News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


michael j fay

Golf Architectural Archives
« on: April 16, 2004, 10:13:23 AM »
The Tufts Archives in Pinehurst has assembled quite a collection of Donald Ross Architectural drawings. Recently they have begun to commit the original drawings to computer scanned documents. This is a great service for the Ross courses and Ross fans.

My question is: Are their any other Libraries or Archives out there that are doing the same and if not should there be a central depository for files of these documents?

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2004, 10:25:03 AM »
Michael -

Yes there should be.

To some extent the USGA is a natural depository for these materials. But other than passively housing them, I'm not sure how much interest they have in historical architectural matters.

I have been involved in trying to get such a project started in ATL. IM me if you would like to discuss further. I would welcome your ideas or help.

I think it is a terrific idea that needs attention. Witness the Wayne Morrison/Tom Paul discovery of all of Flynn's drawings in a trunk in a barn in western Pennsylvania. It is possible that those materials might have been lost or destroyed if someone hadn't been looking for them.

Bob

P.S. BTW, I thought you might be interested in knowing that I've run across some excellent aerials of East Lake circa 1955, showing both of the old Ross courses. Fascinating. The NLE 18 looks to have been a bear.

 



« Last Edit: April 16, 2004, 10:29:38 AM by BCrosby »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2004, 10:35:15 AM »
Michael:

The problem is that those drawings are private property ... either the client's or the architect's ... and more and more, they are being looked at for their collector's value.

If they are in an archive where they are allowed to be reproduced freely, there is no collector's value.

Adam_F_Collins

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2004, 10:35:23 AM »
Scanning them and holding the scans, as well as digital transcriptions of documentation in a central database which could be accessed and downloaded by interested parties would be a wonderful resource.

Adam_F_Collins

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2004, 10:37:33 AM »
Tom,

Wouldn't the originals remain just as valuable? Maybe more so, because of increased awareness?

michael j fay

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2004, 10:39:24 AM »
Tom:

Good point. There are quite a few Donald Ross documents in the Tufts Archives that are restricted. I wonder if a view only format would satisfy the owners of the documents.

This would mean that they could only be viewed in the Archive not copied or printed. What do you think?

Adam_F_Collins

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2004, 10:42:34 AM »
Digital archives could be created in a low resolution...so they couldn't be printed.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2004, 11:06:44 AM »
Tom/Michael -

Yes, most of the drawings are private property. But like paintings and sculpture in private hands, their appreciated value enhances their value as a charitable deduction when donated. Such donations are the way museums/archives acquire the bulk of their collections. The same paradigm ought to work with golf architecture materials.

Building a good collection would take time and patience, but the economic incentives to donate valuable drawings are in place.

The rights to reproduce them is well trod ground with museums. The same basic rules would apply to architectural drawings. No new wheels would have to be invented.

Bob
« Last Edit: April 16, 2004, 11:08:26 AM by BCrosby »

Chris_Clouser

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2004, 11:14:44 AM »
I would think the Dallin photos at the Hagley Museum would be a similar item.  

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2004, 11:32:03 AM »
Chris -

There are lots of places (the Hagley is one) that are essentially warehouses of drawings, notes, photos etc.

These places are scattered across the US and few of them do more than keep the materials out of the rain. (The Tufts Archive is an exception.)

The right kind of archive would not just preserve these materials, but house them in a way that makes access and research easier. It would also be logical place for educational seminars, exhibitions focused on historical gca, etc.

Bob

T_MacWood

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2004, 12:18:00 PM »
My impression is Golf House is interested in golf architecture and that they would like to do (and plan to do) much more in the future. LA Athletic library has done some digitizing of old magazines; same with the USGA green section.

michael j fay

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2004, 05:46:43 PM »
Bob:

I have lived with the Tufts Archives proper storing of original documents over the past 15 years.

Essentially a majority of the documents were in the veritable pile in the late 80's. The Ross Society assisted Khris Janizuk and the late W. Pete Jones by buying the large steelcase cabinets. Khris was well aware of the need to keep the originals safe from fire, humidity, etc. Audrey Moriarty, who has succeeded Khris at the Archives is continuing the scrutiny necessary.

I think that original documents should remain with the courses or owners, but should be properly stored. No Archive really seeks to expand their collection of 100 year old documents. Frankly, storing origianls is too cumbersome and expensive.

