Restorations Most Elusive Element- Maintaining the Vision

[Ed_Baker]

One of the most beneficial elements of a well done restoration is the Master plan. The Master Plan is really the document that defines the "soul" of the project outlining among other things, why a restoration project is needed in the first place, and what maintainence procedures are to be followed to ensure that the architectural design features are maximized after the bulldozers leave.

I have been involved with several projects at Golden Age clubs in my neck of the woods and a disturbing pattern is starting to emerge, the Master Plans are falling prey to what I'll call, "interpretation dujour." In other words, they are either being ignored,forgotten, or subjectively implemented at the whim of the incumbent Green chair.
 Tree encroachment,altering restored bunker footprints by edging, green shrinkage from sloppy mowing, rough once again obscuring the entrance to fairway bunkers, the odd "specimen tree" appearing on the golf course are just some of the things that are happening... AGAIN.Some of the clubs even wrote new by-laws to ensure that the master plan would be adhered to.

Is part of a truly successful restoration the need for a benevolent dictator to act as a constant advocate and implementer of Master Plans?

How is continuity maintained?

[TEPaul]

Ed:

Now that some well received restorations have been completed and time starts to go by you are so right about how clubs fall back into their old habits.

Obviously most all clubs are structured whatever way they are and so it would be virtually impossible to install "benevolent dictators" in all of them simply to preserve the integrity of restoration Master plans over time.

The only possible way to do this is to create some mechanism or operating process that keeps that restoration master plan front and center as time goes by. It's not easy to do and clubs will do it differently. I'm right in the midst of figuring out the best way to do that at my club. Some clubs, like Aronimink, have actually put their master plan into the club's By-laws so nothing can be done without referring to it.

At my club I'm about to write a "working critieria" or "process" for our Green Committee to use now and into the futue where our restoration master plan simply cannot be avoided when the committee talks about anything from architecture to maintenance practices.

However any club does it they have to figure out their own best way to keep that Master plan front and center on into the future---or even the best intentioned people will revert back to their old ways before this restoration Master Plan wave began.

[Pat_Mucci]

Ed,

Don't you find it alarming that you need a "master plan" for the simple task of restoring the golf course ?

[Jim Sweeney]

This is one of those areas where normally very successful people forget their life lessons when it comes to leading from a volunteer position.

If a successful business person brings in a consultant, it's because he feels a lack of expertise in a subject and needs expert help. He pays good money for this help and, knowing what he doesn't know, doesn't second guess the expert. He moves forward with the recommendations to the benefit of his firm.

Then the same successful business man volunteers to lead his club's rcourse restoration/renovation plan. He hires the expert, a golf course architect, and receives the expert's recommendations. Immediately the second guessing begins.

Why? Because the architect "doesn't know our course as well as we do." Or, "we never expected him to make that recommendation." Or, "that doesn't fit into our budget." (Even though the archtect worked with the budget he was given.)

This situation happened here in Cinci. this past year, when a local club hired a GCA to help with a tree and bunker program. The archie even developed "before and after" computer images of the holes with and without the offending trees and improved bunkers. The club accepted the recommendations, then the secong guessing began. To date, about half the recommended work has been done, and they're fighting over the rest. Meanwhile, the archie is still collecting (rightly so) his consulting fee.

Every club needs a benevolent dictator.

[Pat_Mucci]

Jim Sweeney,

I agree with you on the job description, but, many, if not most golf courses weren't altered or disfigured in a vacuum, or strictly on the internal end.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I kind of agree with you.  I don't know exactly where you are going with it ...but IMHO golf courses make fashion statements and go thru cycles.  Once we go thru the "remove the tree phase"  , I believe clubs will begin again .....
I think the best preserved clubs in this country have one thing in common.  They have a membership who has satisfied their egos in life to a point where they join a club and have no interest in being involved in committees etc.  
The we have the others where the committee members  have an ego issue and confuse knowing something of the game of golf(maybe) with the business of golf.  In this environment, the masterplan is a waste of time.  It is a dangerous situation for an architect.  One little masterplan or a couple of bunker plans and it could cost you a complete 18 holes in the same town just because you did not suggest what a couple of members wished.
JMO

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:  If the master plan is really well done, then it's a great document for a while ... maybe ten or fifteen years.  But things do change over time and a master plan won't last forever.

