[Mark_Fine]

Some of you may know that of the projects I have going on right now, the most fun I am having is redesigning "Forrest Richardson" courses     It must have been all those "balls of fire he's been throwing under my arse"  

[Mike_Young]

In 100 years when I look down on my projects I want to avoid the temptation to be thinking how nice and restrained some young man or woman is being — I would rather be throwing balls of fire under their arses to go a step further, to pull out all the stops and dare the status quo.

I hope in 100 years some restoration expert gets hold of one of my courses and finds out a few of my greens were a foot smaller and lower than I thought they were and corrects all of those problems....I sometimes wonder what old Donald thinks sitting up there or down there watching some fan club read his mind while some guys are running around telling the world he meant to make this bunker deeper or that slope steeper when he could have cared less.....

[Tom_Doak]

Hey Forrest:

If all those brilliant young designers are going to be redesigning all of your courses in 100 years anyway, then why inhibit their creativity by putting anything out there now to confuse them ... why not just leave them a nice bit of untouched property to work with?

Really good architecture rolls with the punches, it doesn't require someone with a degree from Remodeling University to save it.

[paul cowley]

TomD said  "Really good architecture rolls with the punches, it doesn't require someone with a degree from Remodeling University to save it.".....or stop its evolution, not only from natures ongoing effects, but also by the hand of man.

There is not one course in the world that has not, or will not, succumb to these combined forces.

Name one if you can.

....see you can't...the real debate is about how much control we ex-cert, and who holds the reins... and this discussion can only be productive when talking about a specific course....not trying to answer the generalized question of this thread.



 

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — "If all those brilliant young designers are going to be redesigning all of your courses in 100 years anyway, then why inhibit their creativity by putting anything out there now to confuse them ... why not just leave them a nice bit of untouched property to work with?

That's sort of pompous. But I will respondby saying that my actions today are no different than what I think is appropriate in the future. We are the future of eras gone bye.

"Really good architecture rolls with the punches, it doesn't require someone with a degree from Remodeling University to save it."

That is definitely pompous. But I will respond by saying that the information and content of Remodeling University classes is worthwhile and well presented. Like any education program, some are better than others. There is always something to be learned by seeing case studies and how different people approach problems — and how the deal with obstacles.

Have you Tom D. ever attended an ASGCA Remodeling University? Which one(s)? Who were the presenters?

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:  I thought it was pretty false modesty on your part.  If everybody's work is all going to be redesigned someday, then we are really all equal then aren't we?  

And I don't think it's pompous at all to say that really good architecture rolls with the punches.  Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, St. Andrews, Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath, San Francisco Golf Club, Chicago Golf Club ... lots of great courses have existed for decades with scarcely a change.  Sometimes they get stupid about having a tournament and add some back tees or some bunkers, but they really don't need to do that stuff.  The routings are bulletproof.

And no, I haven't felt the need to go to an ASGCA remodeling university.  We've been consulting at clubs for about fifteen years and we have a pretty good track record; most of them believe that we are there to do the right thing long-term.  About half of what we have done is dealing with evolution as Paul suggests ... the other half was undoing stupid projects done by green chairmen or architects.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As for medical terms.....I think all of the professional people call their businesses "practices" for a reason.....but you do get better with more practice......supposedly

Mike,

That is an old joke.  The other related one is the guy who claims to have a "model" practice - which can be taken as a "miniature of the real thing",,,,,

As to what responsibility we have, I say its to let the Owner know just what it is you think they have.  If they know it and decide to blow it up, then you have still done your job.  

If you don't feel right about it after knowing its history, etc. then walk away, although you know someone else will do their bidding.

While some of changes made to great courses now appear stupid to us, and we can all list some changes that are real head scratchers, I give most clubs the credit for doing what they thought was best, knowing what they knew, and under the circumstances they faced.  The idea that a course (city, region, building, whatever) should remain static is an idea that requires some uphill swimming, given human nature, and the "life" that those things seemingly take on.