If original documents were scanned professionally at an Archive like Tufts the files could be saved in read only form and the originals could be returned with a brochure to inform the owner as to how to maintain the document.

It would be great if there were a few places in the States where one could view Architectural documents from a variety of Architects.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2004, 07:58:11 AM »
Guys,
Seriously....
While the old routing plans etc may be of value.  I just don't understand the infatuation with all of the old green drawings etc.
I have never seen a green that was built to the exact drawings and when I see some of these courses where the present architect is trying to copy a set of green plans I wonder....did the original architect end up placing a different product on the ground and not recording the as-built?   I think so..  I know from measuring and reviewing a few different courses that in amny cases the local crew either emulated e drawings a a smalller scale and in some cases may have even positioned it at a different angle.
And in reviewing some Flynn drawings....I can see that they are nicely done but the topography and other features are a form of interpolation with the naked eye.
Yes, the drawings are an enjoyment to review but I think it was rare then and now that the product accepted by the architect is the same as the detail drawing thatwill remain thru the ages.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2004, 12:02:01 PM »
Mike

Alison's Pine Valley green drawings (6,9,11,17) are spot on, when compared with what was built-TEP could verify this.

I suspect his drawings of his Japanese courses would be acccurate too (given how precise the Japanese are).  They are drawn in exactly the same style as the PV drawings.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2004, 12:03:50 PM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2004, 12:10:24 PM »
Mike,

I, too, have seen historic drawings that don't mirror what's on the ground today.

But, to expand on Paul's comments above, I can say that Donald Ross' drawings for the individual greens at both Essex (1929) and Roseland (1926) here in Windsor, Ontario are mirror images of the greens as they exist today at each course.

It's amazing really.  
jeffmingay.com

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2004, 08:45:43 PM »
Paul and Jeff,
I would think what you have mentiioned would be the exception unless the archiitect was on site most of the time.  At our course they are far removed from the drawings.
Mike
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2004, 11:09:19 PM »
Mike -

The point of preserving historic architectural materials has nothing to do with whether or not the courses depicted in them were built strictly according to the plans.

The point of preserving them is because they are an important historical record that - if not preserved now - will be lost forever. It's just that simple. They are the only record we have of the work of a number of extraordinarily talented architects. They are important historical documents solely because they are by a Flynn or a Ross or, say, a Young.

Is it ok to throw away DaVinci drawings for sculputres he never carved? You want us to leave Vermeer sketches in the rain because his final oils weren't like them?

About one third of Bach's music is now lost. About one fifth of Mozart's is. In both cases, there is a real question about how they wanted much of their music performed. We still aren't sure about tempi, instruments, doubling, etc. We know that Mozart often didn't follow his own sonata scores when performing. Beethoven wrote some fugues that can't be performed at all. Does that mean its not a big deal to preserve their scores?

Ross, Flynn, Colt, etc. were artists (among other things). They weren't electricians doing wiring diagrams.

So, first, I don't care whether or not courses were built to the exact specifications of these drawings. Second, even if they were, the courses have evolved and are now different in in any event.

(Not that it matters much to me but I'd bet that most courses built with oversight from the architect were, in fact, built darn close to his drawings. The more detailed the drawings, the more likely they were transferred to the dirt. But even if there were lots of changes made in the dirt, it has no bearing on the historical value of the drawings.)

The historic value of architectural drawings is not just that they give you an accurate map as to what is or was on the ground. Their value is what they tell us about how great architects thought. They are a window into their creative processes. They give us hints about how they wrestled with problems and how they thought they had solved them.

To let those materials merely deteriorate would be deeply irresponsible.

BTW, if you don't come around on this, we'll have to rethink our plans for a special Mike Young wing at the new archtive. ;)

Bob  
« Last Edit: April 17, 2004, 11:11:03 PM by BCrosby »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2004, 08:04:15 AM »
Bob,
You of all people know I am not that good with words and again maybe I am coming across with something other than what I am trying to say.
I AM ALL FOR TRYING TO PRESERVE ANYTHING REGARDING OLD ARCHITECTURE.
I was trying to make a point that what 99.9 percent of the golfers playing a course know of the course is what they see on the ground.
And in the case of classic architecture that is what they relate to the architect.
Now the architect may have worked closely in the field with a construction crew and made adjustments due to lay of the land around a green site that wasn't detected, or rock or several other hidden variables.  If he did not take care to do an as-built then someone today restoring his course according to drawings would be placing something on the ground that the architect did not do.
All I am saying is IMHO many take the drawings too seriously and try to replicate them when they should be trying to replicate the stategies that the architect was trying to place on the ground via the drawings.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2004, 08:53:29 AM »
It's frightening to contemplate the fact that this is now the second time in a week I've publicly agreed with Mike Fay on something - anything. Amazing what happens when you turn 50.

