[Mike_Young]

Kelly ,
First, I am not a member of ASGCA.
If, I bought the Mona Lisa tomorrow and decided to rework it myself, no one has the right to stop me.  They might not agree but it is personal property.
You state that my earlier comments seemed to be an "extraordinary putdown" of people involved in restoration.  I can assure you it is not.  I like the work of most of the restoration specialist that are mentioned on this site.  But IMHO the best that any restorer can do is an interpretation and that is based on the philosophies and strategies of the dead guys more so than the site specifics.  I have yet to see a set of drawings that were actually built as drawn (Flynn may have come close).  So, does the restorer wish to follow drawings and decide that this was the original intent of the dead guy or does he rely on divine intervetion.  In the end the product will be nothing more than an interpretation either good or bad.
My first post harbors no ill-will toward restoration specialist.  It just states that ,IMHO ,in actuality, it has more value as a marketing method than it does ability over another that does not market in this manner.  (I think you yourself make mention of this very fact) .  I agree with  the  JNagle (I assume this is Jim Nagle you spoke of earlier) post above.  Except that I don't believe in "pure restoration".  
It may be hard to believe on this site but there are some who do not wish to be known as "restoration specialist"...not to say we don't do a restoration/renovation here and there.  We all market ourselves in different ways, some choose to promote as restoration specialist of a particular dead architect or several...I have no problem with that, I just find it IMHO to be limiting.
But again, I assure you there is no ill will here toward anyone that wishes to be known as a restoration specialist.
 

[ian]

Mike,

Thanks. I appreciate how open you are particularly when this is a site with a preservation bias. I also think any discussion needs representation from opposing views to be valuable.
While I may not agree, I respect your opinion.


Tom MacWood,

I appreciated your common sense answer about unaware and insensitive being more appropriate than unethical. Well put.


Jeff Brauer,

The bylaw committee beats the membership committee. I actually volonteered to "quietly" assist the history committee 10 years ago. That is where my heart lies.

I appreciate what you said about keeping the ethics broad as to not paint yourself into a corner that you never meant to be in.


Tom Paul,

Your right, the criteria required is a nightmare, and if I would have taken the five minutes to calm down before posting, I would likely have realized this and not posted the question.

I agree with your point about restoration coming from the ground level inside my clubs. Usually someone researching or just plain intrested gets the ball rolling. This is where I must commend the societies for making clubs aware. They have likely done more in that regard than any other source.


Kelly,

This was an ASGCA on ASGCA members idea. You and I feel the same way about work at an important club, I also think architects have to say no, even if the club throws them out. I have been on the receiving end at Canada's most historic course for resisting change. You have to do what you think is right.

The "Travis Expert" was a tongue in cheek comment about many people who use the term expert just as a marketing tool. I believe that Forse, Pritchard and many others are worthy of that moniker, but they don't need to use it like the others do. I regret that part of the post most - it was only trying to be funny.

Your correct with the personal choice comment, it is up to each of us to do the right thing.


Paul,

A renovation is the easiest project, its strictly getting your ideas from the plan to the ground. This is simply and generally fun.

A restoration is painfully difficult at times, when you are trying to recreate a feature from a photo or plan. Often you are forced to create and recreate something a few times to get it right. It is a test of patience. Jim's post was excellent in describing this work.


Willie,

Thank-you for your post. I am not a "purist" when it comes to restoration. I will usually not remove built up sand deposits at bunkers because in most cases evolution had added to the character of the green. I believe accumulation, erosion, and other natural forces (even man occasionally ) do sometimes add more charcter (and that should remain.

I think Merion (for example) is the most difficult set of architectural questions a restorer could ever face. There are so many possibilities to which to draw a conclusion.

[TEPaul]

"I agree with your point about restoration coming from the ground level inside my clubs. Usually someone researching or just plain intrested gets the ball rolling. This is where I must commend the societies for making clubs aware. They have likely done more in that regard than any other source."

Ian:

Don't let me try to sound like I know this fact better than you do. Obviously I know it less well because I've never had the experience with it to the extent you have and will, and others in the business have and will have. I'm certain when you go to a club to do a restoration you probably look at the course first and form your own opinion of what will work the best in a restoration sense and then after that you go to the membership with it.

