Collaboration on restoration projects

[TEPaul]

I've always been a huge advocate of courses who are planning or launching into restoration projects to get out there and really try to collaborate with the clubs that have gone through restoration projects ahead of you.

To me it's just a wonderful way of learning, educating yourself to all the little details of things that can go right and wrong and collaboration this way is basically a great way of avoiding mistakes, certainly including certain things that may never have even occured to you.

I don't know why I just always thought to advocate collaboration through a direct club to club method, instead of trying to do it on this website.

So what are some of the things that the clubs who've been through it learned that they wished they'd been aware of going in?

What are some of the good examples of your successes and failures? And how would you have approached it differently?

(A good example I think I might offer is the use of the "bunker-wol/sandtrapper product" (bunker underliner). I figure we dodged a bullet there doing it the way we did).

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
What makes you so sure this is not already happening?  Frankly, I believe it is (very much so).
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You've obviously forgotten my "Second Opinion" thread which I posted several years ago.

But, I'm not so sure that I agree with you because most clubs aren't embarking on true restorations, they're embarking on modernizations, and keeping up with the Jones's can be a dangerous pursuit

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I never said a thing about it not happening. Of course it has, and it continues to. I know a number of clubs that have done it to their great benefit. But I also know far more who haven't or haven't planned on it. It's sort of a phenomenon to me that so many clubs who consider a master plan and restoration for some odd reason seem to act as if they have to do it in a virtual vacuum, almost as if they're the first ones to do it. I think the reason for that is basically that when most clubs begin to consider master plainning and restorations it's very uncommon to find anyone within that club who has ever been involved in this type of thing before. Think about it!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I just went through a restoration project with my club don't forget and we haven't quite finished it yet. I do remember when we formed our committee and had our first meeting. If you'd asked anyone in there what the differences are between restoration, modernization, improvement, or whatever one wants to call it they wouldn't have been able to tell you.

Actually, when Gil came back with his master plan which was essentially a restoration, we called it that for a few months and the sound of it didn't go over very well with the membership so we ended up calling it "an improvement plan" although we only changed the name of it not the plan itself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Were there any modifications in the original idea, the original concept and what was ultimately put into the ground ?

Was it a "true" restoration or a hybrid restoration ?

[Ed_Baker]

Tommy,

The thing that still irks me 8 years after the major elements of our restoration were completed is that I am still selling the damn thing.

There isn't a season that goes by that I don't get accosted by some member bitching about some superfluous personal agenda item about the "restoration" or master plan.

Example: " Why are the fairway bunkers on #6 so deep?"
Answer " All the bunkers were restored to their original depths by a master shaper that has been doing restorations for twenty years under the guidance of one of the countries more well known Ross restoration architects, why do you ask?"
"I can't reach the green any more when drive in to one of them."
" Would you suggest that we raise the floor of the bunker?"
" You should have left the damn things alone."
"Really? All of them, or just the fairway bunkers on #6?"
" All of them."
" Even the greenside bunker on #12 that the face kept caving in on every time it rained and was starting to take part of the green apron with it? How about the fact that virtually all the bunkers were unplayable lakes for two days after heavy rain, or the fact that 12 of them had no front boundary and had bled out in to the fairway by 5 yards killing the turf, or the fact that so much sand had been added over the years that you could putt out of 7 greenside bunkers.?"
" I forgot that stuff. Hey I'm not saying the place didn't need the work, but those bunkers on 6 are just too deep."
" Can I buy you a drink, how about those Red Sox?"

That's a pretty accurate description of an actual conversation I had last summer in the grille room. i signed on to do a good thing for our club that was sorely needed, I didn't bargain for a life sentence of justifying it.

[TEPaul]

"Was it a "true" restoration or a hybrid restoration?"

Pat:

A hrybrid restoration??

Yeah, that's what it was---a hybrid restortion! And it seems like both me and just about the entire membership like it better.

Ed:

Very funny story--poignant too!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Baker,

I've gone through that drill on more then a few occassions.

It's mostly driven by personal agenda, the complainers particular game.

I learned, when accosted as you were, to simply state that your mind is cluttered with a number of issues, and could the person complaining to you please send you a letter on the issue so that you can address it.

After adopting that modis operendi, despite checking my mailbox every day, I never got one letter.