I presume 99% of all design is reflective of some very immediate needs that change over time.  The same amount responds to an alway slim budget.  The idea of historic preservation is mostly an idea we can afford when times are good.  

Many remodels take place when times are bad - financially or agronomically.  To supplement my statement about not being commissioned for a restoration of a Plummer course in my Plummer piece, the simple fact is that I was retained by the bankruptcy course to spruce it up to enhance membership sales so they could sell it.  I could have talked all day about the historic qualities of that course, and the bankers would say, "it doesn't show up in the numbers."

And, despite my reverence for the history of golf design, human nature does make companies market "new and improved Tide" more often than "Same old Tide your mother used" and "Not your father's Buick" over "Your Dad drove and Edsal, too!"

Also, I don't think Tom D needs to attend Remodel U since he is not the target audience.  On the other hand, not having been there, and with that having no relevance to this thread, he didn't need to make offhand comments about it either.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Remodel U has no relevance to a thread about the responsibility of architects in consulting work?

I guess I haven't missed anything after all.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom — Those are good comments and thoughts.

"If everybody's work is all going to be redesigned someday, then we are really all equal then aren't we?" Yes, I suppose. But for the current era there are certainly examples that are excellent — and really bad examples, too. Routing, as you suggest (and great sites, as I would add) — are probably among the greatest gifts our generation can leave behind.

The "pompous" parts I find in your earlier post are not the extracted bit about really good architecture rolling with the punches. I believe that, too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

The seminar does focus on the process (and and various responsibilities) that a club will go through, and when I have participated, yes, I have addressed questions of whether to restore, renovate or remodel.  Your post implied (to me) as have other left handed references to RU over the years on golf club atlas, that somehow RU focused on attaining a specific result, or that it was a sales pitch for an ASGCA architect, specifically one that would be bad for a course.

Such is not the case.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — Your post about the Remodeling University program was, in fact, sarcastic. I am surprised you took the opportunity to post as you did when you indicate you have never attended one of the programs.

In my opinion, even though you have 15 years experience, you probably could learn something. Quite certainly, you could have something to offer. Is anything in particular stopping you?

[TEPaul]

I've been holding my tongue so far on this thread.

I don't know whether this thread is about what an architect's general responsibility is, whether it's about the ASGCA, or RU or the ASGCA and RU and Tom Doak, or whatever, or all of those things but there are some things on here I think do need commenting on.

Mike Young, you're a lot bigger than me and could obviously beat me up in an nanosecond but restoration architecture and restoration architects are a 'cottage industry'

Come on, that's a load of crap and one of these days you're gonna have to admit it.

The ASGCA is going to have to admit it too and learn how to recognize, deal with and accomodate that facet of architecture, and those types of architects, a whole lot better than they have in the past or even do now, and I think the ASGCA has gotten to that point now that they understand that.

I'm not saying that any architect couldn't be a good restorer if he just took the time to do comprehensive research on restoration projects and do what's necessary and I'm not saying that some of the good restoration architects could be great new construction architects but I think the time is well past where the ASGCA or any of its architects stop treating that group of so-called restoration architects (and yes we all know who they are) like second class citizens and like second class architects who ply some kind of cottage industry.

As for Tom Doak's mention of some architecture showing a funny way of rolling with the punches---I agree generally. There's a good amount of identifiable architecture out there that has clearly done what I call "passed the test of time" that basically means it's at that point where it's going to get basically left alone in the future and not remodeled or redesigned.

Why is that? Because it has earned the respect of just about everyone---eg it has passed the test of time in play over the years. It has gotten to that point where apparently nobody has any reason to change it. What would be the point, since it's basically earned everyone's respect as it is?

Max Behr called architecture like that---architecture that gets to that point, "Permanent Architecture", even if his mechanisms and methodology for how architecture gets to that point may've been a bit iffy in theory.  

