemat idea is brilliant. Ross's Canton Brookside has them and from studying theirs, I'm of the opinion the course would most likely be knocking on the top 100 in the US with a hanfull of reversals of past alterations.

[BY]

Brad,
Ron Forse wouldn't know how to get to Salem CC. All of the work there is by Jerry Deemer and his skillfull crew.

[TEPaul]

Sri:

The placemat idea is an interesting one--but be careful. Members who are against change will take umbrage at almost anything and everything that smells like change. We learned that the hard way.

If your club proposes this restoration to the membership in a membership meeting, through a letter to the membership, whatever, you have to prepare yourself for the inevitable negative reactions. The first thing resistant members do is blame those that are pushing for change. You have to present them with the reasons the restoration will be good for them and not just the desire of a few (particular the good player element in the club). And there are very good ways to do that and wrong ways to do that. Education is the name of the game in the process of selling a membership--there is no way to avoid that. So how to do it?

The first thing you have to understand is that the vast majority of memberships have no idea about architecture so they have no understanding or appreciation for restoration. Why would they? So you have to get them to understand that Ross was a heavyweight, that their course the way he did it and his original design is a super asset and make them proud of that somehow.

Most memberships think they're the first to go through this process, so you have to show them that other clubs have done this before them and that it is almost inevitably successful and popular with all. There will be those despite your best efforts who will continue to resist so you have to include them and educate them first or they will continue to make your life miserable.

Selling a membership is harder than the restoration itself--but it can be done well--particularly by learning from the mistakes that other clubs have made that have already gone through it!

You're going to hear this question either in a meeting or individually from these people; "We like the golf course the way it is, why are you asking us to change it?"

As far as I can tell every club that proposes and does a restoration gets this very question and you have to be ready to handle it and answer it without further inciting those people. And there are good ways and bad ways to handle that question.

I got that question in a entire membership meeting proposing the restoration plan. I said; "If you think you like the course the way it is now wait until you see it when restored--you're going to love it."

Well, that failed miserably and I can understand now that it failed because they had no earthly idea what I was talking about. So you have to explain to them in detail why they're going to love it. I've talked to a ton of clubs that have gone through and are going through restoration and that question comes up every single time!

The good news is that it's very possible to educate resistant members and memberships  because ultimately the original design intent (of an architect like Ross) is very commonsensical. Almost all these courses went though the same destructive changes so it's logical to assume that the solutions to bring them back is about the same.

There is a lot of detail in this process but it can be done well and it can be done badly. There are a number of people on this site and some who posted on this topic above who can really help you and your club. You should do your best to use them!

[Patrick_Mucci]

SRI,

What's the scope of the project ?

Just a little tweaking or a massive restoration ?

Obviously the scope determines the cost.

Can the project be done over a few years or will it be necessary to do it all at once ?

Your lack of response causes me to question your intent.

Tom MacWood,

Initially, I too thought the placemat idea as very creative and informative, but...
TEPaul had some good points.  I guess one must first analyze the "will of the membership" to determine if it's going to be an easy or hard sell.

I find that too much information is missing to form opinions and develop strategy with respect to this project.

If Sri really wants constructive advice, he needs to provide more data.

[TomMacWood]

Of all the architects past and present, Ross is by far the most famous and well known. Clubs take great pride in having a Ross design. How many score cards have you read 'A Donald Ross Design' or 'A Classic Designed by Donald Ross' or 'A Donald J.Ross Design' beside a silhouette of his image or in Brookside's case puting his distinctive signature below the course logo.

Although the membership of these clubs are universally proud of having a Ross course, very few could tell you anything about the man or his style or what is original from their course and what is not. The placemats feed into that pride factor--here is the original drawing of our course by the great man himself. And it is also educational, as one studies the layout--many times over a drink-- you are able to identify what was original Ross and what features are not. You can draw your own conclusions as to the relative merits of before and after--you don't have some club know-it-all trying to 'educate' you--its totally disarming.

