A suggestion by Doak...

[Phil_the_Author]

On another thread Tom Doak suggested, "I still feel as before, that the best things architect societies could do is to come up with a short list of courses which ought to be preserved as the best examples of that architect's work, and perhaps another short list of courses which it would be important to restore.  This would OF COURSE be non-binding on clubs, but making the list SHORT and making the clubs on it SPECIAL would be the key to making it significant.  And architects who were still alive could keep their own small list, for future generations to consider..."

This is simply too good a suggestion to let pass by. I think this has merit and should be given much thought. Still there are some problems with implementing the idea and I thought it might be worth discussing how to overcome them.

For example, take the suggestion to "come up with a short list of courses which ought to be preserved as the best examples of that architect's work..."

In discussing Tilly's work which courses would these be? Even among what are recognized as his greatest works, examples of major changes have taken place. Tom is quite familiar with this at the San Francisco Golf Club where he was called into restore holes lost years ago. Baltusrol, both Upper and Lower, the site of numerous national championships, has been altered through the years as has Winged Foot and others.

So for some architects, it may be important to identify not just courses but individual holes of import.

Still, the work of protecting must begin somewhere and so, as Tom has suggested, here are 7 courses by Tilly that I believe MUST be preserved as they represent examples of his finest work. They are in no particular order and I represent my own personal belief and not that of the Tillinghast Association. Despite limiting it to 7 I feel strongly that other courses could and should be included as well:

1- San Francisco Golf Club
2- Baltimore CC - 5 Farms
3- Bethpage Black
4- Somerset Hills
5- Fenway
6- Winged Foot West
7- Quaker Ridge

My reasons for choosing these are my own and in some cases would probably surprise you. Yet all share one thing in common in my mind; despite renovations and/or restorations done on them over the years, they all maintain the qualities that Tilly designed in each of their holes. One could expect to find Tilly himself walking out on them on a quiet afternoon.

Tom also suggested "perhaps another short list of courses which it would be important to restore..."

Here are 7 of Tilly's, again based solely upom my own ideas of to what and why they need restoration:

1- Shawnee
2- Baltusrol Lower
3- Bethpage Blue
4- Tulsa CC (one is planned)
5- Newport CC
6- Johnson City CC
7- Capital City CC (one is planned without which the club may have to fold)

Any comments on this or how about furnishing your own on Tilly or another architect.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

I think it's worthwhile to furnish the entire post from Doak from that other thread from whence your quote above from Doak came.

Here it is in its entirety:




"We've seen this same subject argued here before, but the two sides are getting more clearly defined for me.

On the one hand, there are a certain number of idol worshippers who believe that EVERY course designed by certain famous architects of the past should be restored, regardless of cost or present condition or member opinion.  That seems pretty crazy and extreme to me.

On the other hand are those (mostly architects!) who insist that nothing is perfect and anything could be improved and golf courses are living things and so, nothing is worth preserving.  It seems more and more clear to me that it's important for these architects to think that because it means they will always have potential work improving some course somewhere --whether it's their own or somebody else's.

I've been accused in past threads of showing my ego by thinking there ought to be some courses worth preserving, and aspiring to build some in that class.  I fully understand the arguments that nothing lasts forever; in fact I've had a crash course on that subject over the past year.  (Nobody is going to preserve High Pointe if it can't make money.)  But to recognize the impact of time and nature does not REQUIRE that one gives up the hope of building something that lasts, at least in most of its particulars.

I still feel as before, that the best things architect societies could do is to come up with a short list of courses which ought to be preserved as the best examples of that architect's work, and perhaps another short list of courses which it would be important to restore.  This would OF COURSE be non-binding on clubs, but making the list SHORT and making the clubs on it SPECIAL would be the key to making it significant.  And architects who were still alive could keep their own small list, for future generations to consider.

This might curtail the cottage industry of restoration for certain architects who live off $3 million projects restoring "B" courses to "B+" ... and deprive some ambitious green chairmen of "B" courses of their moment in the sun spending their fellow members' money.  But what do you expect from a dreamer like me?"

[TEPaul]

A short list of courses FROM some SOCIETIES of architects that should be either preserved OR Restored!?

I wonder if that would be to a large extent one and the same list or essentially turn out to be two lists of different courses?

It also occurs to me to wonder how lists like that could ever be compiled. How would those courses make those lists? Would the largest vote getters make it? And voters from where----just architects?

I can also smell some conflicts of interest inherent in this if left to even architects.

I think the more realistic and far better deal and approach is for some of these modern day "purists" (whether they be architects or others who think they are the most competent architectural analysts extant) to realize none of these clubs belong to them, they are not members, they do not play them, they do not make decisions for them and never have, and most certainly do not pay their bills, and learn to realize it is just not and never will be their say what to do with them.