[TEPaul]

And one more thing about so-called restoration architecture and those now well known restoration architects. This whole new phase or fad of restoration architecture is about 10 or so years into a real recognized cycle now. It's not just the purview and interest of a bunch of GOLFCLUBATLASers. Since it is a recognized phase in the history and evolution of architecture now many have seen the mistakes of the first attempts at it and now many have seen some of the notable successes of it.

To be honest and factual some so-called restoration architects have contributed mightily to this new phase but in some cases some in-house supers and their crews have done as good or better jobs of it than any architects, so-called restoration architects or otherwise.

This new wave of restoration architecture and those projects have always struggled to deal with the problems of new technology too in what they do on the ground, and some do that better than others.

Now that we are about 10-15 years into this restoration cycle or fad I think the next new component of it to come will be to more completely match the "look" of old architecture, particularly the exact look of old bunkering, and to come up with ways that maintenance depts can so much better "hold" that look into the future than has ever been done before.

Why will this happen more and happen better in the future than it has in the past? Because so-called "restoration architecture" has come of age now and so many more people, clubs, committees, researchers, writers, general memberhips and golfers care about these things now and will continue to in the future.

Twenty years ago not many cared or understood it or even thought about it. The concept or even the word "restoration" in golf architecture hardly even existed 20-25 years ago.

It exists now, and nobody can deny it. And the ASGCA needs to totally recognize what it is and isn't and get on board with what it is at its best or this new phase will begin to bypass the ASGCA. This new phase and the best of it will begin to bypass any architect, no matter what he calls himself if he doesn't get on board and learn to do this (mislabeled) 'cottage industry' right.  

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

Thank you for explaining the motives behind my post to me.

I might well be able to learn something from the Remodeling University, and I might be able to contribute something as well, but I had the impression that the get-together was partly to promote the ASGCA members who participate and that an outside architect would not be so welcome.  However, since we are slowly getting out of the consulting business to focus on new courses, I have not thought about attending anyway.

My hint of sarcasm at the RU is based mostly on the timing of the endeavour ... it had nothing to do with beginning the restoration movement, in fact it did not exist until consulting at well-known clubs was a growing business.  What actually happens there, I cannot speak to, and I really didn't if you go back and look.  I said that you don't need a degree from Remodeling U to preserve the architecture of a classic course, and I think I've actually proven that true in a few instances.

[Mike_Young]

I've been holding my tongue so far on this thread.

I don't know whether this thread is about what an architect's general responsibility is, whether it's about the ASGCA, or RU or the ASGCA and RU and Tom Doak, or whatever, or all of those things but there are some things on here I think do need commenting on.

Mike Young, you're a lot bigger than me and could obviously beat me up in an nanosecond but restoration architecture and restoration architects are a 'cottage industry'

Come on, that's a load of crap and one of these days you're gonna have to admit it.

The ASGCA is going to have to admit it too and learn how to recognize, deal with and accomodate that facet of architecture, and those types of architects, a whole lot better than they have in the past or even do now, and I think the ASGCA has gotten to that point now that they understand that.

I'm not saying that any architect couldn't be a good restorer if he just took the time to do comprehensive research on restoration projects and do what's necessary and I'm not saying that some of the good restoration architects could be great new construction architects but I think the time is well past where the ASGCA or any of its architects stop treating that group of so-called restoration architects (and yes we all know who they are) like second class citizens and like second class architects who ply some kind of cottage industry.

As for Tom Doak's mention of some architecture showing a funny way of rolling with the punches---I agree generally. There's a good amount of identifiable architecture out there that has clearly done what I call "passed the test of time" that basically means it's at that point where it's going to get basically left alone in the future and not remodeled or redesigned.

Why is that? Because it has earned the respect of just about everyone---eg it has passed the test of time in play over the years. It has gotten to that point where apparently nobody has any reason to change it. What would be the point, since it's basically earned everyone's respect as it is?

Max Behr called architecture like that---architecture that gets to that point, "Permanent Architecture", even if his mechanisms and methodology for how architecture gets to that point may've been a bit iffy in theory.  

