[T_MacWood]

Is the time right to form a panel of experts -- made up of internationally respected golf historians and golf architects – to identify the most important designs worldwide…the goal being preservation of these important designs (as well as insuring the authenticity of any restoration work)?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Great idea, especially in an election year!  We have the 9/11 blue ribbon panel, and ethics, and fundraising and what not panels, so we should have one for golf....

Seriously, the idea isn't bad, but the devil is in the details of the who, what, why, etc., not to mention the "who funds this groups activities."  And then, how official could this be?

In the US, we have the historic preservation act, and Oakmont, I believe, is designated as a historic landmark.  I don't know how any structure or place gets on the list for that designation, but I think it is a public application process.  In my town, our African American district just got designated, which piqued my interest somewhat.  Driving through it now, it is hard to see what some others have seen re preservation, but I wasn't involved with the process.  

My point is, if "everyday" neighborhoods can get that status (and history study is moving towards every day life of people, rather than the famous events, which have been pretty well covered) I think some golf courses could qualify.  

However, if such a group formed as an independent advisory body, and listed, say the top 25 courses worthy of inclusion, and that is the maximum I suspect would qualify for total preservation, I suspect they would have to get that/those course's permission, and apply for that status, no?  Even then, I'm not sure who or how the changes, if necessary, like rebuilding bunkers, would be monitored, or by who, etc.

However, it seems like the most likely vehicle to get at least a few courses preserved, IMHO.  If the national process is too daunting, I'll bet several states or even counties might have "official" programs for preservation.  Again, the course(s) in question would certainly have to sign on, as I doubt an group (essentially the Ross society model) could get anything through without their permission.

[TEPaul]

I think such as this is a great idea. This subject was floated on here about 3 years ago (and Oakmont was the first example mentioned (although it mostly involves the clubhouse not the golf course).

This kind of thing could only work in a real "advisroy" capacity. I seriously doubt any entity (such as Tom MacWood's proposed "Society") could actually get into ensuring that nothing ever actually be done to a course in an actual sense akin to the restrictions associated with historic building, and land preserved through federal conservation easements and such, many of which are put into these "preservation" entities and societies with the total consent of those that control those buildings and lands BEFORE they enter into such restrictions. Anything greater than that would be a blatant "grab" of private and personal property rights and such.

This kind of thing would be good, in my opinion, but only in an advisory context.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom Mac,
I'd enjoy knowing what the existing societies consider the best kept, best restored, etc., examples of their architect's work and  I'd like to see the results published.
It could even become a saleable "rating" for magazines like Golfweek, et al, if the proper criteria could be figured out and it might encourage certain courses to try and make the list.        

[Joel_Stewart]

I was discussing this last week with some people, something like AGF (American Golf Foundation) since the NGF doesn't do anything except cater to the club manufacturers and the USGA is well the USGA.

I thought that you could get some well healed people to contribute and pick a few public courses in desperate need of restoration by someone other than Rees Jones.  Other courses may just need some new equipment.

The problems are which architects are choosen and of course which courses receive funding.  

Count me in if it happens.

[Carlyle Rood]

Hell, no.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, An excellent idea.

The first thing that should happen is to make sure Rees Jones, Tom Marzloff, and Tom Fazio have nothing to do with this organization, just so they don't turn it into a political ploy.

If I can't be part of this Society, then I'll damn well will support it in anyway.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Great idea, but don't limit it to the USA.  You couldn't possibly give it any sort of legal status but by giving some sort of award of distinction - like Michelin stars to great restaurants - you could at least recognise great work (and take the award away if ever the course were screwed up architecturally).  I'm in no way qualified to assess these things, but I have some administrative skills....

[TEPaul]

To be honest this is precisely the way I'd like to see some of the major golf magazines write about golf architecture or write architectural revues. But obviously they can't be bothered with this kind of thing. They either don't have the  people interested enough to do it or they think not enough of their readership is interested enough or competent enough to understand or appreciate it.

So they run these ranking lists that basically tell you nothing in particular about architecure or classic architecture and old and famous courses except what the general opinion of some slice of perhaps 800 people (the panelists) is and whether each course is better or worse than all the others!

There is some utiliy in those ranking lists and who's better or worse, I suppose, but it would be nice if they told readers how and why their architecture or the courses were better or worse.