At that point your experiences are obviously a run through the spectrum of being elated or deflated with how they (some in the membership) can help you get these things done or not!

I've seen so many restoration architects at this point. They come in with what they believe is best (and probably really is) but at that point they really do need help from someone in that membership to carry it through to completion.

That's basically all I mean by 'from the ground up'. It can't really happen all that well without a good architect obviously but even with a good architect it generally ain't going to happen either unless somehow it comes from the ground up within the membership of any golf club.

[ian]

Tom,

"I'm certain when you go to a club to do a restoration you probably look at the course first and form your own opinion of what will work the best in a restoration sense and then after that you go to the membership with it.

Sometimes you say to a club, " I can believe what I'm looking at. You realize you have an almost original ____ course and a lot of this can be restored. They get excited and the process begins.

Other times you are brought in because they have a course done by _____ and they would like to keep or return the architecture as much as possible (while improving the playing conditions or extending the course where possible.

At that point your experiences are obviously a run through the spectrum of being elated or deflated with how they (some in the membership) can help you get these things done or not!

Let's take Scranton, because this is typical and you know the course.
1. The plan was approved pretty much as a restoration, but with new tees for length (where it didn't remove the strategy of the original hole) - full support from the club at all meetings
2. The greens and surrounds were a complete green light - full support from all
3. All new tees were added, fairways widened (this was controversial to some), and grasses were grown back up.
-tees were fine, the fairways got slimmed slightly to save a few heads with spacing (you have to comprimise), but the grasses were controversial for many members - 4 areas removed immediately to avoid losing support.
4. Trial bunker done very accurately - membership grumbles about difficulty - board loses its nerve (for now) - we are currently stuck with the question of difficulty.

This is a typical run, and you know what, I don't know how this will turn out right now. We will re-gradd to try improve the playability of some of the long areas. We will likely try a couple of less controversial trial bunkers to ease the minds of the board to finally sell the board on a retorative bunker project.

I've seen so many restoration architects at this point. They come in with what they believe is best (and probably really is) but at that point they really do need help from someone in that membership to carry it through to completion.
You need either an influential member, a rock solid committed board, a great manager (this happens occasionally where they make the decision for the club), or the occasion where you are hired and given complete trust to let you do what is right. I have had 10 clubs now where I report to the club about what I am doing, present to the membership but that is about it. The Kawartha restoration this year has no imput other than they would like to see it.

Other wise it is a fight to limit the comprimise the whole way through.

That's basically all I mean by 'from the ground up'. It can't really happen all that well without a good architect obviously but even with a good architect it generally ain't going to happen either unless somehow it comes from the ground up within the membership of any golf club.

I think every real restoration has to have someone in the club who believes this is what is right, and the members of the club trust his or her judgement. They are usually the one who mid-stream has to say "don't worry about the individual thing that bothers you, when you see it all together, you will wonder why we let this disappear before."

[ChasLawler]

What I find frustrating is how the term “restoration” is defined. To me a true restoration would be one where the restoration architect takes every step possible to recreate what was once on the ground, and every step possible to avoid leaving his own mark.

But there appear to be some architects out there who bill their works as “restorations”, when in fact they are nothing more than glorified renovations/ remodels based on one or two photos.

Should recreating “characteristics” be considered a restoration?

[ian]

That is a renovation. Actually, if you want to be "pure" about the work, it is all a renovation. Some being more sympathetic than others.

Your right it is an overused and well abused work in golf architecture circles. Myself include.

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
After reading the above post by Cabell and then reading yours, it looks as though we agree.  There are no pure restorations.  Therefore how can there be a specialist?  It is all interpretation. IMHO.
Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

How did Ross and others feel about existing golf courses that they altered ?

Did they view any of them in the category of "deserving preservation" ? or, were they all fair game, irrespective of their quality ?

TEPaul,

I'd be interested in Perry Maxwell's views on altering an established Donald Ross course called Gulph Mills.

What were his views ?

[paul cowley]

....its really about how one ethicly operates in the grey areas.

[Mike_Young]

Paul,
Well spoken.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Most of the golf courses Ross altered were his own.

MacKenzie wrote very eloquently about striving for 'finality' in The Spirit of St.Andrews, he included Abercromby, Colt and Behr in that discusion. Simpson wrote about it, as did Darwin--the first outspoken preservationist.