And that's the good ones.  Remember, almost every club we've been hired to look at [with the exception of Chicago Golf and San Francisco Golf Club and maybe two others] has had someone else's master plan in place, and they have decided they need to talk to us because their current master plan was lacking.  

A lot of the stuff we have "restored" involved removing someone else's work, and that someone else has been a golf course architect as often as it has been a green chairman ... although in many cases I suspect the architect did some things he really didn't believe in, in order to curry favor with the green chairman.

At the clubs where we have been consulting for many years, there comes a point where nearly everything on the master plan has been addressed, and that's the dangerous period ... when the new green chairman starts trying to convince you to do some other stuff, or to bless having the superintendent build a new bunker or a couple of mounds.  Pretty easy money for the architect to just nod okay; pretty hard for him to hold them off and convince them it's not the right thing.

Years ago Geoff Cornish suggested that clubs should put in their bylaws that there could not be any work done that wasn't on the master plan ... but if your club still stuck to that then you'd be stuck with Geoff's master plan!

[ForkaB]

But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

This was Robert Burns, writing to Angus "Mousie" MacNaughton, Chairman of the Greens Committee for Alloway GC (NLE), regarding changes made to their master plan.......

A golf club is organic, as is any organisation.  It's part of the definition of being an "organisation."

Master Plans, Vision Statements, Grand Strategies, etc. become historical documents the moment they are put on paper.  That subsequent actions or events or changes in ambition should lead to changes in how the plan is viewed and implemented, or even if it is still relevant at all, is a fact of life.  Sometimes, this fact leads to "good" (from our selfish perspective), sometimes it leads to "evil." If we are all honest we can cite numerous examples of each scenario vis a vis GCA.

NO organisation is clever enough to anticipate what it should be doing more than a few weeks in advance.  Circumstances change, and the concept of "should" changes, just as it did in "Mousie's" world.

And yet, yes, you can and should plan.  And there are some simple dos and don'ts to be followed in that process.  One of the most important of these rules is to remember that in the real world there are no rules, just actions and consequences, and developing capacities to adapt to changes in reality are more important than any document, date stamped, counter signed and enshrined in some individuals' perspective of history.

Life goes on, ob la di, ob la dah.......

[Paul_Daley]

Ed: A terrific post, and it underscores something that I
think is long overdue: an expert consultancy team that answers the call wherever the need arises.

The individuals within the team are not connected to the club, are defintely not connected to the design firm, and especially are not connected to a ruling body if the course is being prepared for a tournament. Independance established! One key: this consultancy team does not draw up plans - it is not called in to design - it merely examines on behalf of the club, whether the design firm has come up with a fair and equatable plan. Have all the contingencies been examined; is the club's heritage about to be undermined; is it a faithful interpretation of the original design? It writes a critical report where no punches are pulled, for review, before any new work is undertaken.

Call the team a "watch-dog" outfit, for want of a better term. The thing is, master plan/restoration reccomendations are placed before committees whose individuals are not in a position to argue strongly either way. I like to think of this team, or individual, as a sounding board - an intermeadiatry - between the club's best interests and the design imperitives.
It doesn't make life difficult for the design team, but expects that the concept will be "well-sold" to the team. This acheived, the team writes a positive report and advises committe accordingly. Full steam ahead.  

To be truthful, I've been thinking about offering such a service myself.
 

   

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

There are several "independent watch dogs" here in the USA who have gotten into it for the good of golf.  Many of them have now hung out a shingle and are trying to make a living on consulting work themselves ... and pretty much all of them post here regularly.

[Paul_Daley]

Shit! Are there no good original ideas left?   Like most things, I guess, the US are early-adopters. Just wondering if these consultancies exist accross Europe? As far as I know, they do not operate in Australia/New Zealand. Perhaps the market is too small to warrant it.    

[TEPaul]

This is an interesting thread. It seems to indicate an age-old reality in golf architecture, and one that can be detected from the very beginning unitl today---that is there always seems to be so many people who have their own idea about what's "right" and what's "wrong" about any particular thing, any course, any hole, any bunker or green, or whatever.