He's dead on about the value and the need, and BCRosby has expressed the fact well that even when the plans have not been followed they are of value.

Mike Young, you're right that there's often a discrepancy in as-designed from as-built, but my experience with internal club debates on these issues is that having such plans on hand is always an advantage to restoration efforts and is always effective against hair-brained schemes to redesign, modernize or otherwise update a golf course.

Let's not get too bogged down in discussing whether every bunker or swale was built to the design. I think this would be to overlook a larger issue - namely, the sad disregard for years that clubs had towards their oriignal design documents. I've fished old Ross plans out of the bottom of water-soaked barrels in the basement of the clubhouse. I've seen full-blown aerials of courses from the 1920s drop behind a bar or a desk and disappear for 60 years!. And who knows how many fires have ruined such documents.

Heres' the really scary thing. There is better Ross documentation available than for any other architect - which helped immensely when writing his biography. But that was because of several factors that are unique to him:

-in most cases, he prepared multiple sets of plans (one each for his own office, the owner or club, the superintendent, the contractor);

-Pete Jones epent 15 years during the 1980s and 1990s gathering this stuff from all over the country;

-Tufts Archives did a great job, first underKhris Januzik, now under Audrey Moriarirty, plus they had support from the library board.

No other architect has such a confluence of circumstances in their favor. So, the important point here is not the esoteric (and interesting) debate among architects and historians about how closely plans were followed. The real point is that clubs need to preserve their documents, associations at the regional and national level need to organize. The spottiness of this effort has been very disapppointing over the years. Let's hope the USGA picks up the slack, since no other association is doing it. You might have thought the ASGCA would have been interested, but that's not been the case.

wsmorrison

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2004, 10:54:58 AM »
Through the kindness of David Gordon and Mike Hurdzon, Tom Paul and I have been able to study the William Flynn collection of drawings that was in the Gordons' barn for nearly 70 years at great length.  Tom and I have spent a lot of time and money to digitize the Gordon collection and additional drawings that we have located (CC Yorktown, Philadelphia Country Club, Mill Road Farm, US Naval Academy, among others).  Mike Hurdzan agrees with us that the digital copies on CD should be made available to various organizations that sponsor research and can act as a repository.  We intend to make copies available to the USGA, the Golf Association of Philadelphia, the Amateur Athletic Foundation, The Golf Association of Pennsylvania, and other suitable centers.  Individual clubs have helped out a bit in the process and they, of course, have the materials related to their clubs.  In this way the material is available to scholars and clubs.  I think the USGA recently posted on the Open website a Flynn drawing of Shinnecock Hills.  We made the image a low resolution one so that the materials cannot be copied but are suitable for screen viewing.  The more the information is readily available to clubs, the increased chance that they will utilize the reference material if they hire a sympathetic architect.  No longer will restoration architects fool memberships into thinking they'll do it in accordance with the initial design, they'll be some reference material to be held to as a standard.  Likewise, historians should be allowed in the process in some way.  Several Flynn clubs have sought information from Tom Paul and I (especially Tommy) and we enjoy being part of the process.  We present fact as such with supporting evidence and when we speak of suppositions, we present them as such.  We find a sharing of information terrific common ground to establish relationships on.

