[Brian_Gracely]

I don't have numbers in front of me, but I would suspect that they make up at least as much architectural work as new designs.  But Ran doesn't have a section under "Courses by Country" that highlights restorations.  

Is this because restorations, in general, are never very good?

Is this because GCA does not want to incur the wrath of clubs that might have their greens committees criticized vs. the architect on a new project?

Is this because it truly is not realistic to expect any restoration to match the pictures that somebody can find from the 20s or 30s because maintenance practices are not the same as they were in the 20s or 30s?

I personally believe that any restoration should be given a "grace-period" of at least 2-3 years before it is open to judgment to allow the changes to settle and become a part of the course.  I would offer that I believe this same period needs to be applied to new courses as well, but the precedent of immediately rating new courses has already been established.

Why is this critical segment missing from GCA-proper?  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Brian,

It would be very difficult for Ran to do these type of reviews, as you have to know the course before and after to do it properly. One visit, even with Ran's ability to catch details would not do it.

I did not know Mountain Lake before, but I had lots of help from people who did.

[john_stiles]

I think it is more a matter of the 'courses' part of the GCA site leaning heavily towards a review of the course as you find it.

Restorations and renovations are often praised and cursed through various threads.  Yale, PV, ANGC, etc. come to mind as courses where work is often debated.

The various threads seem like a good and maybe the best spot for dissecting restorations, etc.

[Bob_Huntley]

Brian,

Ran played the Dunes Course at MPCC but once, right after Rees Jones restoration/renovation. I was astonished to read his review here at GCA discussing in detail, things that I had missed after many rounds. He did this whilst playing and listening to a bunch of my B**l***t without the benefit of a notepad or tape recorder.A remarkable achievement.

[George Pazin]

Ran does mention restoration and renovation quite extensively in his profiles, he just doesn't segment the reviews that way.

I'm always interested in reading anyone's review of anything - it helps me learn and it helps me develop an understanding of the point of view of the reviewer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian Gracely,

I think it's an excellent suggestion.

The problem centers around Ran getting to play the golf course both pre and post restoration.

[TEPaul]

"I personally believe that any restoration should be given a "grace-period" of at least 2-3 years before it is open to judgment to allow the changes to settle and become a part of the course."

Brian:

I'll tell you something---that is a really fantastic suggestion. If this website had bothered to do that on those incredible Merion bunker project threads that took about a year and about ten million posts, this site would've saved itself about half a lifetime of arguing and gnashing of teeth.

What you said there occured to me when I saw those bunkers about two years later but isn't it interesting that before they were given a few years to grow in there wasn't a single contributor on here that even suggested what you just did.....and that's one of the best examples I'm aware of regarding the truism of that great adage---"To always remember to know what you don't know!"  

[Mark_Fine]

Brian,
As I'm sure you well know, "restorations" are happening continuously out there.  Problem is that they happen in many different degrees.  Some courses are closed down while the whole place is "restored".  Others take years and years to complete the recommended work.  Those are the ones that are much harder to critique.  

Also seeing the course before and after is very important to make a good evaluation of the work.  If you didn't know how much some of these older courses had changed prior to the restoration, you might not realize how much improvement was made with what work was undertaken.  Before and after photos would be key in any critique.  

I'm not so sure I agree with Tom completely about Merion.  There were some people who stated, "Let's see how the changes age over time before we get too critical".  But regardless, it takes time, especially on older courses where some restoration recommendations may be to leave certain areas "less manicured".  These changes need time to settle (grow) in.  

That said, you will never get away from critics evaluating any course right away.  They will still say what they want when they want (we all do).  Golf Digest tries to do delay the assessment of a new course with their "grace period" of a two year wait until a new course can be eligible to make their Top 100 list.   This is to allow a course to settle in and for the hype and emotion to calm down so a more rational evaluation can take place.   Some agree with this, some don't.
Maybe restorations should be the same but again the problem is that for MOST of them, the work is not done all at once. (I won't even attempt to get into all the other issues restoration work has to deal with).  
Mark


 

[TEPaul]

"There were some people who stated, "Let's see how the changes age over time before we get too critical""

Mark:

There were some people who said that but I certainly never noticed a single person on this website say that. (All those threads are in the back pages or archives so we certainly can tell).

The only people I know who said that are the people at Merion who had to do with that project---and all of whom I know. They certainly said that but certainly not on this website (no one from that Merion project committee, although they most certainly read everything about it on here, ever participated in those threads and frankly, it's not that hard to tell why!).