TE,
First...why would I wish to "beat uou up"?  I am a non violent revolutionary and would not wish to confront a person that uses "product" in their hair.  Plus I can agree to disagree.  AND I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE ASGCA, but I did try once.....

"cottage industry" is exactly what this so called phase is.  Approx 15 years ago people started to say that new work would slow down and renovation/restoration would pick up so architects and restorers began trying to figure out a "brand identity".  
You had a bunch of guys running around forming the Donald ross Society and other dead guy groups.  Club committees are gullable and they fed into these groups as having credibility.  When really they were just trying to ruin a partcular architect's work and it spread from there.  You started seeing these DRS type groups take a guy "under their wing" if they found a bunker he had done that they liked and they would parade on that ground for a while and then they would "discover" another.  Funny thing was it was hardly(and possibly never) someone that had actally designed and built an entire course because most of those guys wrote them off and still do(IMHO).  Anyway,they kept fueling the fire of this dead guy stuff and clubs started to buy in because they had no knowledge and knew that hyping the dead guy that came thru town one day 50 years ago was much cheaper(and more difficult to verify) than hiring a signature or an architect that had other new course work etc.   And then these "restoration experts" caught on to the dead guy groups and the b*ll s**t started flying.  Funny thing was so many of these guys were blessed with the inate ability to be an expert on every dead architect that was ever out there.  
Now I am not saying that some of their stuff is not good or that they are not qualified ...they may be....bt they are no where near as qualified as an architect that has been designing his own work and has his own projects in the ground. (I am sure there are exception on both sides).....but when some dead guy group with a kook running around telling clubs that the "restoration expert" he has with him today is the guy that needs to be doing their work and the guy has never designed a golf course....STOP AND EXPLAIN....is it sort of like a knee surgeon that has only pulled teeth?
Yes...it is a cottage industry....
Now as I said I am not in the ASGCA......
I went to one of the first Remodeling Universities in ATL.  I probably did learn something but the contractor that was speaking definitely got a lot of promo and the president of ASGCA at the time said the following.....

"will focus on informing the golf community of the value of capitalizing on the talents of an experienced course architect throughout the design and development process.  He will also highlight the professionalism, talent and code of ethics that distinguish members of the society.  In addition he’ll work to promote the group’s” remodeling university”

Sorry to all te ASGCA guys but I take that as saying if you are not a member then you may not be qualified and your ethics and talent may be lacking.  

There is no way you can convince me that a guy that has built a couple of bunkers or done a green here and there is as qualified as someone that has been in the business dong his own work for 10 or 20 years.  It don't work that way.  AND THAT IS NOT PERSONAL TOWARD THOSE INDIVIDUALS   My problem is the dead guy groups and committees at clubs that allow it to happen but that is the free enterprise system.  
It is also amazing how much work is done by these "resoration experts" that was not necessary.....are they "generating" work or did ole donald or tille come to them in a dream.....
WOW...hold on Tom.....I better be quiet I just saw that Flynn guy start rising out of that flask you gave me......
Take care,
Mike

[Mike_Young]

It exists now, and nobody can deny it. And the ASGCA needs to totally recognize what it is and isn't and get on board with what it is at its best or this new phase will begin to bypass the ASGCA. This new phase and the best of it will begin to bypass any architect, no matter what he calls himself if he doesn't get on board and learn to do this (mislabeled) 'cottage industry' right.  

TE,
IMHO, for an architect that has been designing his own work and has studied the dead guys enough to distinguish the bull sh*t and knows where to find the proper shapers for the work that would be required....would "learning to do this "cottage industry" stuff right"" be about the same as a mechanic that had been rebuilding engines learning how to replace sparkplugs???

[TEPaul]

"TE,
IMHO, for an architect that has been designing his own work and has studied the dead guys enough to distinguish the bull sh*t and knows where to find the proper shapers for the work that would be required....would "learning to do this "cottage industry" stuff right"" be about the same as a mechanic that had been rebuilding engines learning how to replace sparkplugs???"