I would hope that an astute judge of golf architecture history would recognize that a golf courses like GCGC, Pinehurst #2 and Sunningdale-Old are worthy of preservation even though they are the product of redesign. Architectural historians are not likely to welcome a remodeling at Montecello, Taliesen and Notre Dame de Paris because they evolved into historic designs.

Some courses were great from the start, others evolved into important designs...I think we've covered this subject often.

[Forrest Richardson]

Firstly, the ASGCA does regognize restorations. And, I believe the membership as a whole takes great pride in seeing treasured courses preserved and evolved. The ASGCA has a history of holding meetings at treasured courses where members can not only see the work firsthand, but meet with members, superintendents and historians.

One must regognize that the ASGCA member is not just made up of principal architects (the "names"), but many associates and, as I call them, "project architects" who work for the principals. These members need access to courses and people they would not normally be able to attain.

But...to the question of whether there is some mandate to restore or preserve? I think this is up to the free enterprise system.

Mr. Wright was a great architect, but he had no motive nor interest in restoring anything. His life's work is rather devoid of such work because that was not his cup of tea. If a client wanted a great music hall, Wrigth would be the first to blow up the one which existed. This did not make Wright less suitable for membership in any world society of architects, it just made him different from architects who relished in taking something treasured and focusing on preservation.

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
Do you believe there are important works of golf architecture worth preserving?

What was Mr. Wright's view on preserving great architecture?

Do you think architectural historians around the world who preserve and protect FLW's work (and other great works) are misguided? You may think it is a mistake, but I'm personally happy they restored Wright's house and studio in Oak Park...and have taken steps to preserve Fallingwater.

[Forrest Richardson]

Of course there are examples of golf worth preserving. However, much of what is worth preserving had to do with the longevity of the course and the many, many influences laid upon it; tournaments, changes, the work of superintendents, other architects, etc.  This does not take away from the vision and plans of the original arcchitect — for many courses these are well in place thanks to preservation.

But, there are a select few courses which are pristine in terms of being the near-identical work of the original architect.

Many times golf architects — and indeed enthusiasts, such as many here — believe and promote the absolute preservation of the "work" of _______________(name your chap), when in reality it is the ages of time and the continual process of growth, death and the forces of man and nature which define a golf course.

I am not a Wright historian, having only casually studied his life and some of his local work. Your views on how he felt about significant works would be of better weight than mine. I agree, preservation of his work is a terrific goal. But, while he was a visionary — like many golf architects — his canvas and its elements were much more permanent than the living, breathing canvas and elements afforded to those in our field. This is the difference we fail, many times, to realize.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Ross altered a lot more then his own work.

Just look at GCGC.  Didn't Emmett alter Travis's work at GCGC ?

Didn't Travis alter some of Emmett's work at GCGC.

Irrespective of the above,
How do you arrive at the conclusion that a golf course has reached the point where no further modifications are warranted ?

And, how do you arrive at the conclusion that previous modifications must be undone ?

Llet's get back to GCGC.
Would you not support the restoration of # 12 ?
What about # 14 ?  Would you support restoration on that hole versus its current design ?
# 5 presents a different choice.  Would you restore it to it's beginings or would you make a modified restoration, or would you leave it as it is ?

I think we'd agree on the answer regarding # 12, but how about # 14 and # 5 ?

Do you modify the tees on # 8 and # 10 altering their location and angles ?   Do you lengthen # 6, # 8 and # 11 ?

You seem to have a rigid concept of dealing with classic golf courses, yet, I've seen you alter your position on a given hole or golf course.

So, do you set rigid principles/guidlelines for all courses, or do you examine each course by itself and determine what should be preserved and what should be restored ?

And, is it not possible to improve these courses ?

I think the one failing of your argument is the interactive nature of the art.  Golf courses are nothing more then fields of play for a game called golf.  That game has principles and rules for play.  The object is: a golfer must get from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible, and it is the architect's function to impede and frustrate that attempt that creates the interest and the challenge in the endeavor.

To state that no further fine tuning can be forced upon one of those classic fields of play might do more harm then good, unless of course, your object is to have people just look at and tour the golf course, never to play it again.