An on-going column in Golf or Golf Digest called; "Golf courses and golf architecture that needs to be protected and preserved" would probably be more effective than some "society".

Hell, I'd even nominate Tom MacWood to write the monthly article. If he could do that he'd also be free to spend a good portion of every month becoming familiar with all the actual playabiliies of the course he was writing about that month. That would allow him become familiar those clubs and their architecture he has strong opinions about but has never even seen and it would allow him to interact with those at the club and what they think about their golf course and hence his general credibliity regarding the necessity of the details of preservation would also be enhanced. Not to mention the fact that he's a valuable and resourceful researcher.

Perhaps his articles and input could become a primary part of what some "Society" to protect golf architecture was about, particularly that area where valuable architectural minds could carefully evaluate the architectural research and how to best go about protecting and preserving it!

TommyN does not want to see the likes of Rees, Fazio, Marzolf et al become part of that "Society". Fine, that would obviously mean those on it would not use it as some "trade" organization. If anything needed to be done architecturally on any of those courses slated to be preserved and protected those architects or the like in the "Society" could explain to the in-house crews how to do whatever was necessary and they could explain it free of charge!!  

[RJ_Daley]

Put me in the nice try, won't work camp.  There is no legally authorizing entity.  On local levels, preservation societies can gain authority and status like the Charleston SC preservation society can govern through local building and zoning codes.  But, I can't see how you can have any standing due to lack of a controlling agency for preservation beyond local ordinances.  I know there is the National Historical Site and Landmark governance.  But, I'm really not sure how that can be applied to golf course design preservation, when I don't think you could even get a consensus as to what features to preserve and to what time frame those features were at some ideal zenith.  We have fought those debates already as when the Merion restoration was debated to what year, 1930s or 20s or whenever.

[TEPaul]

redanman:

That post of yours is either a very fine satire or a complete contradiction on your part. Which one is it? We're discussing here on this thread how best to protect great golf architecture, not how some golf magazine can induce a nation of architectural idiots to want to play it!

Now back to the point here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I understand where you're coming from, and the noble aspect of your concept, but, I fear, in reality, it would be a paper tiger.

[Tom_Doak]

GOLF DIGEST did, a few years ago, start honoring clubs which were historic places in American golf.  Their very first choice was Onwentsia Club in Chicago, which we had just started to tear up and renovate, with few objectors!

I've been a preservationist for a long time.  But if any architect has anything to do with the organization, it's doomed.

Hey, this is a great idea ... how about making it so that anyone who signs up has to sign a pledge saying they will never pursue architectural work!  I wonder if you'd get anybody!  

[TEPaul]

"but, I fear, in reality, it would be a paper tiger."

Pat:

In reality I can't see how it could be any other way. I think we know that a "Society for the Protection of Golf Architecture" surely can't put any involuntary architectural restrictions on any golf course, so the best they could do is simply help build up some pride in the course and enough respect for it where the membership would not want to make architectural changes going forward. But what if that changed and some administration came along who wanted to break that? What could the "Society" do about that? It couldn't do a thing.

The thing that prevents courses from getting altered is awareness amongst memberships for what they have. That pride amongst memberships for what they have breeds respect for what they have and an unwilingness to change things because of that.

There really isn't any way of getting around this. Anyone connected to golf courses and clubs knows it's never any other way. To prevent changes to any golf course the membership has to want to preserve things. Frankly, all this basically boils down the the admissions committee and the admission policies of golf clubs. If there's a sort of implication that needs to be prevasive that flows from the club's admission policies that the club does not want people coming in that will propose change to the course the club will probably be pretty safe architecturally going forward. But what club has that? Maybe that's something I might mention to our admission's committee. Not a bad thing at all to tell prospective members!

But if that's the way it's going to be at my club I sure am glad we've just finished our restoration--or whatever anyone on here wants to call what we did!  

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

The idea of forming a commission reminded me of this joke:

Indian Wisdom vs HorseSense
 
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse,the best strategy is to dismount."
 
However, in government, education, and in corporate America,more advanced strategies are often employed in such situations, such as:
 
1. Buying a stronger whip.
 
2. Changing riders.
 
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
 
4. Visiting other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
 
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
 
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
 
7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
 
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
 
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's  performance.
 