Many clubs will have the original drawing hanging up in the stag-bar or in a hallway, but that is my opinion less effective because you have to go out of your way to study it. With it on a placemat, its right there in front of you, normally accompanied by a good stiff drink.

Some clubs may be too far gone to consider this, Oakland Hills, Scioto and Gulph Mills may fall into this catagory. But it could still serve as an educational tool--to illustrate what little is left, although many may not want to be reminded. Ironically Scioto and Oakland Hills both have Ross's drawing hanging up.

[Boothill]

If trees encroaching on the intended corridor of play are a problem, use a digital camera and some computer editing to show as it is now and as it once was photos.  That should go a long ways towards alleviating the fears that all the changes are being made to benefit the better players.  As a middle handicapper, I know I spend a lot more time in the trees than the better players do.

Which shot would a person rather have: a chance to carry some bunkers and recover the hole or a thirty yards sideways chip shot?

With all this restoration talk going on, this might be a good time to buy stock in a chain saw manufacturer.  At least we can hope so.

[Brad Klein]

BY is simply wrong about Forse at Salem. Forse did a lot of work there a few years ago. Yes, Deemer built it, and he continues to show up while Forse hasn't donme much lately - though he was there for the Seior Open . But if you think trusting design work to a bulldozer operator is all that restoration is about you're more ignorant than I thought.

TEPaul, the reason you have so much trouble convincing members about the value of architectural restoration is that you share a misguided bias with most folks here on GCA, namely that golfers really care about design. Big mistake. You never try to educate members on the basis of "design integrity." You do it on agronomic terms. Then you solve the turfgrass issues with design changes/restoration.

You should explain, for example, that the reason tree overgrowth is bad is because it prevents growth of turfgrass. Most golfers will get this argument sooner than because of "design integrity" or "shotmaking values." I don't pretend it's an easy issue. In fact, it is the hardest of all. But you have to remember to focus on some people, let a critical mass build, and bring in outside expertise, since members never listen to each other. Also, don't worry about the 10 percent of miserable wretches (all clubs have them) who are perpetually unhappy no matter what happens. Forget them. Build up support with a coterie of determined souls, and hack away at the middle 50 percent.

Brookside, Canton, Ohio, is a great example of phenomenal Ross greens - untouched over the years, perhaps the most intriguing example I've seen outside of Wannamoisett. It is a well-run club, with the super and pro both on hand for 30 years, a g.m. who cares, and a strong committee system with a great president. They held a Donald Ross day June 3 at which the super displayed his maintenance equipment outside the clubhouse and folks mingled with drinks and food among the mowers and spreaders. Then about 225 showed up on a nice Sunday afternoon for a slide lecture on Ross. All of this was part of an ongoing member education program and restoration effort.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I agree with Brad's last post. While I don't do any historic remodelling, I know from other remodelling that members don't respond to what former president Bush (no 41, not 43) called the "Vision Thing".
They understand and respond to simple issues like dead grass.

"Slipping in" design features would probably be best attained by comparing maintenance budgets past and present. If they have gone up far more than inflation, then state that when features were a certain way, our budget was lower, and propose them on that basis.

A specific example might be a "production study" of mowing time in open turf vs. around a gazillion trees. "Now, we don't want to get rid of all of them, but you know, we could save lots of money in maintenance if got rid of some of the worst ones.

That type of thing.

jeff

[Coz]

An interesting topic!!  the real issue is how to get a membership to accept change that will 1) Cause an inconvenience to them on their own golf course. and 2) Cost them money.  

All too often members vote with their wallet rather than their brain.  I have been through two major requests in the last two years and invariably emotion rather than fact is the ground on which the battle is fought.  

I agree with Brad that the change is made by winning the hearts and minds of the silent majority in the middle. (does this sound like the Nixon era?)  I would also suggest that you may fail on the first try. Don't give up if the request is worthy.

Use a loss as an opportunity to go back for clear answers to the questions that are raised, then hit them again until rational thought overcomes emotion.