I understand your point, and to a degree I'd agree that I'd rather preserve/restore a classic golf course then risk amateur or professional surgery on it, in an attempt to give it a face lift to be more contemporary.  All too often those surgeries result in the ongoing disfigurement of the golf course.

In the ultimate, I think the best that we can do is to try to educate those who belong to or control golf clubs, on the value of the golf course they hold influence over.

I don't see a golfing version of the "homeowners association" which requires owners to get architectural and aesthetic approval before building or altering their home.

It's a nice, romantic thought, but, it's too far removed from reality to gain a foothold.

Education and the deflation of ego are your biggest allies in your desire to preserve classic architecture.

[TEPaul]

"I am not a Wright historian, having only casually studied his life and some of his local work. Your views on how he felt about significant works would be of better weight than mine. I agree, preservation of his work is a terrific goal. But, while he was a visionary — like many golf architects — his canvas and its elements were much more permanent than the living, breathing canvas and elements afforded to those in our field. This is the difference we fail, many times, to realize."

Forrest:

I don't think I fail to realize that difference at all, although it sure seems to me some such as Tom MacWood seem to fail to realize the differences. At least he seems to refuse to recognize them as he constantly seems to want to rather strictly analogize building architecture and it elements with golf course architecture and its elements.

I realize his primary purpose may be preservation or restoration (in a preservationist sense) of quality golf architecture but so is mine. It's just that to do that properly, and for the very reasons you give, one really does need to understand what the differences are between the art forms if for nothing more than how to best go about the practicalities of good restoration or preservation of golf architecture.

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
If there are works worth preserving, why shouldn’t the ASGCA help lead the way by recognizing those courses? The free enterprise system will still be in effect…recognizing an important golf design (or a FLW design) doesn’t affect the free enterprise system, but it may help to educate and inform, and ultimately save important designs.

Are you afraid it would place unfair restriction on your activities, or the activities of  your fellow members?

You are correct there are very few pristine courses…near-identical to the work of the original architect. Courses evolve naturally, often gracefully, no one wants to halt normal evolution, abnormal evolution--in the way of ill advised redesig--is the problem.

Some courses were great the day they opened, others took years. For every Cypress Point there is an Oakmont or GCGC or Pinehurst #2. Every golf course has its own unique history.

The gardens of Japan and Central Park are also living and breathing canvases….redesigning either would be unthinkable.

In 1981 the Florence Charter met to draw up a charter for the preservation of historic gardens:

Article 1: An historic garden is an architectural and horticultural composition of interest to the public from the historical or artistic point of view. As such, it is to be considered a monument.

Article 2: The historic garden is an architectural composition who constituents are primarily vegetal and therefore living, which means that they are perishable and renewable. Thus its appearance reflects the perpetual balance between the cycle of seasons, the growth and decay of nature and the desire of the artist and craftsman to keep it permanently unchanged.

Article 3: As a monument, the historic garden must be preserved in accordance with the spirit of the Venice charter [a charter for the preservation of important architecture]. However, since it is a living monument, its preservation must be governed by specific rules which are the subject of the present charter.

The ASGCA, in conjunction with their sister international organizations and historians, should consider a similar charter.

[Forrest Richardson]

I may have fostered the idea of comparing golf architecture to building architecture by bringing up Wright — one thing is for certain: Wright was a man of vision, and so, too, are many of us who practice golf course design. My purpose was to compare the human spirit relative to preserving -vs- creating new...and all in between.

While there are "Wrights" out there practicing golf architecture today, and in the past, the canvas they are working on is much apart from Mr. Wright's.

I have often wondered what Wright would have created in terms of a golf course. I am certain it would have been closer to Desmond Muirhead than many preservation or retro-oriented philosophies.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom — Your post arrived after I responded to TEP's. Why shouldn’t the ASGCA help lead the way by recognizing those courses? As a member I can report that the ASGCA is very helpful in promoting historic preservation. During the past several years — and I am certain well before that period — members have spent countless hours at clubs learning about the legacy of clubs, original designers and owners.

The ASGCA's Remodeling University curriculum contains several modules on historic renovation and restoration. I have attended about six of these and have learned from seeing projects and successes.

I'm not sure any ASGCA member is afraid of establishing a formal response to preservation. I would guess that the discussion among ASGCA members would be very much like the posts above — Goals would be common, but the routes and intensity toward them would be diverse.