But if they think it would be beneficial somehow to come up with a list or lists of some consensus opinion of what courses anyone willing to vote think are the most significant and that they might recommend those clubs and memberships should consider better preserving or restoring them and how, then I say go for that list of significant clubs.

However, I think a list like that should be thrown open to anyone and everyone who would like to vote. Otherwise, what is anyone supposed to think? Would it be that someone's opinion who doesn't even belong to a club should matter more than those who do?

This new USGA Architecture Archive has come up with a basic list of around fifty courses (for now) which that archive thinks is the most significant architecture in America. What's the problem with that list? Most would probably agree with the majority of it (given we limited it to fifty for now) and the good news is the ones who compiled it are not in the business and consequently do not have any inherent conflict of interest.

Sure, some might say, as a few have in the past on here, that they don't think the people who compiled it are competent enough to have that kind of say but some of those who have made those accusations on here were given a chance to get involved and for their own various reasons they declined or refused.

I, for one, don't have much empathy for that kind of attitude.

[Jim Nugent]

Preserved in what state?  The way the course was originally built?  The way it is now?  Somewhere in between? 

[BCrosby]

I too support the Doak Proposal.

You don't need to spend a lot of time looking at grainy old pictures to get a sense of what has been lost. It's not unreasonable to ask that some small part of that past be preserved. How you get from here to there legally and economically, however, I'm less sure about.

Jim - All good questions, but all are ultimately answerable (and will have different answers in different contexts) once that main idea is accepted.

Bob

[Carl Rogers]

This thread dovetails along side many of my other comments about Riverfront, which I am sure many of you are tired of by now.

But as Beechtree has been lost, keeping Riverfront as an example of Tom's early work might become more important to some of you.

Which is why you need to make an effort to tee it up at Riverfront.

In the world of buildings (my world), the use of the word "historical" and its policy implications has been profoundly abused.

How many of you GCA's here go out and extensively document your courses?

[Joel_Stewart]

Preserved in what state?  The way the course was originally built?  The way it is now?  Somewhere in between? 

It has to be the way it was originally built.  What good would it do to keep Augusta National in it's current state?

[Craig Sweet]

I asked the question a year or two ago, why isn't there the golf course equivalent of the National Trust for Historic Preservation....why isn't there a more "militant" response when a "historic" golf course is being modified, or plowed under...or should the National Trust become more involved in historic golf course preservation?

As for the question of "preserved in what state"....there is little question (I think) when it comes to preserving historic buildings.

[JESII]

Craig,

I think the fact that these clubs are typically private assets explains why the integrity of the course is not a public concern/responsibility.  How does this relate to "historic buildings"? Does the "historic" label impact ownership in some way? I'm not fluent in the reasons and repercussions for this designation.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

I'm not familiar with all of the particulars, but a building which falls under historic preservation status, if renovated, must be done under VERY stringent guidelines.  I'm familiar with one which didn't have indoor plumbing to start with, and they had to argue like hell to put it in.

People could easily take "extreme" examples such as that as a reason never to put a golf course under historic status, but the guidelines don't have to be that silly.

[JESII]

Tom,

I understand your point...and it is certainly valid, but I have to ask...wouldn't you have a real problem with all of your clients whose courses are not on YOUR personally created "protected list"?

[Craig Sweet]

Jim...it's funny..or odd...but I think people tend to "take ownership" of historic buildings in their town, and that sense of ownership plays a significant role in preservation.....on the other hand, I think many people that purchase a historic structure know what they are getting into and the responsibility that comes with owning a property that the community deems worthy of preservation.

[JESII]

Good points Craig...I wonder if (in most instances) that community recognition occurs before the actual act of naming a building "historically significant".

I also wonder what the equivalent in building architecture is to the golf course architecture act of lengthening a few holes or rebuilding a few bunkers.

[Craig Sweet]

Jim...you mean adding a dormer to a Frank Lloyd Wright...

[JESII]

Could be...there is a Frank Lloyd Wright synagogue in my neighborhood that reputedly has unbelievably poor leaking problems...what do you do? After all, it may have been his intended design...

[Mark_Fine]

As much as I love and respect golf courses (especially the classic ones), I have never bought into the idea of only preserving a set few.  However, I will argue quite strongly for "restoration" and "preservation" of a particular course (if I feel it is deserving) and I always do my absolute best to make a compelling argument to clubs that I am working with.  In the same regard, I won't argue for restoration just for the sake of it.  At the end of the day, it is their golf course (the members/owners), not mine. 

In my view, the key is careful study of what was once there and thoughtful analyis of how it has evolved.  This is followed by onging discussion and education of the decison makers at that particular golf course as to the findings and proposed suggestions.  If agreement can't be reached, the architect is always free to walk away.  At one club I argued for what I thought was the right thing to do for nearly four years.  We could have dropped our resolve much earlier but that would not have been (at least in our opinion) the right thing to do just so we could get the work started. 
Mark

By the way, what happens to the present architect's who earmark "seven" of their courses for preservation and then build something even better.  Do they increase the number to eight or flip a coin and drop one of the others 
 

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

If you keep building better courses, one would assume those would be the ones you'd want to preserve.

