[tlavin]

Fellow GCA'er Jeff Goldman and I are on a committee at Olympia Fields that is looking into renovating/restoring the South Course, which is a Tom Bendelow original design (mostly) from 1915.  It still has an old-timey feel to it, but it has gotten a little tired looking (bunkers lost a lot of shape and depth, etc.).  Here's the question: Who would be on your short list to do the architectural work?  Tom Doak actually did a quick analysis of the course in 1989, but methinks he might be tooooo busy for us.

We would love to hear your input.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

From what I have seen of Ron Pritchards recent work, he would be a worthy candidate, as would the ever likeable and ever improving Tripp Davis

[Anthony_Nysse]

Mike Devries.....plus he lives quite close to Chicago.

[Rob_Waldron]

Rick Jacobson has done several renovation projects on the North Side. I am sure he would appreciate the opportunity!

[RJ_Daley]

I think it is a short list of those who would approach it from the standpoint of a "sympathetic renovation".  I define that term as someone who really respects the original architects ideas, and will do what may be necessary to remodel the course using original design characteristics.  I don't lock into the purist mantra that nothing can be reworked in terms of distances to hazards, etc.  But, style and feel of the "look" are critical.

That list includes, in no particular order of favoritism, Mike De Vries, Ron Forse and associate Jim Nagle, Bruce Hepner and Jim Urbina of Doak's firm.  

It would be a mistake in my humble opinon to select an archie, just because he did work in your area and has offices nearby.  

I'd make any candidate sit down with you and thoroughly explain  what unique and worthy of "restoration" features that were left behind by the original architect, Bendelow in this case, can be identified.  Make them tell you and show you why they have the  craftsmanship to do the project sympathetically, not just all about modern game, strategy, distance realities, etc.  If someone can't define and show you specifically Bendelow's touch, then forget them.  If all they can keep returning to is modern construction techniques, drainage, maintenance expediancy, etc., loose their number.

I'd also read the interview with Bendelow's grandson Stuart:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewbendelow.html

Bende had a definable style that was not just 18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon, on his serious works.  OFCC and Medinah were certainly among his most serious works.

Good luck.  Bende deserves some respect.  

PS:  Get up to Quic Qui Oc in Elkhart Lake Wisconsin and study the front 9, before they go forward with rumored plans to screw it up.  I haven't been there for two years.  So I can't vouch for whether any defiling has taken place.  But, if it is intact, it is a museum piece.  There are still Bendelow touches to observe at Old Hickory front 9 in Beaver Dam WI as well.

[Joel_Stewart]

I would suggest Gil Hanse who is out of Philly. He has worked on many restorations, too many to list.
 
www.hansegolfdesign.com

[seanc]

David Esler

[ian]

How about we start this thread again, and this time if your going to list a name, provide the following:

1. the reason that your listed architect would be best to handle a Bendelow

2. list their prvious experience with his work

3. provide personal experience with that work

Some listed above do have that experience, I'm curious to see if any of you know which ones.

[RJ_Daley]

Ian, I'll take the bait, and I think I understand where you are coming from.  Your questions are very good and necessary.

I plead guilty to naming one of the archies I have done based simply on photos of his restoration work.  While I have seen Mike D's work on new design-construction, I haven't personally played anything he restored.  I will maintain that in my conversations with Mike and observing him, I have no doubts about his personal approach to this question of restore-remodel and I would certainly have him in to answer my questions.

I have seen and experienced the other gentlemen's work, specifically Lawsonia-Forse/Nagle, Yeamans, Valley Club, North Shore of Hepner and Urbina.  I have no doubts of anyt of their craftsmanship, whatsoever.

I won't mention the name of local area Chicagoland archies that have done work on a Bendelow that I found unsympathetic to say the least.  And, there are others in that area that just don't cut it when it comes to restoration or sympathetic remodeling, IMHO.  I believe the universe of those that are motivated to do this sort of work is very small.  

Ian, do you want to name names or nominate yourself, based on criteria you'd like to explain, or think we ought to discuss?

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:  You would be on my short list, if they'll let you into the country.

However, I don't agree that an architect should have to have worked on other Bendelow courses to be eligible for this job.  For one thing, they aren't necessarily looking to restore the course to what it was; for another, a good architect such as yourself could look at the old maps and photos and come to good conclusions without having done "Bendelow bunkers" [if there is such an animal] before.

I do think it's pointless for everyone here to list their favorite restoration architects in this space, though.  There are lots of good candidates.  I personally thought the South course had some great natural features which were underutilized in the present design.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, how do you feel about the process of first carefully examining and being critical of Bendelow's design with the intention of identifying or debunking the notion that there are worthwhile features, strategy and style to restore or preserve?  Then, as the archie, declare your intentions and your opinons of whether a sympathetic remodel or true restoration is in order.

