[Forrest Richardson]

The National Association of Real Estate Brokers!!!???

That type of thinking is...well, it really shows a habit of not thinking at all! I am astonished at your, errrr...brain fart. And, in public, too!  

The ASGCA is a group of respected professionals that gather to share ideas, information, to learn and appreciate examples of golf architecture. The business side of things is important, but it does not eclipse the celebration of the art. Neither, in my opinion, does the science take any sort of lead over the creative aspects.

As I have said before, it is also a group with common interests, yet uncommon approaches. We learn by listening to each other, by observing, and by participating. It may be difficult for you to appreciate this — obviously so if you somehow liken us to a group of realtors that is tens of thousands in numbers!

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I have never worried too much that someone is trying to keep me out of the business; I've always been willing to succeed or fail on my own merits, and I don't think the ASGCA has ever gotten in the way of that.  I've heard different stories from other non-members, but that's all second-hand.  I do think the ASGCA's sudden interest in remodeling was designed to get some of that work for themselves ... and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't imply they are the only ones qualified to do it.

Tom P:

I do have to agree with Mike Y in that designing a course from scratch is MUCH different than redesigning or restoring one.  In the latter case you can just rely on a contractor to build what you tell him was there originally; on a new course you do have to sort out where everything goes.  If membership in the ASGCA is based on having built new courses, then it should pay no attention to remodeling.

However, I do think the ASGCA guidelines suck in that they count "major remodeling" work as credit toward membership, but not "restoration" work.  Even though I understand that one is more complex than the other, this policy also constitutes a less than subtle incentive for members (and those who want to be) to make a bigger project out of a consulting job than it may need.  And I don't think that's the right signal to be sending.  

[TEPaul]

Look, the last thing I want to do is criticize or even comment on the ASGCA, who it's made up of or what they do or discuss at meetings or whatever. And I don't exactly see any currency in ASGCA members trying to run down real estate brokers and their national association either unless some want to put their "Society" on some kind of pedestal by running down other trade associations and societies of art forms or anything else. If you want to do that I guess real estate brokers, automobile dealer associations and even lawyer associations are great candidates in the minds of some.

All I was saying on here is that the first two lines of Mike Young's reply #1 doesn't exactly sit well with me or probably a good deal of others on this website and out there in the real world.

Do you guys actually think that golf architects who specialize in restoration architecture aren't real golf course architects? Is all you think of them is that they are a 'cottage industry'? If that's true no wonder they aren't represented or respected by the members of the ASGCA and in the criteria for membership of the ASGCA.

Forrest and JeffB (and MIke Y) if you really do think that I take huge issue with that. A few of those guys have years into that specialty and a pretty long track record in that area. Are you trying to deny that or imply they don't?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — ASGCA's "sudden" interest in remodeling is no different than this website's "sudden" interest. It is timely because there is so much to be done. The Society does not say that members are the only ones qualified.

Membership in the ASGCA is only partially based on having built new courses. Your post could be taken as very narrow. Having a criteria about creating new courses does not warrant any sort of exclusion of remodeling work. Why do you feel the ASGCA should "pay no attention to remodeling"?

ASGCA's guidelines about remodeling work being used for one's membership portfolio is taken on a case-by-case basis. For the very reasons discussed here, one cannot decide in a few paragraphs or a few lines of a post what might be a valid course (candidate) for an application.

I am not aware of any "signal" being sent by ASGCA other than they agree that transforming, improving and bettering existing golf courses is a big part of golf, the game.

As noted, the idea to even consider remodeling is a step taken in recent years. I believe this is very consistent with the world of golf — discussions, reality and even your own practice. If you and I were discussing this in the 1970s it is likely people would find the topic of remodeling very funny and silly. Ahhhh, but here we are in an age when it is fashionable and considered important.

[Forrest Richardson]

OK, Tom P. — Mike says, "The so-called restoration business is a cottage industry that is being driven by unknowing club committees.  Nothing is required for one to proclaim himself an expert regarding one dead guy today and another tomorrow."

Certainly you realize that Mike does not speak for the ASGCA. I think he is defining a reality that he sees. I am sure not always, but I'll let him expound.

Whoever may be out there practicing 100% "restoration" work is probably within a "cottage industry". It is not the bulk, nor anywhere near, the major spectrum of golf course architecture. I know very few people who focus on restoration work that do not also consider new projects or significant remodeling assignments.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:
I do have to agree with Mike Y in that designing a course from scratch is MUCH different than redesigning or restoring one.  In the latter case you can just rely on a contractor to build what you tell him was there originally; on a new course you do have to sort out where everything goes.  If membership in the ASGCA is based on having built new courses, then it should pay no attention to remodeling."