Other times you have to remind persistent confrontationalists that you too are a member and at the club to enjoy yourself, and that the position you accepted and the duties you performed in that position, were done without compensation, despite the considerable amount of time and effort they consumed.

I will get to CRC this summer.

TEPaul,

You didn't answer my first question and you didn't understand the second question.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Were there any modifications in the original idea, the original concept and what was ultimately put into the ground?"

Patrick:

If you consider that Gil Hanse's initial submission for the master plan was the 'original idea' or the 'original concept', yes there were modifications to that which was ultimately put in the ground. I have every detail in the two year evolution of that in my files. (Some of that such as not restoring Ross's old "top shot" bunkers I've already mentioned on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com a number of times).

There does seem to be a rather startling difference here, though, between what our membership thinks of our project and golf course now compared to what you say your experiences have been in these types of projects with your memberships and even the story Ed Baker of CRC just posted.

Why do you suppose that is?

[Mike_Young]

This has been happening.  Most committees have no idea what they are doing and  CYA by talking with their buddies on a committee at another similar club before they ever decide what to do.  Funny thing is how much they will pay.  Down here we call it a "weiner measuring contest".  If one club says it cost $50,000 to rebuild a green, the next one will be sure it cost $55,000 or at least tell everyone that.  Doesn't matter if the first club had 8000 sq. ft. greens and their club had 5000 sq. ft. greens.  I cannot think of one restoration where this hasn't happened.   The sad thing is how much money gets wasted.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It could be because your club is an old line club and the club I was referencing was established in 1967 and draws the majority of it's membership from New York and Long Island.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the waiter who approached the party of four after he had served them lunch, when he inquired, "is anything okay ?"

I also find it hard to believe that not one single member has failed to voice a critical opinion.  Perhaps the types of discussions Ed Baker referenced took place with the President, Green Chairman or Chairman of the Gulph Mills project rather then yourself.  Chairman and the Club President tend to be the lightening rods for membership discontent, rather then fellow members.

Your answer to my question about alterations to the architect's plan from conception to construction reinforces my point.

My point about modification of the original plan presented by Gil indicates that the membership interfered with the hired professional architect's theories regarding the restoration of your golf course.

And, these objections, these modifications of his plan took place over a relatively short period of time.

Imagine if the membership had 10 years to review, critique and alter his original plan.  Imagine how different your course might be from its conceptual beginings to its final configuration 10 years subsequent.

And, I think it's safe to say that the work at your golf course was a partial or hybrid restoration, not a true restoration to the clubs original architecture.

So, several forces come into play when embarking on a restoration.

Purity of the restoration plan
Finances
Time
Opportunity/ies for Membership modification.

If the plan is sound, funding it and completing it as rapidly as possible is the ideal situation as it eliminates the opportunities for goals to change and membership meddling.

Mike Young,

I've seen it time and time again.

Clubs keeping up with the Jones's, just for the sake of keeping up with the Jones's.

Or, is it called, "monkey see, monkey do." ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I really don't know what in the world you're getting at with that last post about the restoration of GMGC. Look, we did our research, took our time with finalizing the plan, brought our membership into the process, got the thing done on budget and the membership likes what was done. What does it really matter if you or someone like Tom MacWood thinks the thing shoudn't be called a pure restoration but a hybrid restoration? We all worked together and we got what we wanted and the club is happy with it. You can tell me my membership is different, you can tell me you think people may be complaining to the president or the chairman of this or that but that's not the case. We did a successful restoration in my opinion and in the opinion of the club and that's just the way it went. You can keep telling me what the matter is with committees and memberships and this and that but none of that was the case at GMGC. If you really are that negative about restoration projects generally and you think that GMGC might be different than most clubs in some way then perhaps you should consider the fact that you might be able to learn something useful from us regarding a restoration project. Some so-called "purists" on here seem to constantly point out that clubs and committees and memberships complain too much about doing decent restorations. Sometimes I feel  some so-call "purists" are the ones doing too much complaining!

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, to me your post is a cry for help.  

You use the word "collaboration".  In deed that is what is needed.  But, collaboration between whom?  Do you think that it can only be between club officials sharing experiences and discussing how their particular project went?  Are they the ones that have to collaborate in order to spread some knowledge that might be helpful to all other projects?

