This particular topic/thread, I've been looking at it for a day or so, and, Oh My God, it's so potential!!
This is probably the area of architecture I like best or am most concerned about--basically the CLASSIC ERA golf course that is so hard to deal with correctly sometimes and certainly when it's in the process of change! How do you manage that change or maintain it the way it was designed to be--should you even? Courses do evolve, but the TWO relatively DISTINCT eras of architecture struggle to coexist sometimes and meld together many times when it might be better not to!
Do you restore, Tweak, tinker, rennovate, redesign? Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably but in fact they aren't really interchangeable or shouldn't be. They're interchanged too often for reasons of perception, and are often used to sell a process which might be fundamentally wrong for the course and the membership!
George Pazin asks a great question here and Pat Mucci and particularly Mark Fine ask some of the really good tough follow-up questions that truly do define what a difficult and widespread problem this can be and how hard it might be to solve or even define!
Can a golf course or golf architecture find some kind of reasonable answer to this general question? I think it can! Maybe we can help to some extent!
Probably the best way is to define the various problems specifically and start to construct a basic PROCESS to ANSWER those questions!
I can't forget Tom Doak's remark about two years ago on here: "Some classic era courses really aren't worthy of restoration!". Pat Mucci asks "Who does it, what architect, who is the "ONE" in the club who monitors it"? Mark Fine asks just about all the fundametal questions which define the dilemna!
Doug Wright even cites one example solution that would seem counter to the way most on this site think--although the solution appeared to work and was done by an architect most here could not admire more for his sympathetic approach to classic architecture!
There are even some on this site who believe you should never touch a classic course at all--and sometimes even admonish an original architect, at least in theory for not closing the book on a course's architecture and just leaving it be!! Somehow that can't be right!
Most clubs that start thinking about these things just need some direction in PROCESS, I think! They need to define the problems better, they might need far better "mission statements" as Pat likes to say. When they do what they want to do, or should do they should definitely call a spade a spade too! They should NOT call a redesign a restoration!!
They should also realize that many architects will do whatever a misguided membership (this way) wants to do and are willing to call it whatever it needs to be called JUST to make it sell!
Clubs that may be thinking restoration or any kind of change oftentimes think they're in a vacuum--that their problem is unique, that they have to figure it out all by themselves from scratch! This is so far from the truth!
They can easily find that some other course has done all this before them and done it well or done it poorly and made many mistakes that can be avoided if these clubs would just reach out to one another and others who've done it before them and collaborate!
Maybe Golfclubatlas can help in some way this way! By directing those who are looking for some answers, a little direction, maybe other clubs who are similar and who have been through it all. Maybe even some advice on the right type of architect! How common is the perception that all architects can do whatever you want them to, that they are almost interchangeable, in fact? Far too common!! Maybe this site should not wait and hope that clubs might come on here and discuss things. Maybe this site should start sending out some emails on this subject. I know it sounds presumptious but they can always ignore this site if they want to. But there will surely be others who won't!
This is a wonderful and extremely fundamental question and topic! I hope we can give it the careful consideration it deserves! Maybe, hopefully, even turn it into an intelligent PROCESS that can be followed by those looking for certain answers to certain problems!