TomD:

I never said restoring a golf course well was the same thing as designing a golf course from scratch. If you think I ever said that or even implied it just show me where and I'll definitely retract that notion.

I'm talking about restoration projects here, not new construction. And I completely agree with you that restoration projects and good ones can probably be done well by people who aren't even golf architects. How else could a number of good restoration projects have been done well in-house? Are supers architects? Is Karl Olsen an architect? Is Bill Spence? All one does need to do for a good restoration is do the comprehensive research and tell a contractor to just copy what they're shown.

How do you think Wayne and I pulled off the bunker and green restoration project at the Cascades which seems to be pretty well received?

We don't know anything about architectural construction and such, and we weren't pretending to. When they told us they weren't going to hire an architect to oversee the project don't think that didn't make us pretty apprehensive. But in the end we just did the research and went out there and discussed with the client and contractor if and how they could pull off as exact a match as possible with the way the course was designed and once was.

It takes pretty much just a willingness to do that and not get interpretative to do an accurate restoration, I guess.

So, I'll ask you then, why is it that so many new construction architects who pass themselves off to clubs and clients who really don't understand what it takes to do a good and accurate restoraion just essentially redesign or remodel some of these old courses to look or play nothing like they once did originally?

Why is that if all these new construction architects should inherently be such qualified restoration architects too?

Why is that? And please don't deny that happens as I'm sure this website alone will be willing to give you all kinds of examples of where and how it's happened.

In my opinion, you guys who do new courses are pretty much in a separate world of understanding all the ramifications of architectural construction and related areas to that part of golf course architecture.

The rest of us don't understand that very well, including me, and some of us not at all.

But I do not view the area of architectural "concept" the same way at all. In that area, and in my opinion, you guys who are professional architects do not possess some special knowledge that no one else has. Sometimes you guys seem to try to pass yourselves off that way in the area of architectural concept but I've never bought that and history appears to be squarely behind me that way.

If that were true how in the world are you going to convince us that some of the greatest courses on earth were not conceived of, including so many conceptual architectural details by what were then rank amateur architects?

Of course they had help in the art of meshing the realities of proper and enduring architectural construction to their architectural concepts which in many cases were remarkably detailed but the fact is some of the greatest architectural concepts the world has ever known weren't from the minds of professional architects at all.

Do you want me to name them? In every case, however, they had the interest, the conceptual vision and they put more time into their projects than those any professional architects ever did with the possible exception of Ross on Pinehurst #2.

Are you actually asking us to believe that those people and those amateur architects who built some of those great courses, still some of the best in history was some kind of  aberration of some long ago era?  

[TEPaul]

"Whoever may be out there practicing 100% "restoration" work is probably within a "cottage industry". It is not the bulk, nor anywhere near, the major spectrum of golf course architecture."

Forrest:

I never said restoration architecture was the bulk of the business or anything close to that. That's not the point anyway. What is the point on here is it is something that is very important on this website and amongst clubs that are doing it and considering it---a number that seems to be growing every day.

Unless someone somehow hasn't noticed there is a renaissance going on in the world of golf course architecture, perhaps the very first renaissance to have ever effected golf achitecture in it's entire app 150 year history, and restoration projects are an important part of that architectural renaissance.

It's not the bulk of the industry at all but it is intense and it is having an influence on the business. It will never sweep the business or even interest all that many golfers and that is precisely why I developed my "Big World" theory that there needs to be something out there for everyone because there are so many different tastes out there and golf and architecture's greatest asset is that its playing fields can so well cater to those differences. In golf architecture there is no question that the real deal is in its differences.

Restoration architecture is just a part of that now, maybe a small part but nevertheless an important one. And it's not going to be minimized or sidestepped by people looking at the larger pieces of the pie.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom P — One problem I run into is the "restoration expert" who knows little about golf course construction, how things ever got the way ther are, or how one would go about returning features lost. I am not referring to a golf architect, but usually a club member or someone "appointed" to oversee a club's history. Fortunately this does not occur a lot, but it is a growing trend.

The problem is associated with the classic phrase, "I know what I want to say...I just don't know how to say it." I heard that a lot when I was a creative director in television. Executives would come into us writers and creatives and say such bullsh*t, actually believing that it was true.

We asked them, "In what language is it in now? Please let us know, we'll just go get a translator and save everyone some time."