But with the benefit of hindsight now, I think one thing really does stand out that perhaps they might (and some of them do) admit now---and that is if they had it all to do over again they probably would've (or would've more seriously considered) just doing the sanding and drainage on those bunkers, just "fixing" those famous old "surrounds" instead of taking them completely apart yards and yards out and starting all over again (including throwing away all the grass of those old surrounds).

To me that should be the lesson and cautionary tale here for other clubs and courses and architects considering bunker restoration projects on courses that have famous old bunkers!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I said that.

In fact I was the one who said that a neat bunker in the UK that someone had posted bore a resemblance to the bunkers at Merion, and that a double standard seemed to be in play.

But, I was also critical of the "bathtub" nature of some of the bunkers and the difficulty golfers would encounter entering and exiting them.   And, when I saw them in person, some appeared to be having problems with the bunker wol material.

Taking 2-3 years after a restoration is complete before you evaluate it is foolish.

If one understands architecture and has vision, as Ran does, he doesn't need 2-3 years of course maturity to evaluate the results, he'll get it on opening day.

Brian Gracely,

The other problem is that many courses call their projects restorations when in fact they are anything but.

I would think that Ran would prefer not to go out of his way on the basis of a misrepresentation.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
When do you "critique" a restoration that is done over a 5-10 year period as most are?  Very few master plans are implemented all at once.  It's a much different situation than "new courses".  Generally after 10 years, it's time to do some of the work over again, e.g. bunker drainage, green expansion, trees, fairway contours,..  Courses are always evolving.  
Mark  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

When do you "critique" a restoration that is done over a 5-10 year period as most are?  

Before the first shovel is in the ground.

I have a problem with that concept for a variety of reasons, principle amongst them is that the finished product at year 10 will represent a departure from the goals set out 10 years earlier.  Over the intervening years there are too many eyes and hands on that type of project for it to be true to form and successful. Too much happens, twixt the cup and the lip.[/color]

Very few master plans are implemented all at once.

I'd say that a project that takes more then two years is a project that may not have the full support of the membership.
And, that the more years a project is scheduled for is in direct proportion to it's chance of failure.[/color]

It's a much different situation than "new courses".  Generally after 10 years, it's time to do some of the work over again, e.g. bunker drainage, green expansion, trees, fairway contours,..  Courses are always evolving.

The degree of evolution in a golf course depends on the wisdom, diligence and attention to detail on the part of the curator/s.[/color]  
 

[Mark_Fine]

Lehigh's Master Plan took 10+ years to implement.  Are you saying the membership was not committed?  Did the restoration fail?

I'm just telling you what reality is.  From start to finish, most of these projects take time (lots of it).  Some courses don't have the luxury of shutting down for an extended period.  Budget constraits are also a factor despite the committment level of members to the project.  There are many reasons, however, I do agree with you that generally the best chance of success, is to do it all in the shortest timeframe possible.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Any plan that is on the board for ten years is prone to revision from a variety of forces and sources.

In the northeast, closing a course on October 1 and reopening it on April 1 poses no substantive disruption to the membership.

In Florida, Closing a course on April 15 to May 1 and reopening on October 15 to November 15, likewise provides no substantive disruption to many courses.

So I don't have major concerns with being able to get the wodrk done.  In addition, when doing work over time, can you get the same contractor, the same crews, the same grass, the same sand, the same soil, the same materials, etc, etc..  Extending the time of a restoration to 10 years is almost GUARANTEED to insure that the plan will fail in one form or  another.

From a financial point of view, if funding is tracked to construction, year by year, the project will almost certainly fail.  There will most certainly be crises that invariably divert the funds to other areas, thus putting the restoration on the back shelf, perhaps forever.

And, it's doubtful that the finished product would mirror the original plan, created 10 years ago.

As to Lehigh, I couldn't comment on the specifics of the plan or the results.

I've been told that the course did not suffer from dramatic disfiguration and as such, not much in the way of restoration was needed.

Could you describe the alterations that took place prior to the club embarking on its restoration, the restoration plan, and the results of that plan in the context of the original intent.  

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
You are spending too much time in Florida!  It's not that simple to shut a course down in the Northeast from Oct 1st to April 1st and get all the work done.  We're having that issue right now with one just outside Philadelphia and this annoying white stuff (I think it's called snow) is causing some problems.  By the way, when do you propose planting the grass so the course is ready for "opening day"?