MikeY:

Probably. I'm not saying it's all that complicated or anything like that. It's probably nothing more than a real willingness to restore an old classic car right, and to make it run and look just like it once did and not fall prey to the desire to put some big fat super wide tires on the rear and a 0-60 in 3.7 seconds 450 HP Hemi engine in it with a super sound system and guidance system and such.

I'm not saying that any ASGCA architect couldn't do it---it's more a matter of really wanting to do it.

And if you keep denying this and disagreeing with it I'm gonna get me a small chair so I can step up on it and punch you in the nose next time I see you. And I won't forget to bring my latest NIKE running shoes so I can jump off and run like Hell.

[Mike_Young]

"TE,
IMHO, for an architect that has been designing his own work and has studied the dead guys enough to distinguish the bull sh*t and knows where to find the proper shapers for the work that would be required....would "learning to do this "cottage industry" stuff right"" be about the same as a mechanic that had been rebuilding engines learning how to replace sparkplugs???"

MikeY:

Probably. I'm not saying it's all that complicated or anything like that. It's probably nothing more than a real willingness to restore an old classic car right, and to make it run and look just like it once did and not fall prey to the desire to put some big fat super wide tires on the rear and a 0-60 in 3.7 seconds 450 HP Hemi engine in it with a super sound system and guidance system and such.

OK We agree,,,so why would you hire some restoration expert that has never done it anymore than you would hire a heart surgeon that had not been thru a residency??   Sounds to me like sometimes we(not just you) mistake passion for qualification....
Just the other day.....one of the guys on our club's preservation committee informed me that the "restoration expert" had "taught them things that  no one around here would ever know about golf" and this from a member that uses a baseball grip with a score clicker on his belt....sort of says it all......

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — I have not tried to explain the motive behind your posts. But it brings up questions when you take a stab at the ASGCA's Remodeling University program — and have not had a personal experience with it.

"Take a stab" is how I viewed your comments. It seemed — your post — to belittle the ASGCA's program.

Tom P. — Good thoughts. Can you compress them into a more direct suggestion? For example, in a few short sentances, what specifically do you think the ASGCA needs to do in order to meet your expectations in this area?

[TEPaul]

"OK We agree,,,so why would you hire some restoration expert that has never done it anymore than you would hire a heart surgeon that had not been thru a residency??  Sounds to me like sometimes we(not just you) mistake passion for qualification...."

MikeY:

What are you talking about? Do you think a restoration architect like Ron Prichard has never done it before? The guy has probably done a hundred restoration projects and some very fine ones. Guys like Prichard and Forse are also extremely research oriented in their projects.

Forrest:

I think the ASGCA should insist that their architects who claim to do restorations walk the walk and not just talk the talk. For God sakes, there was one architect who sold himself to a club as a restorer and when they took him out on the golf course he had to ask again who originally designed the place. And I think the ASGCA should change whatever membership criteria they have to include architects who basically only do restoration projects, sort of like Forse and Prichard.

At this point, I doubt either of them would want to belong to the ASGCA. Do you blame them? What has it or can it do for them? Their schedules are already over-booked and have been for some years and it seems in the past the ASGCA almost hasn't recognized those few restoration architects who specialize in those kinds of architectural projects.

I also think the ASGCA needs to get into the art of researching when on the subject of restoration. But you and I know they appear to be in the process of doing that very thing as we speak. Right?  

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom P. — The term "restoration" is the cause of many aches and pains, isn't it? When I watch This Old House I see couples "restoring" a Victorian house, but using polycomposite baseboards and installing stainless steel gas ranges. I see bedrooms get larger. I see a landscape architect suggest wild onions as row plantings along pavers purchased from Home Depot. Is it still a restoration? I think so, providing the overall aesthetic and the "bones" are kept "Victorian".