The fact is — they knew exactly nothing about what they wanted to say, that is the reason they were coming to us.

The more dangerous individual is the one who goes ahead and tries to master something without appropriate help. That is a gamble. Not always adecent approach.

I am not sure where your last post was headed. I think the great news is that there is a lot to be gained by architects who typically do new projects, and surely restoration experts who usually do not do new courses.

[Mike_Young]

 All one does need to do for a good restoration is do the comprehensive research and tell a contractor to just copy what they're shown.


Why is that if all these new construction architects should inherently be such qualified restoration architects too?

Why is that? And please don't deny that happens as I'm sure this website alone will be willing to give you all kinds of examples of where and how it's happened.

In my opinion, you guys who do new courses are pretty much in a separate world of understanding all the ramifications of architectural construction and related areas to that part of golf course architecture.

But I do not view the area of architectural "concept" the same way at all. In that area, and in my opinion, you guys who are professional architects do not possess some special knowledge that no one else has. Sometimes you guys seem to try to pass yourselves off that way in the area of architectural concept but I've never bought that and history appears to be squarely behind me that way.

TE,
Your first paragraph states what I have been trying to say.....SO CAN I CALL THAT A HISTORIAN AND NOT AN ARCHITECT?

...."Why is that if all these new construction architects should inherently be such qualified restoration architects too?"
"Why is that? And please don't deny that happens as I'm sure this website alone will be willing to give you all kinds of examples of where and how it's happened."........
Who says this???  I don't.  Let me be clear...I think restoration is pure BS and I don't think I have ever seen one.....to prove my point ..why do so many scorecards of the newly restored golf courses list the "restoration expert" on the card after the original.....would this not be plagerism if he was just "restoring" the dead guys work???  It is all hype.....
In another post you were naming names of restoration experts....I am not....and no where have I condemned their work.....but I can tell you which one did which course by looking at the work which tells me that it is an "interpretation" more than a restoration....
I cannot speak for Jeff or Forrest and especially not for the ASGCA of which I am not a member but IMHO.....the routing of the golf course is such a large and critical part of golf architecture that until someone has done that 5 or 10 times and completed it...I personally will not consider them an architect....that is me.....now they might be good a building a bunker, or a green or researching  history but that is not the complete package......

......"In my opinion, you guys who do new courses are pretty much in a separate world of understanding all the ramifications of architectural construction and related areas to that part of golf course architecture.........But I do not view the area of architectural "concept" the same way at all. In that area, and in my opinion, you guys who are professional architects do not possess some special knowledge that no one else has. Sometimes you guys seem to try to pass yourselves off that way in the area of architectural concept but I've never bought that and history appears to be squarely behind me that way." .......
  Personally I try to learn from history and use it to do my own stuff.....I don't think I hold any keys to anything.....but I do think I can get the results in a more efficient and economical manner than a "one time" wonder or someone that has not had the experience of the entire process......


Yes I call it a cottage industry and will continue....it is no different than when someone puts cabinetry in your home...it can be indiginous to what was there and go a long ways toward recapturing a certain look but he is not the general contractor......even though he gives it the look...and I would not want him as the general contractor until I knew he had done it.....

As you say..it will become a factor.....but I don't think in the way you perceive it to become.......I think clubs and people will wake up and realize that half of the "restoration hype" they have been sold was nothing more than someone's "historical interpretation" .......and they have more to do
OK  now nowhere have I condemned any work of a committee, a restoration expert or a historian......I just don't call them architects until they have the routings to back it up......and if there are people out there "restoring" that also have routings then I call them architects...otherwise I would assume they have no courses to their credit and without that how can one claim to be an architect?

[paul cowley]

...seems to me that one can be both an architect and a restoration expert, but being a restoration expert only does not qualify one to be an architect.......Mikes emphasis on routing is key when deciding or defining between the two. It has a little to do with ones ability to utilize spatial relationships on a large scale, a skill set not necessarily required for restoration projects.

[TEPaul]

MikeY:

I think you and I are pretty much on the same page on this. And I do agree that until someone has tried and begins to understand routing they never will truly understand the first fundamental of golf course architecture. To me, in some cases, the next phase, what I call the "designing up" phase is sure interesting too but it's not lost on me that maybe a dozen different golf courses could be created on the same routing.

[T_MacWood]

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.

Forrest
I don't think that is a good analogy. I don't recall This Old House ever restoring anything, much less a historically significant design. They've worked on houses in historical districts - districts which have very tight architectural restrictions and controlls - but what they do is renovation/remodelling. TV's RU.