At Lehigh, every green was expanded and re-grassed, every bunker re-built, trees removed, fairways expanded,..., all the usual things that happen in most restoration processes.  

You are also naive to think that budgets/assessments don't play a huge role in the process.  Some members are much happier paying more for something over time rather than a large number all at once (did you pay cash for your home)  

The average club is not loaded with cash like the few often discussed on this site.
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

You are spending too much time in Florida!

Actually, I'm not spending any time in South Florida, which is unfortunate, as I hear that the weather has been great[/color]

It's not that simple to shut a course down in the Northeast from Oct 1st to April 1st and get all the work done.  We're having that issue right now with one just outside Philadelphia and this annoying white stuff (I think it's called snow) is causing some problems.

The winters for the last ten years have been pretty mild and depending on the nature of the project two fall-winters should be more then adequate.[/color]

By the way, when do you propose planting the grass so the course is ready for "opening day"?

The late summer-fall would be ideal for grass, sod can be done in the early spring, depending on the weather.[/color]

At Lehigh, every green was expanded and re-grassed, every bunker re-built, trees removed, fairways expanded,..., all the usual things that happen in most restoration processes.

The fall-winter is the ideal time for cutting trees.
Green and Fairway expansion is primarily a maintainance issue that is easily accomplished over two growing seasons.

Some clubs take features/holes out of play, or create temporary features/holes while work is being done.[/color]

You are also naive to think that budgets/assessments don't play a huge role in the process.

I thought I was clear that funding is a critical part, if not THE critical part of a substantive undertaking.  The costs are the costs, it's the funding of those costs that are key, and if you undertake a plan over 10 years and fund it as you go, you're going to have problems completing the project as scheduled,  and, it's almost always more expensive then funding it over 1-2 years.

Clubs get into trouble because the DON"T pay as they go, and bet on the come.

Scheduling and/or funding restorations over long periods of time is a formula for disaster.[/color]

Some members are much happier paying more for something over time rather than a large number all at once (did you pay cash for your home)  

Mark the best example I can give has to do with a club that undertook a clubhouse renovation.  The choice was to pay a lump sum of about 8-10,000 or pay 200 per month for 7 years.
The membership chose the monthly payout.
At a board meeting a few years ago I stood up and asked the board if they knew how much money each member would have paid as of the December 31st of that year.  I got answers ranging from 10,000 to 14,000.  
The correct answer .....$ 26,400, and there was still about
$ 8,000 per member of outstanding debt.  
Why ?
Because of a shrinking membership and interest.

By not paying for the project at the outset it also prevented the club from embarking on needed capital projects/repairs in the intervening 11 years, thus making the club less attractive to prospective members.

By foolishly dragging the funding out over a long period of time, the actual cost for each member was about 4 times the cost had the project been borne by a one time assessment.

That experience has taught me that clubs should almost never fund projects through debt for a variety of reasons, one of which is, once the membership ranks reduce, the burden on each remaining member is greater, the carrying costs higher, and the club less attractive to existing and prospective members, leading to its demise.
[/color]

The average club is not loaded with cash like the few often discussed on this site.

A club doesn't have to be loaded to embark on a prudent restoration plan..

And, if the restoration was so extensive and so costly, and the means of the membership so fragile, then perhaps restoration is not a prudent option.[/color]

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I don't have time to get into a heavy debate.  All I will say is there is no simple answer.  If there was, there would be no decision to make and every club would be following the "correct" way to do it.  

As far as costs, these projects can get expensive.  For example, if you start restoring fairway width, new irrigation can become a high cost issue.  Bent grass needs water (at least for now)!  You also can't mow it with a rotary mower so new equipment and maintenance costs have to be considered.  I could go on and on.  

But please don't scare people off from doing a restoration just because they might not be able to do it all in one or two years.  I would have hated to see that happen at Lehigh.
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I'm not trying to deter anyone from embarking on a "restoration".

I just think that prudent thought must be put in to every phase of the project before a shovel is put into the ground.

Would you believe that a club I know of put a new irrigation system in, knowing that they were going to subsequently hire an archictect to modernize/renovate/restore the golf course, and now the modernization/renovation/restoration budget has a line item of about $ 300,000 to move the irrigation system to service the "new" golf course.

And, that they did this despite warnings from myself and others that they were putting the cart before the horse, and wasting money.

Ego transcends reason.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()