I do, however, caution you about making promises that you may not be able to keep.  Jeff Brauer  suggests studying cost patterns that have occured with change and promising a reversal of these costs.  This could backfire on future projects should the promise be too lofty. Members will pummel you with unkept promises.

And most of all, the withering fire from the minority of members who are completely against change should be ignored by the management team.  The nay sayers will attempt any tactic to derail your plans; threats, rumor, innuendo and lies.  Don't take it personally and avoid sinking to their level, it will only 'soil' the entire project.  

Good luck!

[BY]

Brad,

Since you are in the know, why don't you recount Forse's involvement at Salem?

Also, pardon my ignorance, but please don't twist my words around, I never said that you should trust restoration work to a bulldozer operator, but it happens and some are very good at it. If I had to trust a Ross renovation to anyone, it would be Deemer's crews. If you think that they didn't go into Salem and rebuild bunkers there without Forse's involvement, you're the ignorant one.

In my opinion, a skilled dozer operator is the key component to any golf construction project. You yourself always argue the merits of the hands-on in-the-field architects, including those without formal training, most of them are machine operators. Then you slam restoration by dozer operator, you can't have it both ways! Keep in mind that I never said it was right or wrong.

Aren't there architects who have made the cross over from contractor to architect who operate dozers and perform restoration and new construction design-build work? I can think of quite a few who you have praised in the past.

[TEPaul]

Brad & Jeff:

Thanks for the advice and I'm glad you didn't give it to me a year or more ago because I probably would have taken it and at my club anyway you are wrong.

We did use the agronomy argument and explanation when it was applicable but we went far beyond that with our members and explained to them the ramifications and nuances of "desigin intent" and "original design intent." They came en masse, complained, questioned, listened and guess what--they bought it! Many of them say that they look at the course differently than they ever did and even play it differently than they ever did and are having tons of added fun too!

By far the biggest mistake we made with our membership was giving them the impression in the beginning that we were trying to "slip something by them".

Here's an example of the fallacy of your agronomy "dead grass" advice to try to complete a restoration project. In a membership meeting you tell the members that you need to take out a group of trees because they're killing grass and such and a member challenges you and says; "there is no dead grass around those trees, hasn't been in the decades I've been here and likely never will be." And he's right! What have you done then but taken one step forward and about three backwards and lost all your credibility.

I say give them as much information and education as they can stand and as much as they want. With our tree removal we gave them a four step analysis for any and every tree they cared to question the removal of:

1/ Agronomy
2/ Design intent
3/ Basic look of the course--we're "Parkland"
4/ Pyschological impact--ie; "skyline" green.

Almost every tree that was on the removal list remained on the removal list through this four step analysis. And before we went through the analysis with them almost every tree's removal was questioned!

Brad Klein said to me above; "The reason you had problems convincing your members is you are misguided by a bias that people on this site have that members care about "design integrity", they don't care about design at all. Big Mistake."

You're wrong Brad, probably totally wrong. You might be confusing the fact that they really don't know anything about design with the fact that they don't care. Or maybe you're confusing the fact that they don't really like to read about design in magazines with the fact that they don't care. At the very least they certainly think they care and they certainly act like they care, so in my opinion, it's best to treat them like they care and give them anything and everything they might want to know. And that's what we did and it worked.

I don't know what you did during the process of selling a restoration plan to your members at your club but I can tell you that at mine if you give them the impression that you don't respect them--you're cooked before you begin--and it's probably best to not get up and speak to them at all no matter what you have to tell them or how valid and educational it may be.

[Sri Bunga Raya]

Wow, thank you all for your response – I appreciate all the comments and insight into the restoration process.  I apologize for being so vague in my initial posting.  

The course is Lu Lu Country Club in North Hills, Pennsylvania.  As a brief but unconfirmed history, Ross was brought in about 1907 to design a 9-hole course.  In about 1912, he was brought back and expanded the routing to 18.  Since that time, the planting and overgrowth of trees have choked the course and design intent.

While we are in the very early stages of the master plan, I’m very excited about the possibilities including bring back critical bunkering and restoring the corners of our greens (originally square).   We do not have the original plans for Lu Lu but do have a wonderful series of aerial photos dating back to 1924 giving us a good sense of what the course once was and could be again.