There are those who adhere to the adage that everything must be "right" if a professional architect suggests it and that everything must be "wrong", or "egotistical" if an amateur or non-architect suggests it.

But the truth is whomever it was who suggested it, whatever was done will over time need to go through that "test of time" that really does indicate if it something is more enjoyable, interesting, challenging and respected, than not.

The vast majority of golfers, including club memebers, will never even know who it was who suggested and did something---it will be well received or not regardless of who it was. No one who ever gets involved in these kinds of things can escape that reality which when one thinks about it is a pretty intelligent goal to shoot for in golf and architecture!

What both disturbs and amuses me is when some independent analyst, whether he be from within the club or from without it, or whether he be a professional or an amateur, proclaims what was done was "wrong" despite the fact a membership may enjoy and respect it.

When anyone, professional or amateur proclaims that whole memberships are wrong or stupid or egotistical because they like something that he doesn't---that's when I draw the line.

Any good architect whether professional or amateur, old guy or new guy should come to understand and appreciate the old dictate that the ultimate goal of the art of good golf architecture is to do something that makes those who use a golf course content with what they have--that on a regular basis they enjoy and respect what they have.

I believe in the principles of good solid golf architecture and I think time has proven that it has a way of passing that test of time and becoming respected over time. Who did it is generally forgotten, and is far less important!

[T_MacWood]

"What both disturbs and amuses me is when some independent analyst, whether he be from within the club or from without it, or whether he be a professional or an amateur, proclaims what was done was "wrong" despite the fact a membership may enjoy and respect it."

TE
Golf's an enjoyable game. Is there a case where the membership didn't enjoy an "improved" golf course? Yale? Riviera? St. Georges? Pepper Pike? Oakland Hills? Inverness? Columbia? Aronimink? ANGC? Gulph Mills?

I'm sure every time that GM was altered the members enjoyed it. Isn't that one of the reasons they keep improving these courses?

The problem is how can a member compare his new and improved golf course to a course that was lost a long time ago (a course he may have no knowledge of). Most of the satisified members are comparing their course today to the one they had last year or the year before...their satisfaction is no doubt waranted.

[Pat_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I think your post is THE reality of the situation and illustrates why dictatorships work best, with the dictator selecting his successor and grooming him for years.  That process creates continuity, of thought and application, the vital element in perserving and restoring golf courses.

[T_MacWood]

I'm not certain putting the master plan in the bylaws is a good idea...what if the master plan isn't a good one.

It might be advisable for certain historic well-preserved clubs (or well-restored) to create a position of architectural historian...hopefully with a fair amount of power (only to veto). An internal watch dog or built in defensive dictator.

To start this person would have to emerse himself in the club's architectural history, and thoroughly study the history of the architect (or architects) inolved in the design of their golf course. And do so on an ongoing basis. (Architecture will be is only focus, no club social or tournament history)

The architectural historian would be responsible for critically analyzing all changes and 'restoration' plans for the club. And analyzing/evaluating the qualifications of the architect advising the club from his unique perspective. He would also report on the status of the course on a periodic basis...on trees, maintenance practices, etc that might be affecting the architecture. A perminant position or nearly perminant. When this person retires it would be his or her responsibility to identify, nominate and train his successor.

This idea wouldn't work for the majority of courses, but with many of the courses we discuss on this site it might work.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I can only speak informatively about GMGC because I belong there, have for decades, have done a ton of research on it and know the entire evolutionary history of it as well as most of the membership for a few decades.

No, in fact, you'd be wrong in being sure that the membership of GMGC enjoyed everything that was done to the course architecturally throughout the years. Very much the opposite, in fact, and we have a record as well as a current membership to basically prove that.

The fascinating thing to me is most all the membership in recent decades did not seem to understand who'd done what on the course throughout the decades but some holes were nevertheless very respected and some weren't. Because of the fact they didn't understand who'd done what, was, in fact, a most valuable "blind taste test" to us when he set about planning the restoration and master plan of the course with Gil. And it was very interesting to see then who the architects were whose work was respected and whose wasn't.

We didn't restore some Ross holes to the way they were in the 1920s and 1930s because mostly they were the ones that Perry Maxwell had redesigned in the 1930s and they just happened to be some of the most respected aspects of the course today.