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
Would you say the ASGCA has done an effective job of promoting historic preservation...for whatever reason I haven't heard or read anything about these efforts. Has the ASGCA addressed cases in which historic courses have been compromised by redesign?

Didn't the ASGCA publish an official paper or position on the equipment issue...why not publish an official position on historic preservation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I suspect its because we feel that the environment (also a white paper years ago) and technology affect every course.  The tech paper was really addressed to the governing bodies of the golf world.  And I doubt we feel we have the right to address the hundred or so of the top classic designs to have a position on what they should do with their private property.  

Believe it or not, there were probably members who were against those papers, and many things don't go anywhere because its hard to get a consensus among 150 or so strong minded individual.  Even two qualified restoration architects would probably come up with two different plans for restoring the same course.  Which do we put in a position paper?

[Mark_Fine]

I would suspect far less than 10% of all courses ever designed are worth "preserving".  In other words, if 90%+ of all golf courses were significantly changed, the golf world would not be suffering a tragic loss of great golf architecture.  The key is determining which courses out there are worth preserving and/or restoring.  That takes a lot of effort and I wonder how many are really interested in taking to time to figure that out?  Unfortunately, even after putting in the effort, the answer is very subjective.

The other point is that at least of the older courses, there are very few that have been "preserved".  Most have already been radically changed over the years.  Maybe the question is better phased along the lines, "Is their some obligation to take the course back to what it once was"?  To try to preserve the architecture of a course as the architect finds it today will in most cases be preserving something very different from what it once was.  

[Forrest Richardson]

"Why not publish an official position on historic preservation?" — That is a great idea. I recommend that you send a brief letter to the executive director, Chad Ritterbush. Chad would be in position to bring it up...and I will, too.

[Joel_Stewart]

"Why not publish an official position on historic preservation?" — That is a great idea.

And what would this official position discuss and what happens if someone does not adhere.  

This is an impossible task.  If Cypress Point wants to change the 16th hole there will be a boatload of architects at the door.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Ross altered a lot more then his own work.

Just look at GCGC.  Didn't Emmett alter Travis's work at GCGC ?

Didn't Travis alter some of Emmett's work at GCGC.

Irrespective of the above,
How do you arrive at the conclusion that a golf course has reached the point where no further modifications are warranted ?

And, how do you arrive at the conclusion that previous modifications must be undone ?

Llet's get back to GCGC.
Would you not support the restoration of # 12 ?
What about # 14 ?  Would you support restoration on that hole versus its current design ?
# 5 presents a different choice.  Would you restore it to it's beginings or would you make a modified restoration, or would you leave it as it is ?

I think we'd agree on the answer regarding # 12, but how about # 14 and # 5 ?

Do you modify the tees on # 8 and # 10 altering their location and angles ?   Do you lengthen # 6, # 8 and # 11 ?

You seem to have a rigid concept of dealing with classic golf courses, yet, I've seen you alter your position on a given hole or golf course.

So, do you set rigid principles/guidlelines for all courses, or do you examine each course by itself and determine what should be preserved and what should be restored ?

And, is it not possible to improve these courses ?

I think the one failing of your argument is the interactive nature of the art.  Golf courses are nothing more then fields of play for a game called golf.  That game has principles and rules for play.  The object is: a golfer must get from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible, and it is the architect's function to impede and frustrate that attempt that creates the interest and the challenge in the endeavor.

To state that no further fine tuning can be forced upon one of those classic fields of play might do more harm then good, unless of course, your object is to have people just look at and tour the golf course, never to play it again.

I understand your point, and to a degree I'd agree that I'd rather preserve/restore a classic golf course then risk amateur or professional surgery on it, in an attempt to give it a face lift to be more contemporary.  All too often those surgeries result in the ongoing disfigurement of the golf course.

In the ultimate, I think the best that we can do is to try to educate those who belong to or control golf clubs, on the value of the golf course they hold influence over.

I don't see a golfing version of the "homeowners association" which requires owners to get architectural and aesthetic approval before building or altering their home.

It's a nice, romantic thought, but, it's too far removed from reality to gain a foothold.

Education and the deflation of ego are your biggest allies in your desire to preserve classic architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()