As regards Flynn's design drawings, both Tommy and I feel the evidence supports the conclusion that Flynn's plans were drawn to scale and meant to represent exactly the way the course was to be built.  Flynn's output was rather small and he is generally known to have spent a great deal of time on site and afterwards at many of the projects he worked on.  Flynn's method of work was such that he continually drew design iterations.  Up to a point he elicited input from the membership, but reached a point in the process where he took complete control of the design.  Flynn notated the design iteration with a number on the bottom right of his grid paper drawings.  The highest number we've seen is his seventh iteration although that is the only set we've seen.  Shinnecock Hills has a number of design iterations that we have, some of which were not implemented due to land acquisiton selections.  However, for the most part, the finished design on paper with intricate construction instructions was how the courses were meant to be constructed and how they were.  There are a few surviving examples of Flynn's green drawings, the Old Course at the Homestead for instance, where the green drawings are very specific and contours indicated to the inch.  There is no reason to believe this level of detail was not meant to be followed.

Of course some changes were inevitable.  Large boulders under the surface for instance caused Flynn to change the green contours on the 15th at Rolling Green which resulted in a fabulous two-tiered green that was not indicated in any drawing.  We know Flynn came back to a number of courses over the years (Merion for at least 22 and the Cascades for more than 13 years) and made changes to bunkers and other features so the drawings we have do not necessarily indicate what's currently on the ground.  So Mike, I think it pretty safe to say that although there are exceptions, Flynn systematically drew what was built.  This may be very different from the methods used by most architects of his day, but he was very methodical in his process.  Perhaps having an engineer as his business and construction partner helped this come about.

To date a number of people have seen the Flynn collection. GCAers such as Bob Crosby, Mike Cirba, Dave Miller, Mike Malone and golf architects such as Mike Young, Ian Andrew, Ben Crenshaw, Ron Forse, Ron Prichard, Gil Hanse, Paul Cowley, Mark Love, and others have marveled at the works--they are both accurate and artistic.  We are looking forward to the time when there is wide spread availability to study and refer to the drawings.  One method that would facilitate this is if/when we ever get the Flynn Society up and running is to have an associated website that has the drawings on file although high resolution images may only be made available through limited access.

All the materials we have obtained through a great deal of research is made available to the clubs.  The really well organized Merion archives has been the beneficiary of a considerable addition of information that Tommy and I have discovered or accumulated.  We have digitized Flynn drawings of Merion from 1916, 1924, 1930, and 1934 and donated them to the Merion archives as well as copies of hundreds of Hugh and Alan Wilson letters, Piper and Oakley letters related to Merion, photographs, newspaper accounts, and other important papers.  

Tom and I believe that the expansion of knowledge is only beneficial when it is disseminated.  Hopefully an organized collection of copies of his drawings and writings, along with our book (which we intend to finish by the end of the year)will be the definitive study of Flynn's work in golf.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2004, 01:46:10 PM »
Guys -

As things stand today, there are two logical places for an archive. The USGA and the ASGCA. There are problems with both, however.

To date the USGA's interest in historical architectural materials hasn't been much more than to serve as a passive repository for them. I'm not sure you want as the guardian of these materials an organization that (i) has mauled any number of important historical courses in connection with tournaments they sponsor, and (ii) contines - through its greens section - to advocate course maintenance and modifications that would make the hair curl of those sympathetic to retaining historic design values. It's not a mindset I'm terribly comfortable with.

More important, I'm not sure the USGA wants to be seen as preferring certain types of design. I suspect they want to stay very neutral about design preferences. Too many archies with disfavored designs will carp that they are being put down by the official sanctioning body of the sport.  

The ASGCA lacks the money. I figure it would require about $3MM to support the operations of a good archive. The ASGCA doesn't have that kind of jack. They are, in the end, just a trade organization for active professionals. An archive may be beyond their corporate mandate.

Which leaves doing it independently. I have some reason to believe the money would be there. (Think naming opportunities.) You could save expenses by linking it with existing organizations with existing staffs. Tufts. The Jones Archives at the Atlanta History Center. You may have other candidates.

You need a plan. You need some indication that those now holding important private collections would consider contributing them and taking the tax benefits. And you need a guy/girl will to devote the time to the project and the money-raising.

But, lord knows, a well run archive is something that is badly needed.

Bob

P.S. Mike: The "Young Wing" is back on the table.  :)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2004, 01:48:54 PM by BCrosby »

Phil_the_Author

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2004, 03:54:56 PM »
There is another place that has not been mentioned yet by anyone, and a place that I have had the privilege of doing research at and actually benn allowed to examine the entire collection - the Museum and Probst Library of the PGA of America in Port St. Lucie, Florida.

In talks that I have had with PGA representatives, they have expressed an interest and desire in both expanding the facilities and also making it a world-class center for golf research.