Architecture does a much better job of defining precisely what is a restoration and what is not. They also do a better job of identifying historically significant architecture, and as organized group better appreciate the importance of preserving and protecting their significant designs. For example could you imagine anyone enlarging the bedrooms at Taliesin West? You'd have the AIA, the Taleisin Fellowship, and every other orginazation all over you. I can't imagine the ASGCA protesting anything done to a historical golf course.

I think today we ask too much of our individual architects. We should take the pressure off by identifying the courses of particualr architectural merit - the courses that should be preserved and protected. IMO it would be a relatively short list, but having a respected body recongizing these courses would help everyone involved when trying to make the case for preservation or restoration.  

A respected body to research and identify the best of the best, and not just from the golden age, but from all eras. Every era has produced significant designs...our outstanding recent designs need be looked over too...we don't need another Lido.

This body should also have some watchdog capabilities, with restoration becoming more and more popular these restoration architects should be exposed to a critical eye. We can not expect the ASGCA to do this with their reluctance to criticize their own, and we can not expect the USGA to do it since they have been (and continue to be) the source of many redesigns of historic courses. IMO we need an independent body...similar to Wm Morris's Society to Protect Ancient Building (SPAB).

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom McW. — I stopped wishing for the day that you would agree with any of my posts.  

Or analogies.  I do recall This Old House having quite a series on historic homes. I think they even tackled a home by a famous New England architect.

The analogy is quite appropriate. Just imagine The Old House (pretend) that they are restoring an old house and all that happened is about like my analogy. OK?

Now, you say that architecture does a better job defining restoration. Who says? I defined it pretty well in this discussion — and many others. It is a rare bird in golf design. It happens so rarely that one could call it a cottage industry.  

[paul cowley]

Forrest....do you mean a cottage industry similar to what was envisioned by Ruskin and Morris?.....a Restoration Guild if I may?
....wow, that would really tie Arts and Crafts Golf to a 'back to the future' scenario.

[Mike_Young]

Forrest....do you mean a cottage industry similar to what was envisioned by Ruskin and Morris?.....a Restoration Guild if I may?
....wow, that would really tie Arts and Crafts Golf to a 'back to the future' scenario.

PAUL,
We might have to tie the Green brothers and gustav Stickley in there also because supposedly new Stickley is an EXACT reproduction ......
so yep..you are on to something here....

[paul cowley]

Yes Mike that is so ....the story behind the Stickley Co is quite interesting. They never closed down when the 'Mission' style fell out of favor in response to styles more 'Modern'.
They just started making furniture in even more traditional styles [Chippendale etc.] and were cruising along for quite a few decades until Mission was re discovered over the last 25 years or so....and all they had to do was start cranking out the old stuff from the old patterns once again [ under a new enlightened ownership].

So guess whats next in the hopper?

A 'Modern/Art Deco' Revival of course!

[T_MacWood]

Tom McW. — I stopped wishing for the day that you would agree with any of my posts.  

Or analogies.  I do recall This Old House having quite a series on historic homes. I think they even tackled a home by a famous New England architect.

The analogy is quite appropriate. Just imagine The Old House (pretend) that they are restoring an old house and all that happened is about like my analogy. OK?

Now, you say that architecture does a better job defining restoration. Who says? I defined it pretty well in this discussion — and many others. It is a rare bird in golf design. It happens so rarely that one could call it a cottage industry.  

I agree with your point that most old golf courses are like the homes in This Old House, they aren't candidates for restoration and could be improved by renovation (are you happy now?). My problem with your analogy is how you loosely define restoration...TOH is about renovation, remodeling, modernization with an old feature here or there restored. Restoration is the side trip Norm or Bob Villa take to FLW's house and studio in Oak Park or Eero Saarinen's home or The Gamble House in Pasadena or an HH Richardson design in Boston...most people understand the distinction.

But you aren't alone in having a very loose definition of restoration. Restoration HAS become a cottage industry, and unfortunately many involved throw the term around just like you do. IMO we need an independent group to correct this situation, to explain the difference and to expose the redesign of important courses, and to recognize and identify the best of the best...the creme de la creme...the cream of the crop...

[TEPaul]

"This body should also have some watchdog capabilities, with restoration becoming more and more popular these restoration architects should be exposed to a critical eye. We can not expect the ASGCA to do this with their reluctance to criticize their own, and we can not expect the USGA to do it since they have been (and continue to be) the source of many redesigns of historic courses. IMO we need an independent body...similar to Wm Morris's Society to Protect Ancient Building (SPAB)."