When these same people — this nice couple we shall call Jim and Deena — add a green house to the back so they can have larger parties, I applaud it as long as it is done in the same style and flavor.  And, if I were the IRS it would be my pleasure to reward Jim and Deena with a tax break for not trashing a great old house and cladding it with stucco or aluminum. This is, of course, all based the house being truly "great". Such is not always the acse with houses nor golf courses nor boats nor vintage cars.

Of course, technically Jim and Deena are not "restoring" as many of us may define it. Maybe it is some degree of sympathetic approach. Maybe it is, to some, "remodeling" with no if's, and's or but's.

So, I am not sure we will ever get any organization to be able to "insist that their architects who claim to do restorations walk the walk and not just talk the talk." For it is an endless debate of which no clear winner is ever going to emerge.

The context of your story about a golf architect visiting a club after selling himself has been told to me several times, each with a different spin and on several occasions, with a different subject. I was not there (for any of the alleged incidents) so I cannot comment more than to say that — if it happened — it was likely an embarrasing to the architect. Frankly, I cannot imagine this happening is the simplistic way it has been re-told. I can imagine variations. Such as in the context of meeting with a green committee historian, an architect asking that person about the course, how it evolved, etc. I am working with a club now where the historian knows much more than I do...I hope he does not think my quest for information is somehow a bad idea, nor my asking about the primitive design era of the course indicative of any mis-represenation on my part when I first made a presentation to the club.

As for the ASGCA changing membership criteria to include architects who basically only do restoration projects, this has been done to a degree. Previously; remodels, restorations and renovations (add a few more descriptives if you like) were not considered for membership. Now they are, and have been for the past several years. So far, however, the thinking is that completion of new courses needs to be an essential component of membership in the ASGCA. So, for now, a member needs to demonstrate a knowledge and track record of completing new courses. I think that has merit, don't you?

I do not blame anyone for not applying for membership in the ASGCA. However, I feel there are several golf architects who would both benefit and contribute to the Society if they were to become members. I have been outspoken about this and try to encourage membership for  what I feel are positive reasons for both the Society and the individual. The absolute wrong reason to become a member of any organizatio is the narrow thought of what it will "do for me".

As for the ASGCA needing to get into the art of researching when on the subject of restoration, OK. I believe you answered this question, partly, by alluding to the archive project being attacked currently. A lot of this is member specific.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P. — The term "restoration" is the cause of many aches and pains, isn't it?"

Forrest:

Not really or not much anymore, in my opinion---at least not on here despite numerous threads debating what the differences in meaning is or should be between restoration, renovation, remodel, redesign, improvement or whatever. And I don't think the term restoration is confusing or causing aches and pains to those more savy clubs today who at least have the benefit of seeing what came before the projects they want to get into.

Most people don't care what someone wants to call it they know perfectly well what a good restoration project is and what it isn't.

With the restoration project at my club, the membership didn't seem to like the term "restoration project" so they decided to call it an "improvement project" but that didn't change anything about our restoration plan.

It just is what it is no matter what anyone wants to call it.

But to date I have yet to see what may be a completely exact course restoration in every single sense, which of course would logically be no tee length additions or anything like that.

That kind of ultra pure restoration probably just isn't realistic or feasible today given how golf has changed technologically but some like Tom MacWood can't seem to get his mind wrapped around that obvious reality.

But there are some restorations which are pretty accurate where the look particularly is really well restored.

As I said before I think catching a real restoration on the "look" of a lot of the old classic architecture is going to be the next big phase that will be concentrated on by more architects. And after that will be a real dedication to trying to "hold" that look into the future with maintenance practices.

This is something that has never been done before, perhaps never thought of before but I think that's the next coming thing and it will be popular, and demanded far more than it has yet.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Paul,

I hope I am quoting Mike Youngs feelings correctly, but I would love to know the value that is brought by someone with an opinion, but no real knowledge of how to translate an idea into reality, like an experienced golf architect can. As Forrest points out, there are times it helps to have someone outside do the historical research. I can imagine there are other times when the project is both opinioned and fee'd to death by more and more 'experts".