You say that you aren't sure if Bendelow really had a bunker style, or signature design trait.  I honestly do believe such a unique style is identifiable in his best work.  Yet, that style was not spectacular to the point of eliciting oohs and aahs like some of the more flamboyant archies of the golden era.  

I do think that a few of the hole presentations, and greens complexes with bunker styles and placements at Quic Qui Oc and similar work I've seen at Nakoma, Burr Oaks, Old Hickory and Medinal ladies course are worthy of preservation.  Just his economical approach to simple design across the land is noteworthy in the history of GCA.  The par 3, 9th at Quic Qui Oc is a world class little hole.

Perhaps there in is the essence of Tom Bendelow.  When one describes one of his well designed holes, you say, "a nice little hole".  I think the whole flavor of that connotation of little, cute, sporty, and diminuative seems to capture the man's vision.  He sort of made golf for the little man.  That is a philosophy worth preserving for the ages, right there.

[Peter_Collins]

GCA regular Jeff Brauer (sp) did an outstanding restoration job at my club in Wichita Kansas.  I am fairly certain every body involved from the greens committee to head pro to head greenskeeper would highly recommend Jeff.

[RJ_Daley]

Peter, Bendelow isn't credited with any courses in Wichita.  What course did Jeff "restore" there?  And, was it restoration or remodelling?  

I don't find anything wrong with remodelling an old course that lacks significant architectural/design merrit.  I have every confidence that Jeff can and has done that a number of times.  I believe that remodelling was his goal in his work at Wakonda and Beverly.  Jeff has written a very useful guide concerning questions that come up about remodelling.  He has conducted "Remodelling U".  But, I am not aware of any "restoration" that Jeff has done.

The question here is Olympia Fields, with plenty of historical significance.  The question is whether the Bendelow course at OFCC has enough historical documentation of unique design qualities by a seminal archie in terms of his contributions to the earliest of GCA in this country, to merrit sympathetic remodelling, or real restoration.  And, the big question; what process could be employed by the gentlemen on the committee to find a talented and compatible architect suited for that job.  OFCC isn't any mom and pop, daily fee, or run of the mill nice members club.  They need to do their homework, I think.

[RJ_Daley]

ONe other thing I want to state that I strongly believe in is the role of the superintendent in any process of remodel or restore.  If the super is not both passionate and supportive of the process, or looks at it only to protect his 'turf' from an ease and cost of maintenance point of view, primarily, then I don't think you will have a good process of identifying course design historical and architectural contributions of which to preserve, nor selection of the right architect to do the work.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ian and Tom-
I like your comments.  And Tom is right about Ian..about getting in the good old usa that is.

Terry,
Fortunately for myself your partner Jeff won't be able to get back in the good old usa either...  Unless of course I get on that short list.  As I'll be with him at the Teeth this month, and there is no way he's getting back without accidently finding one of my brochures under his pillow every night.

Cheers

See you soon Jeff...what size hat do you wear

[mike_beene]

My course was a Bendelow although Ralph Plummer changed it some in the 40's.Crenshaw -Coore did our renovation added some bunkers,redid the greens.We are not a real exclusive club,nor will we be on their list of top courses,but they treated us like we were important.Now no one will touch the course unless Coore approves.There are some who think the greens are severe,but 98% are very pleased.At our club you can't get 98% to agree the world is round.

[ian]

First of all this was not an attempt to be concidered, it was just to point out that the same old list comes up for every thread. I think there are a couple of great candidates mentioned, but the trick is picking them out from a list of good ones. I'll be honest, I don't know which of the above would do the best job.

RJ,

Thank-you for taking the bait because I enjoyed you comments on Mike, and I think the examples you cited are important projects. Rather than who, how would you use those examples to make a selection for your club?

Tom,

I like what Bruce Hepner said recently about Travis; there is no "style", just a lot of examples of his work, and you have to judge each course individually.

I found your comments interesting about Bendelow, and Bendelow features. Have you found any specific intersting features in your travels that can be traced to him? Or is his work most often hidden in a series of renovations.

RJ,

Love the examples. Can you post any photos of these? could you take a little more time to expand on some of the features or even the one hole. I would enjoy hearing more.

Mike,

I have a work permit courtesy of free trade. Some of the jobs flow north as well as south.

[RJ_Daley]

Ian, at the moment I am a bit frustrated that I can't find the CD with the photos of Quic Qui Oc.  As this day wears on, and I begin my cooking o the cabbage and corned beef, whilst nipping a bit of the heavenly dew, I might get a bit more muddled.  I'll commence the search tomorrow and e-mail some examples to you when I find them.

[ian]

RJ,

I look forward to the images.

Enjoy the wee nip, and NCAA touryment. This may be one of the finner days to be alive, a combination of two great days!