Tom MacWood:

I'm so glad you used that analogy of SPAD, AGAIN, to point out what you feel should be applied to a select number of golf architecture's most significant designs.

That once again just shows the almost total fallacy of your analogies of other art forms to golf course architecture and pretty much exposes the entire fallacy of your assumptions and conclusions, and your entire argument, in your "Arts and Crafts" essay where you prevalently use those analogies to other art forms to make your points and your conclusion.

Maybe you never will figure out that fallacy but golf courses and their architecture just never are going to have enough similarities to Wm Morris's ideas with SPAD and the preservation of buildings and churches of architectural significance to be sufficiently applicable to the preservation, or even the total restorations of golf course architecture.

The reasons why the necessary similarities don't exsit seems to be completely obvious to everyone but you, unless Wm Morris forgot to mention something such as an interactive recreational game is played in those buildings and churches of architectural significant and that that was in fact the primary purpose of them.  

You can keep on rationalizing and stretching facts and assumptions and consclusions to try to fit these analogies to golf course architecture but the fact is you never will be able to avoid the realities of that obvious dissimilarity (read difference and distinction) and what it means.

Someone appropriately labelled you a "postivist" and that is exactly what you are on this subject---someone who merely tries to identify and stretch similarities to fit your conclusion while constantly failing or refusing to acknowledge the fundamental fact of the differences, and their importance.

 

[T_MacWood]

TE
You appear to have a mental block when it comes to the Arts and golf architecture's place within the Arts.

An independent oraginization that identifies and recognizes the very best golf architecture, and promotes the preservation, conservation and/or restoration of those courses is needed IMO. It should have a watchdog aspect to it as well.....exposing shoddy restoration work. Like SPAB it could also help guide those interested in preservation and restoration.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Joining a club won't give you a say.

One of the last things a new member should consider is telling the golf club they just joined that they don't like the golf course and want it changed.

The first response would be, "Why did you join here if you didn't like the golf course ?"  Or, "If you don't like the golf course, join somewhere else."

For the first few years, a low profile would be in the new member's best interest, unless he was asked to become active.

According to your theory, a club should reinvent itself, architecturally, everytime a new fad comes to the fore.

[Mike_Young]

Sean,
with all due respect....the benevolent dictatorship has proven itself in golf clubs.....much more so than a committee  IMHO

[T_MacWood]

An architect, like any other tradesman, has an obligation to deliver the product agreed upon.  All this business dealing with "artistic" and/or "historical" matters is strictly for those on a theory train unless there is a club member on top of things.  While I agree with Tommy Mac that a preservation society would be dandy, in reality it is a no go.  The members make the decisions - period.  If you want a say join the club.

Ciao

Sean

You are absolutely right. Of course the members make the final decision and they'll make the final decision if and when a society to protect golf architecture is formed. The Church was final say when Wm Morris formed SPAB and the Church still has the final decision...but that hasn't stopped SPAB from protecting a lot of great architecture over the last 100+ years. Influence is the name of the game, and that influence is manifested in many different ways.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Suffice it say that I do not believe in benevolent dictatorships.  

They are too easily corrupted or misguided.  


Of the thousands of clubs in the U.S., over the last 80 years, could you cite me just five (5) examples of where that's been the case ?

Absent the ability to do so, I can cite you five (5) cases where a club, vis a vis the democratic process, at committee, board and membership meetings have been misguided to the point that they disfigured their golf course.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

 

Forrest:

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?  

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.

Forrest
Is the ASGCA contemplating their own historical archive?

[TEPaul]

The ASGCA is perhaps contemplating a format for their architects to identify what exactly needs preserving of their work in a documentation sense.

I suppose any of us could wish that many of the architects of the past had this format and that they'd preserved various items from their projects such as drawing plans and their thinking on various aspects and details of their projects. For instance, how helpful it would have been if Geo Crump had keep records of what he was doing and thinking on his app six year project at PV, or Wilson on his thirteen year project of Merion East, or Macdonald on his 20 some years at NGLA.

This idea would be to fill those gaps in the future. Hopefully this kind of thing will become part of the USGA Architectural Archive.

Writing of design evolution reports/architectural histories of particularly significanct courses is also contemplated but there is a need for candidates to write them. I posted a thread to that effect but so far it seems there's not much interest in it on here. Maybe it's because too many of the contributors on here are only interested in talking the talk and not walking the walk.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()