It seems to me that every one of those discussions of collaboration become a whine and geez party where the club officials that took the leadership begin to tell how beaten up they became by the members.  It always seems to decend into a dark cloud of the club official not being recognized or respected for the work that went into the project.  thus, the whole thing becomes a negative experience.

Perhaps the better collaboration should come from those that have as big of a stake in a restoration's success as the members.  Those are the design-builders that do the work and try to do it faithfully.  And, those that have to maintain it after the archie leaves the restoration behind.

Once again, I will point out what is perhaps the finest work I have seen at North Shore CC in Menasha WI, done by Bruce Hepner for Renaissance Golf, and an in-house crew lead by the Super, Scott Schaller.  

The account of the collaboration in that case, which would be a lesson for those that are considering it, would make for a serious book.  It should be written by a serious golf writer like Geoff Shackleford to detail as a documentary, the work and role of that club's officials, the restoration designer, and the super.  Perhaps a few more chapters could follow the same reporting of the collaboration of the same parties (designer-constructor-super-club official) that may have produced other less than desirable results.  Then the writer could draw comparisons of what kinds of attitudes and roles work best in collaborations.   A guy like Geoff doesn't seem to mind ruffling a feather or two to tell this sort of important story.  If he shows a comparison of a good effort compared to a bad one: wouldn't that serve the real need to distribute good information on restorations; what is right and wrong about them?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

I never used the word "collaboration"

Perhaps you meant to address TEPaul.

[RJ_Daley]

So now I supposed I ticked you both off by mistaking one for the other...

[TEPaul]

RJ:

It'd be pretty hard to mistake me for Patrick on restoration projects. I try never to get negative with memberships or a even a member---while that seems to be about all Patrick does. He seems inherently suspicious and adverserial towards "membership" and I feel that's just putting yourself in a box before you get out of the starting gate. But I feel I have one successful restortion under my belt. Can Pat say that? If not, oh yeah, I forgot, just blame it on the membership!  

Patrick said:

"I never used the word "collaboration"

That's pretty dangerous right there, RJ! I guess he thinks he doesn't need to because there's nothing he doesn't know!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The restoration/renovation that I was involved with was very successful and far truer to the original golf course then the one you undertook.

The membership wasn't so dissatisfied that they altered the original plan before a shovel was in the ground, which is what they did on your project.

By the way, what was the final vote on your altered project ?
Was it unanimous as you would lead some to  believe, or did members vote against it ?

[TEPaul]

"By the way, what was the final vote on your altered project ?
Was it unanimous as you would lead some to  believe, or did members vote against it'?"

Pat:

Final vote? The committee that produced the plan unanimously voted for the plan it submitted to the board and the board voted unanimously for the plan to be implimented. The membership didn't vote on the plan and they all certainly weren't for it (or parts of it) but now that it's been done I can't find a member who doesn't appear happy with it. We had the annual meeting the other night, I gave the Green Committee report for the chairwoman and it certainly appeared that way there too.

As far as being truer to the original, what original are you talking about? If we restored the golf course to the way Ross designed it in 1916-1919 we would've had some very unhappy members, including me, and we would've wiped out Perry Maxwell who's holes are some of the best on the course.

This is starting to show me how a blind determination to simply restore everything an architect originally did on a course may not always be the thing to do. Thank God Gil Hanse didn't recommend that and thank God no one at GMGC did either. We were out to do the right thing by the course and by our membership and not by some "you have to go completly back to the original" purists who don't even belong to the place.

We were out to do a restoration our membership would be happy with and we appear to have done that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The committee that produced the plan unanimously voted for the plan it submitted to the board and the board voted unanimously for the plan to be implimented.

That's SOP and part of the whitewash.
Committees and Boards are famous for this.[/color]

The membership didn't vote on the plan.

WHAT ?

Y0U'RE KIDDING.

Do you mean that the Committee and Board had so little regard for the membership, the membership that you claim to revere, that they didn't even give them the courtesy of VOTING on the PROJECT, even though they were spending the members money  ? [/color]

and they all certainly weren't for it (or parts of it)

Well, then I understand why they didn't let them vote on it.[/color]

but now that it's been done I can't find a member who doesn't appear happy with it.

Sure, what can they do now, undo the project ?
Better to save one's breath[/color]

We had the annual meeting the other night, I gave the Green Committee report for the chairwoman and it certainly appeared that way there too.