Checking of the minutes of the club one could pretty well tell what the problems were with those holes of Ross that Maxwell later redesigned and so the logical decision for our master plan committee was not to consider restoring something that our membership could not possibly remember and something which a former memberhip did not respect and frankly could not really play successfully. The most intelligent decision was to preserve that which was respected.

And it certainly seems our restoration is now extremely popular and respected with the current membership.

And we did not hire Rulewich or Fazio or some of the other architects who did the restoration work, or whatever those other courses call it, on the courses you mentioned. We hired Gil Hanse for a reason!

So I find that to do this kind of thing right, and intelligently with the ultimate aim to make a membership happy, one can never really be as generally doctrinaire as you seem to always be about this kind of thing.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I can also speak intelligently and informatively about Aronimink since I live so close to it, I know it so well and I know so many of the membership. It's safe to say that many amongst the membership and others in this town did not really respect or admire the course after it went through various cycles of redesign in the last few decades by RTJ, the Fazios et al. They were frankly somewhat embarrassed that the course sank so preciptously in the rankings after that.

But everyone seems to be thrilled with the recent Ross restoration by Prichard (after some really unnecessary fescue that neither played well nor looked right was removed) despite what some lone analyst from Ohio who's never laid eyes on the course says about the Ross restoration by Prichard.

As for Yale, that recent work of Rulewich's seems to have been generally criticized, certainly the Fazio work at Riviera has been from all kinds of sources, ANGC has had a decades long reputation of being the "Michael Jackson" of golf architecture and it seems to me when I was out in Cleveland that various people I met there who knew Pepper Pike well were not that happy with what was done to that course.

So you figure out what all that means---I think I already have.

I completely endorse all that you said in your post #14. A club that's lucky enough to have a person like that is way ahead of the game, in my opinion. People like that weren't that common but we're finding more of them today. The real tragedy is when a club had someone like that in their midst and for whatever reason they refused to listen to him or consider his opinion and knowledge. I've known a few of those, unfortunately.

[Pat_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

While I like the concept of Post # 14, it may work better in theory then in reality.

When a club's powerbase disagrees with the historian, the powerbase will win.  And, powerbases are constantly rotating.

Today, most clubs aren't willing to cede architectural infallability to a single individual.

Without EXTERNAL pressure or oversight, it would be difficult to sustain and execute his findings.

This might be an opportunity to introduce the various societies in a collaborative effort.

It's extremely difficult to find a qualified individual, willing to put in a great deal of time and effort for this project.

TEPaul was the exception rather then the rule, and Gulph Mills was very fortunate to have him willing to embark on its historical project.

I wonder if he would have done anything differently, based on his subsequent experiences with golf course architecture, and who he would select as his successor ?

Your quest is a noble but difficult task.

[wsmorrison]

Tom Doak,

I think it fanciful for those on this site or off site to declare themselves architects and hang out a shingle without a proper background.  Years of study and effort might get them where they need to be as regards agronomics, strategy and construction but shortcuts seem to be the avenue of approach.  Certainly not all that try will prove to be capable even over the long run.

I was wondering if you would address your feelings, and hope other architects would, whether or not historians can provide meaningful value to the process.  Architects and construction teams have little time, or in many cases the abilitity, to gather and study archival materials in order to provide an architectural evolution report.  But historians do have the means to do so.  If done correctly, and maybe that is a big if depending upon whose conducting the study, do you consider that such work might be valuable to a restoration architect?  

I am only referring here to an accumulation of materials (drawings, photographs and documents) for a presentation of what was planned, what was built and what was changed when and by whom.  

My own feeling is this can be an extremely important part of a master plan, at least in regard to the restoration portion of a golf course master plan which might also include new design work and/or sympathetic remodelings.  

If an owner or club came to an architect and said we want to restore the golf course back to the original design intent and remove the changes over the years, don't you feel there is a need for someone to prepare these materials in an accurate and comprehensive manner?

In my example, the historian remains an historian and not a psuedo-architect.