My hope is that the long-term project (5+ years) does not get lost in the internal politics and personalities of the club.  Again, thanks you for your comments and ideas.

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, this guy SRI, whoever he is and wherever his Ross course may be is asking for advice in how to properly sell a restoration plan to a divided membership.

What you're giving him are shortcuts! You're right, selling a restoration plan to a membership and doing a good restoration plan isn't easy. But using shortcuts to sell it is a bad policy and probably a good prescription for getting the "selling process" to backfire on you.

Two really good architects told me in the beginning of our project that a successful restoration ultimately comes down to education, education, education! I can see now that they were right. It is hard work and generally shortcuts don't help!

[TEPaul]

SRI SRI BUNGA BUNGA RAYA RAYA BABY BABY!!!

HOLY SHIT! LULU G.C.!!!

Don't let a divided membership screw up that golf course! I should have guessed it was LuLu. 1912 is just too early. LuLu was the first course Ross built in the State of Pennsylvania!

You can get all the help you would ever want or need from some of us on this website. Matter of fact Tommy Naccarato might revert into a pyschopathic murderous rage and annihilate the odd member he thinks is screwing with LuLu and particularly #8. I promise, just wait until he reads this thread.

Seriously, I know there would be plenty of contributors on here and probably even Brad Klein (who does have considerable Ross knowledge) who would be willing to help you out on that course.

Some great stuff of early Ross!! I know your course is tight, tight, tight, but make sure you really analyze the aerials--there good ones, I've seen them.

Please tell me that you don't have members who want to remodel (as opposed to restore) or think they can make a championship golf course out of that cute little Ross gem!

And please tell me your architect is one of those that really knows what he's doing like Hanse, Doak or Prichard. God, Coore and Crenshaw might come out of restoration retirement for LuLu!

[Brad Klein]

TEPaul, you raise some very good points. I have no intent of misleading members. It's a matter of working with them, slowly, building confidence, and not trying to explain too much too soon. Some will care more than others and appreciate design integrity; many will have more superficial concerns about aesthetics.

The process of educating them is to start with basics, then broaden and move to a larger agenda. I have found that starting with a common denominator, i.e. healthy turfgrass, is very helpful. But once you introduce the issue of maintenance and course quality, you soon get into issues like bunker shapes and placement, playability, strategic variety, ground game, hole placements on shrunken greens, lost chipping areas, making the course more amenable for a wider range of players. Ultimately, the point I try to get to is that restoration - widening the playing space, firming up the course, recapturing ground features - produces healthier (i.e. deeper-rooted) turfgrass, and at the same time it makes the course easier for high-handicpappers and harder for low-handicappers. All of which gets you to the agenda you really want.

Good agronomy is not all that different from good strategy. Slow, water-logged, tree-lined courses are easy for scratch golfers and hard (and no-fun) for hackers. Firm, fast courses are more enjoyable for high-handicappers ands harder for low-handicappers. That's the goal.

It also helps to talk about design heritage, unique identity, enhancing the special character of the landofrm, enjoying views, making the game more interesting. Ultimately, the analogy is that a baseball game at Shibe Park or Wrigley Field is a better game and more enjoyable than a ball game at Veterans Stadium or Comiskey Park Same game, but it's different because the venue has changed.

Obviouly, every club differs. But the empirical evidence of readership, books ales, magazine circulation, etc. is that golfers for the most part are not eager to embrace design issues, even as they are deeply affected by it.

The most interesting aspect of all of this education is that the more you do of it at any one club, the more golfers enjoy and want to see more of it. So it works, But I'd prefer proceeding by way of scalpel rather than a jack-hammer. The patient proves less resistant.

[TEPaul]

SRI BABY CAKES:

Nice anonymous name you use there! I notice you don't even spell it the same way from first to second post! If you care to be consistent, personally I prefer BUNRA over BUNGA--it sounds like a better Indian family to me!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()