If the membership isn't allowed to vote on a project that alters their golf course, with their money, why does it surprise you that everybody just nods their head ?[/color]

As far as being truer to the original, what original are you talking about? If we restored the golf course to the way Ross designed it in 1916-1919 we would've had some very unhappy members, including me, and we would've wiped out Perry Maxwell who's holes are some of the best on the course.

So, you didn't do a true restoration to your architectural origins, you did a HYBRID restoration to a point in time that the committee selected, while overriding some of the professional architects recommendations....... right[/color]

This is starting to show me how a blind determination to simply restore everything an architect originally did on a course may not always be the thing to do.

NO, you miss the point entirely.
You support a club doing whatever work the club feels is merited at the point in time when the issue arises.
That's blind stupidity.[/color]

Thank God Gil Hanse didn't recommend that and thank God no one at GMGC did either.

Yes, but the committee rejected some of Gil's professional recommendations, choosing instead to insert non-professional ideas from doctors, lawyers, businessmen and farmers, right.[/color]

We were out to do the right thing by the course and by our membership and not by some "you have to go completly back to the original" purists who don't even belong to the place.


The road to Hell is paved with good intentions[/color]

We were out to do a restoration our membership would be happy with

How do you know that ?
You never even gave them the chance or choice of voting on the project.

If you were so interested and concerned about what the members thought, and making them happy, you would have given them the right to vote on the project.[/color]

and we appear to have done that.

How would you know, the members can't vote their opinion at your club either, can they ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There does seem to be a rather startling difference here, though, between what our membership thinks of our project and golf course now compared to what you say your experiences have been in these types of projects with your memberships and even the story Ed Baker of CRC just posted.

Why do you suppose that is?


Now I know the answer.

Because at my club the membership was involved and was given the opportunity to question and vote on the project, and the financing, which they did, overwhelmingly in the project's favor.

Whereas, at your club, the membership was never included in the process.  They were prohibited from voting on the project.

Since the membership at your club seems to be treated as second class citizens, without a vote in how their money is spent or their course is altered, I can now understand why they haven't had much to say to you.

If someone knows how to transfer this post to the "blind" thread that TEPaul started, I'd appreciate it.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

That last post is an insult to the membership of GMGC! The things you've said about the membership of GMGC recently and our restoration truly is "the blindness of a so-called purist".

Secondly, GMGC is not structured in such a way that the membership would ever need to vote on a club issue with the exception of a by-law provision for shutting down the club. We conducted four forums in 2001 where the entire membership was invited to come and go through our entire master plan hole by hole and item by item over those four forums---whatever they chose to question or comment on. If they indicated they wanted to vote on an item they had that opportunity and their vote was recorded. Those four forums were also what I call our educational forums where we explained the reasoning for the entire restoration plan---and by that I mean every piece of it.

Probably two thirds of the membership came to the first forum half of that to the second, half of that at the third and very few at the fourth. They definitely felt they had the opportunity to express their feelings and vote on anything if need be. Very few came to the last obviously because they felt they'd had their say and they were satisfied with what we were doing.

So I hardly think you can tell me they didn't have an opportunity to question and vote on anything. And I hardly think you can tell me they aren't satisfied with what was done. How much of the plan was altered by those forums? Very little. I think the reason that was so is simply because those forums were an open exchange that gave us the opportunity for education---they felt they got that education and approved the plan and feel they had an opportunity to have a stake in what was done.

It was a successful membership process and restoration project and they're happy with it but I have no doubt whatsoever despite that you'll find something negative to say about the club, the membership and the restoration project.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you'll reread my above post, especially where I quoted you.
You'll find that it was you who insulted Ed Baker and myself and our respective clubs.

You indicated that everything was perfect at your club.
Not one ounce of membership dissatisfaction with your project.  And, that we must have gone about our respective projects in the wrong way.

We held a referendum on our project after explaining it to the membership and it passed by an overwhelming 4 to 1 vote.

For you to claim that because one or two people voiced their dissatisfaction with an element of the project, as evidence that we went about the project improperly, is arrogant and ignorant.

AND, we allowed our members to actively paraticipate in the entire process by VOTING as to whether they wanted to approve or reject the project.  They approved a multi-million dollar project by a 4 to 1 margin, so I guess they liked what and how it was presented and explained to them.

Perhaps you should rethink your unfounded criticism and the idea that not one member in your club might be dissatisfied with some aspect of your project.