I suggested to them that just as Jacobus & Tillinghast provided a needed service for all of their members and clubs, they too today can dop something similar. I suggested that they create an archival vault and research center where clubs could send their course prints, documentations & correspendence; anything that would have to do with the creation, renovation & history of course and club. They would then be made available for golf historians to study and, even more importantly, be protected for the day when a course or club would like to create &/or publish a history. The biggest problems faced by clubs is the loss of these precious documents because someone at XYZ club that is 27 years old doesn't think that they need concern themselves with a 100 year history that will most liely be done when they are long gone, yet this is when the most attention is needed.

Hopefully they will act on my suggestion. It is m ost opbvious that there is a need for a facility of this type, one that actually does concentrate on the real history of the game.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2004, 05:40:16 PM »
Brad,
You are saying what I was trying to say.  
Wayne,
I agree that the Flynn drawings that you showed me were of great detail and I it is good that he made the iterations he did.

In no way did I mean to insinuate to everyone that efforts you all have made to catalogue and preserve the plans of the different architects was not appreciated.  I guess I was trying to say that since in many cases no accurate(if there is such a thing) tpo maps were available and therefore drawings were limited in accuracy and details.  And I ention this as in comparison to veritcal structure drawngs that a building architect would draw and hhave preserved.  THERE IS DEFINITELY PURPOSE IN PRESERVING THESE DRAWINGS for all the reasons Brad mentions.
I am trying to say that one needs to be careful to make sure that clubs don't OVER DO IT in trying to adhere to these plans.

For example, our club was built by farmers after one visit by Ross.We have one hole where the Ross green plan was placed on the ground at 90 degrees to what was drawn.  And you could never tell the majority of the club that it is incorrect.  All they know is that they have a Ross course and they view it the same as they view their POLO shirt.  They couldn't tell the difference.  Bob and I gave them the green detail drawings and they really can't even read them.  We have greens built in 1960 that they think are ross greens.  It would be dangerous to give them anymore original drawings.  So I just think warnings need to be attahced to plans in the proposed archives.
AS for archives, Bob Crosby, you may have the perfect opportunity to catalogue and preserve in archive form in a manner that is much more practical than any association.  I would think that in this day and time an FTP website would be the ultimate way to do this.  (Wayne M, you may already be there, I don't know).  I presently keep all of my plans on the web instead of in paper form..  It should be easy.
Bob, tel   the guys more about what you may be doing.
Mike
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

ian

Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2004, 07:22:21 PM »
The biggest problem I have heard from people who have archival information (and there are lots), is trusting the receipient to do the right things with the origionals.

My own experience:

I turned over a collection of origional pencil drawings to the actual clubs (it struck me as the correct thing to do after finding them). They were turned over in the promise that the club would frame the copies professionally (and correctly as I instructed for preservation) for the members to enjoy in the clubhouse. Most did, but a few still have them in tubes. That is the frustration of turning over drawings, once you let go, you have lost control over their destiny.

What Wayne is doing is admirable (and damn smart), at his own expense, he is making high quality copies so that a record will always exist. This is what the USGA should be doing, it would only be the cost of one high resolution scanner, and a part time staff. The other option is to encourage organizations, such as the Ross Society to take that on as their mandate. This could be achieved through club donations, with the return promice that all drawings for thier club will be DIGITALLY returned to them. There as good as the actual origional.

If this happens, collectors will at least be encouraged to lend what they have for the benefit of historians, writers and golf architects.

In my quest for things Thompson: I have been slowly finding the occasional Thompson drawing, but I (along with many others) have concluded that the collection sits in tubes in the National Archive. There is no record of any drawings, but I was told "that doesn't mean there is nothing there"

Ian Andrew

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Architectural Archives
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2004, 08:52:05 AM »
Ian -

You bring up a good point. With technology today, it is possible to generate reproductions that are actually cleaner and more detailed than the originals.

Clubs/private individuals would get back drawings that are better than the originals they donated. Plus they get to enjoy the tax benefits.

Still, the critical notion is to set up a central place that coordinates all this. There are no economies of scale with the present situation. You can't have five or six different places investing in the machines, renting space, building stacks and hiring staff. The economics don't work. It needs to be centralized somewhere.

Bob