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,

Pat states above "When a club's powerbase disagrees with the historian, the powerbase will win.  And, powerbases are constantly rotating."
I think that is the biggest problem one has to overcome as a historian involved in a restoration.
You also mention that a club may come to an architect and ask to go back to the original intent etc.  I think it might also come as no surprise to you that many of these clubs  " can't handle the truth" as Mr. Nicholson says in A Few Good Men. And really don't know what they want.. and only wish to hear what they think they want as a way of justifying what they are going to do anyway.
I would encourage you and other historians to continue with your research and goals knowing that they definitely should be cherished and respected by architetects today and in the future.
But at the same time never underestimate the power of egos in our private club systems.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

That is practical advice and certainly what you and Pat state is true.  All an historian can do is gather information and present it.  Discussions, informal and formal, along the way couldn't hurt. Of course, as you say, how it is used is in the hands of others and regime changes over time certainly can cause havoc.  

With a number of clubs reaching their 75th and 100th anniversaries these days, many are writing histories and seeking information from researchers and industry professionals alike.  I am certain there is a growing need for accurate architecutural evolution studies that identify the who, what and where.  Good minds with good information have the best chance at getting good results.  I hope all team members in restoration programs will make use of historical findings.

[James Bennett]

TEPaul

any chance of getting a copy of your working process or criteria once it has been created?  It could rank with the tree program and the restoration program pieces on this site.

It is a common problem.  An alternative is to allow deviations from the Master Plan following agreement with the original architect, or someone of equal or superior standing, ie not the Committee by themselves.  This could prevent 90% of mishaps, but can be perceived as expensive by low-budget clubs.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

My relationship with club historians has generally been pretty good.  They have helped us tremendously at Pasatiempo and The Valley Club and several other courses by providing a treasure trove of old photographs which are immensely valuable in restoration work.

The only problem comes when the historian starts interpreting the photographs on his own and disagreeing with my interpretation of them ... this can be very polarizing to the process.  In one or two cases it has undermined the historian's credibility at a club because he is seen as always second-guessing whatever work is done, or even that no work can be done without his approval, which naturally is not a popular attitude among board members of the club.

Generally, though, my relationship with the historians of clubs are quite good because they understand that I respect the old photographs and am doing my best to follow them, even if we don't always get it exactly right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I think you, Tom Doak, TEPaul, Tom MacWood and myself are pretty much in harmony on this issue.

There is a fine balance between the disciplines.

And, as Tom Doak points out, the historian may have the best intentions, but a poor architectural eye.

I think a club has to be lucky to have a confluence amongst all interested parties, the membership, the historian, the architect, the superintendent, the Green Chairman and committee and the President and Board.

That's an awful lot of moving parts to synchronize successfully.

[TEPaul]

The last three or so posts are pretty much the essence of this entire subject. What it all basically boils down to is---"Who really trusts who's opinion on the interpretation of anything to do with restoration?"

Come on guys, you all know this is the nut of it all. It may be hard to admit but it's the truth and it probably has been for years if not forever in golf architecture.

The professional architect will generally say that he doesn't and should trust an amateur or a even an historian of an old course to make the correct decision on everything or even anything and in a way he does have a point and an historically supportable one at that.

On the other hand, there're plenty of amateurs and historians who have just as much right to say the same thing about a professional architect's interpretations and decisions about anything and everything.

This obstacle of constant subjectivity, if one wants to call it that, is at the very essence of the way anyone looks at golf and golf architecture---and even the best professional architects of the past or the present are not immune from it.

And there's probably not a damn thing that can ever be done to solve that or overcome it---at least going into a project and its multiplicity of decision making.

But I believe there is something that can solve it to a very large degree, even if after the fact---and that's what I call that all-important "test of time". We do know, or we should know, that certain golf architecture becomes immune from alteration if it becomes truly respected and admired, no matter who's decision it was to do it---and that's generally the case if it works particularly well for the interest and enjoyment and the challenge for all.

No, Pat, I really don't think I am in general harmony with Tom MacWood on this subject---at least not in the way I've seen him interpret it so far. I believe in restoring great old architecture that's been altered and corrupted but I do believe that it has to be done in such a way that it can work well for today's golf too. I also believe that it can be done in such a way where it's preservation and/or restoration and its ability to work relevently with today's golf is not mutually exclusive.

I don't know that Tom MacWood is able to contemplate such a thing and I certainly don't believe he's able to do it---at least I can't see that he can point to anything he's ever done or even said where that's been accomplished.