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve  the dead horse's performance.
 
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
 
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.

and, finally,
 
13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position

 

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Hilarious! Printed that one out!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think it is a great idea. Any think tank with a defined goal and little power can do good.

[BCrosby]

I too think it is a good idea.

Anything that will heighten the historical awareness of the membership of historic courses is a good thing.

Bob

[ian]

Tom,

Is the society going to buy all these courses so they can dictate terms to them?

I suggest "we" form another society to tell each of you what colour to paint your house if "we" think its historical?

Concider this idea for a second:

1 Some architects and historians value certain work while dismissing others. (conflicts exsist as Doak pointed out)

2. Nobody has a broad enough knowledge to make any sort of honest judgement. So do we arrange specialists for each architect?

3. What if a club has no interest in this designation, are you going to force it on them?

4. There are courses out there that we hold very dear to our hearts that are renovated more than people thing. I pointed out the massive changes at Royal County Down. Is the course not better for the changes? Should a society had the power back then to resist that change? (assuming you said no), then why should a society have it now?

5. Lastly, through my two bad experiences with two Dead Architect Societies, sometimes a well intentioned idea can run amok and becomes very dangerous all on its own. Remember, once people are involved, all rationale and reasoning can be lost in the heat of emotion. (Like this site)

But then what the hell do I know, right.

[Carlyle Rood]

But then what the hell do I know, right.

I agree with everything you said.  This idea is preposterous.

[Tom_Doak]

If you wanted to do this, it would be pretty simple.  You'd just nominate 15 or 20 courses for recognition by the society, with the catch that the club would not be recognized unless it agreed to run any proposed changes through the board of the society.

If the club didn't want to play by those rules, it would not be recognized as among the best preserved.

Some clubs would surely pass at the opportunity, but others would be eager for the recognition, and then at least those would be preserved.

[TEPaul]

"the goal being preservation of these important designs (as well as insuring the authenticity of any restoration work)?"

I'd like to know how this Society is going to insure the authenticity of any restoration work. Would that be something like---"That cape on that bunker is a little too big, this bay on that one needs to be a little wider?"

[Carlyle Rood]

Some clubs would surely pass at the opportunity, but others would be eager for the recognition, and then at least those would be preserved.

The clubs that are eager enough to be recognized wouldn't require a society to begin with.  Did San Francisco Golf Club, Pasatiempo, Inwood, Valley Club of Montecito, Moortown, or Mid Ocean Club require recognition?  Would these clubs have been better served if Renaissance Golf Design had to have their renovation plans approved by an independent authority?

Thanks, but I'll stick to autocratic private clubs utilizing talented golf course architecture firms.

C

[T_MacWood]

No need to reinvent the wheel. Architecture has two hundred years of experience with historical preservation. The most successful and prominent historic organizations don't have any enforcement capabilities, nor do they buy the historical work. (And we are not talking about communities/historic zones, like Nantucket, that write very specific zoning laws in order to preserve their historic continuity, that is a completely different matter compared to preserving and protecting a specific work of important architecture).

There are plenty of examples to borrow from when designing a golf architecture society--the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), the National Trust (UK), the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Historic American Building Survey, UNESCO World Heritage list, etc.

Mark
I definitely envision an organization made up of historians and architects from around the world, with an international scope.

[T_MacWood]

It would seem to me that education should be a major focus for such an organization. It would be important IMO, when identifying and recognizing a specific historic golf course, to give them a detailed account of why their golf course is important architecturally.

This might help club’s when contemplating repair work. For example if a respected organization could document the historic aesthetics of say a Seminole, it might be able to prevent restoration mistakes.

It could also look back into the recent past when recognizing historic works, the documentation of a golf course’s architecturally history could include a report detailing modern changes which in the opinion of the organization have been detrimental to the golf course’s architectural legacy. I am certain there are many at SFGC, Moortown, Inwood and Mid Ocean who have no idea how their course has been altered over the years (in particular the last fifty years), changes that have not all been positive. Bringing this information to light would serve to educate.

It would remain to be seen if these golf courses would even be canidates for recognition and protection. One of the first tasks of the orginization would be to decide what its scope should be.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()