[mark chalfant]

Jim Nagle
Brian Silva
Bruce  hepner or Jim Urbina
Ian  Andrew
Mike  DeVries

[Robert Thompson]

Without doubt, Ian Andrew is the leading restoration architect in Canada at the moment, and considering the work he's done at Scranton and Park Club in Buffalo, I'd say he's making some inroads into the US of A as well.
Rightfully so -- Ian is interested in the history of a course, researching it and finding the best way to work with the club within that context. His bunker work at St. George's in Toronto was exceptional, and his recent reno at a little known Stanley Thompson course called Highlands in London, Ont., is excellent. It breathed new life into a course that really needed it.
So, yes, Ian would be excellent. If he worked more in the U.S., his reputation would undoubtedly be much greater. Of course, he also works under someone else's brand.
Now, about my payment, Mr. Andrew.....

[Peter_Collins]

RJ

Sorry if my post gave the impression our course is a Bendelow, it is a 1950's circa William Diddle design.  The project was described as a restoration/modernization.  Jeff contacted Ron Whitten and obtained a set of original plans for the course.  As is often the case bunkers and greens had lost some of their shape and size as a result of maintanence practices.  In addition the course had undergone a number of ad hoc redesigns over the years.  Also development of the property to the north and east of the course had significantly changed the drainage dynamic of the course.  All of these issues were addressed by the project.

The project encompassed a change in turf-grass from fescue/rye overseed to zoysia, extensive drainage work, restoring bunkers, and restoring design elements of the original design.  

Although we did not start with a course the quality of a Bendalow design the project has been a huge success.  First and foremost the course now drains properly.  An incredible feat given the all of the factors working against proper drainage on our piece of property.  Second, using the original blueprints (?) obtained from Whitten we were able to restore design elements to the course that were lost in the 50 years proceeding the restoration.  The bunkers were returned to their original shape but in several instances repositioned to account for changes in the game which have resulted from modern equipment.  

The course now plays a touch harder for the better players as the bunkers have greater depth than in recent years, and the fairway bunkers are catching more tee shots which would have flown by/over the bunkers in their previous positions.   There were some changes made to the course to benefit the aging membership that purists may balk at.   However, given the nature of our club they were necessary to "sell" the project to the membership, and were accomplished in such a way that they do not affect the strategy for the better players.   Asthetically our course looks outstanding.

The project has been very well received by the membership in general and has given our club a lot of positive momentum.  It was completed on time and within budget.  

As an aside I notice Brauer's web site does not mention the course anywhere so maybe something happened behind the scenes I have not heard about.  

[ian]

Sorry, this is not what I intended with my comment.

I wasn't trying to be noticed or mentioned (and am starting to regret the post). I just want people to suggest names with some good examples of why the specific new or renovation job just fits that architect so well. There is always a group of people who are all capable of doing an excellent job.


For those who know the course, what does it need?

Why wouldn't they use Mark again? I have not seen the work at the course, but nobody has ever said anything bad on here about the work. Just asking, since he got no mention.

[Paul Richards]

Terry

The first invitation should be to Ron Prichard.  He has a love and passion for the classic courses that is quite evident at both Beverly and Skokie.

Tom Doak would be wonderful as well.  Let's hope he is interested, because, IMHO, the South is a real gem that just needs some TLC.

With the proper restoration, the South course could easily make the top 10 in the state of Illinois.  That is high praise, indeed.  The South has some of the best short four pars around, and, in fact, has a bunch of holes that would 'improve' the North, were it possible to interchange them.  

However, it suffers from too many trees and a general architectural 'neglect' that could and should be rectified and I am excited that you and Jeff are working on this, because, underneath, there is really something special!!!!!

Cheers!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

tlavin,

Fellow GCA'er Jeff Goldman and I are on a committee at Olympia Fields that is looking into renovating/restoring the South Course, which is a Tom Bendelow original design (mostly) from 1915.

I don't mean to give you a hard time ..... but, I have some questions.

Which will it be, a restoration, or a renovation ?

It can't be both.

Has your committee made a final decision with respect what you intend for the golf course ?

If not, don't you think this should be decided BEFORE you select an architect ?[/color]

It still has an old-timey feel to it, but it has gotten a little tired looking (bunkers lost a lot of shape and depth, etc.).  

That's a dangerous description, "tired looking" because it usually implies that the golf course needs to be updated, modernized to meet today's standards and challenges[/color]

Here's the question: Who would be on your short list to do the architectural work?  

First, you have to decide what architectural work you want done, a RESTORATION or a RENOVATION/MODERNIZATON.[/color]

Tom Doak actually did a quick analysis of the course in 1989, but methinks he might be tooooo busy for us.

I believe that Tom Doak is out of that business, delegating assignments like this to his group of capable associates.[/color]

We would love to hear your input.

Be careful what you wish for  

In all seriousness, I firmly believe that you have to establish a clear, unmistakable mission statement.  
Will it be a restoration ?  Or,
Will it be a renovation/modernization ?

I'd be fearful of the latter.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()