As to what ASGCA should or shouldn't do, please remember that we are 160 or so independent contractors, each trying very hard to distinguish ourselves, not fall in line with a dogma proposed by our leaders. That just doesn't happen.

Also, please remember that of 17,000 US courses, probably only 3% of them are restoration worthy, while most have serious flaws in design, whether from no original design, limited land or budgets, etc. that can now be improved.  Add in that only 3% of golfers have any interest in restoration - they figure if they pay their dues and construction assessments now, the work should reflect their desires and needs.

Because this group tends to talk only about the 500 or so most classic courses we have, and perhaps because you have such great access to classic courses, since a disproportionate number of them are in your area of the country and your status in the golf world, I feel you are overestimating the need for pure restoration, much like a political candidate can blame welfare moms or foreign aid for the budget problems, when each contributes only $30 Bil to a trillion dollar budget.  Statistically, it is a small part of the renovation arena.

RU focuses on the process of doing renovations right, not on the dogma of getting any particular result, other than what is right in that club specific situation, whether its restoration, sympathetic renovation or total revitalization.
 
RU was started because associations are always looking for public service projects where they can provide pro bono expertise to those who need it, for the good of the game.  It does possibly/probably help our members through general exposure, since for most gca's renovation work comprises over 50% of their work.

Tom Doak,

I am sorry if  you or the Rons feel it was aimed at keeping you out of business, but the fact that you aren't is testament to the fact that it isn't, and never could be.  While it may feel like ASGCA is promoting our own members over others is saying they are not qualified, the program was really not aimed at them with bad intentions - mostly it was for the good intentions listed above.  

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

That incident of an architect showing up having convinced the club he would restore it and then asking who the original architect was sure is true.

I know the club, the architect, and one of the people the architect asked that of. That guy who is the super told me the story himself. But I'm not going to name them all on here.

In that way maybe I'm getting like an ASGCA member myself because I'm not going to name names and beat people up for that.

In some ways the ASGCA is probably like the National Association of Real Estate Brokers whose main function is to prevent the industry from getting a bad name over something and to prevent realtors from blatantly criticizing each other to the real estate buying and selling public.

But I like the honesty and bluntness and criticism even if the ASGCA may not.

For instance, I was completely fascinated to learn that you know a whole lot more about the style and ramifications of Hurzdan and Fry architecture than Mike knows himself. The ASGCA may frown on you putting out a press release to that effect but I was just fascinated to learn that anyway. And I think Mike was too. At least now he knows if he gets stuck on some problem he can certainly call you to find out what he's trying to do.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
I hope I am quoting Mike Youngs feelings correctly, but I would love to know the value that is brought by someone with an opinion, but no real knowledge of how to translate an idea into reality, like an experienced golf architect can. As Forrest points out, there are times it helps to have someone outside do the historical research. I can imagine there are other times when the project is both opinioned and fee'd to death by more and more 'experts"."

JeffB:

Do I write so confusingly that no one can understand what I just said about that?

I was talking about the so-called restoration architects that most of us on here are aware of. And I was talking about how those architects who have basically specialized in restoration projects are not represented well in the ASGCA or by them. If you'd like I'd be glad to name them---I'm pretty certain they wouldn't mind.

That's who I was talking about. If you guys think their opinions on restorations are of no value then I sure would ask you all to think again.

It seems to me MikeY implied that those architects who basically specialize in restoration projects and who may not be in the ASGCA were a 'cottage industry'---eg not real golf course architects.

I hope you guys don't mean that or are implying that.

This is not to say that a lot of new construction architects haven't done some good restorations---eg MikeY mentioned Weed at Timiquana and Fought at Pine Needles, a couple of restoration projects that have obviously gotten some great revues.

Of course new construction architects can do good restoration projects but I would still want to see what they'd done on a restoration project before hiring them. I already know what Forse and Prichard and Hanse et al can do on restoration projects.

But what I didn't know is that they are just part of a 'cottage industry' and that they aren't real architects or weren't until they did a new construction project.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()