If I had to put a number on how many courses from any architect deserved preservation, I would tend toward a small number -- three, maybe, or five.  Other courses would of course be welcome to preserve their own.

As Jim suggested, there would be a lot of politics involved in an architect's keeping his own list of three or five courses to preserve.  Certainly we would understand that certain clients might be more receptive to it than others, and we would be wise to take their nature into account.  If a course we thought should be on our list was changed against our wishes, then it would obviously be replaced.

Also, I am sure some savvy marketers could manage to get paid extra by a client if they promised to include his course on their short list! 

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

You bring up an interesting point, "Could be...there is a Frank Lloyd Wright synagogue in my neighborhood that reputedly has unbelievably poor leaking problems...what do you do? After all, it may have been his intended design..."

Did you know that Wright's buildings have a tendency to have leaky roofs? He actually was aware of it and accepted it as a price to be paid for the superiority of his design and inherent to it.

Likewise, some golf architects have features that they often use(d) in their designs that would be akin to a "leaky roof." Should these features be removed or adjusted or changed? I think that would depend on just how much it bothered the majority of the members.

Even when something of that nature is removed, there will always be some who want to see it restored. Just ask Tom Paul about the "Elephant's Back" green...

[TEPaul]

"I'm not familiar with all of the particulars, but a building which falls under historic preservation status, if renovated, must be done under VERY stringent guidelines.  I'm familiar with one which didn't have indoor plumbing to start with, and they had to argue like hell to put it in.

People could easily take "extreme" examples such as that as a reason never to put a golf course under historic status, but the guidelines don't have to be that silly."


TomD and others:


So far most on this website seem to be asking why those who control golf courses would want to put them under a "Historic Registry" program or protection, but I think the more appropriate question would be why a "Historic Registry" entity, be it national or otherwise who have generally listed historic buildings would want to get involved with any golf course.

The criterion of historic registry for an historic building is fairly obvious and set in place with numerous listings. The same is certainly not the case with any historic registry I'm aware of for any golf course.

[Jim Nugent]

Preserved in what state?  The way the course was originally built?  The way it is now?  Somewhere in between? 

It has to be the way it was originally built.  What good would it do to keep Augusta National in it's current state?

Take NGLA.  They ignore all the changes CBM made on the course after 1910? 

Same with Merion and Pinehurst #2.  My impression is that these courses were changed a lot, and the changes made them stronger, not weaker.  Also the original architects were the ones who did the changes.

At ANGC, do they reverse the 9's back to how they started...restore the current #16 to its original state...keep the back tees where Mac placed them...and make all the changes Daniel Wexler describes?  If they do, I suspect that's the end of the Masters as a major. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

I have not meant to suggest that golf courses should be covered under the same program that covers buildings.  That program seems too stringent to me.  I think only that LIVING architects should weigh in on which are their most important designs, and that some of the great masters' work should also be preserved as completely as possible. 

Who would be the right body for the latter effort is difficult to imagine ... on the one hand the USGA seems the most logical source, but on the other, they have probably caused more changes to the nation's famous courses than any other group.

[Ian Andrew]

We have a historical house on a very historical street - all the houses were built between 1850 -1910. We are one of only two or three houses that are not registered. The funny part is we’re also one of only three or four houses that have not been altered. We have no plans to ever change our house. Regardless of the fact that we love our house exactly the way it is, we will never register the house, because we don’t want someone with no ownership in the property dictating terms to us.

[Carl Rogers]

In the world of buildings (my world), the use of the word "historical" and its policy implications has been profoundly abused.

How many of you GCA's here go out and extensively document your courses?

Restoration in the world of buildings varies wildly from location to location.  Generally speaking the motivation of building restoration is pride of place, snobbery, art, matching funds or tax credits.  The effort is usually long, tedious and often political and that is not the "building" part of it.

My suggestion about extensive documentation for golf courses (surveys and photos) is the help it would provide future individuals and/or organizations in trying to "interpretatively restore" elements of courses.  Some amount of precision, IMO, would be helpful???   I think a lot of you spend a lot of time being Sherlock Holmes with mixed or arguementative results.

I do not think that a lot of clubs or any of you on this site would tolerate a "Golf Course Historian" (if there was such a thing) micro-critiqueing bunker maintenance.

[Davis Wildman]

In the world of buildings (my world), the use of the word "historical" and its policy implications has been profoundly abused.

How many of you GCA's here go out and extensively document your courses?

Restoration in the world of buildings varies wildly from location to location.  Generally speaking the motivation of building restoration is pride of place, snobbery, art, matching funds or tax credits.  The effort is usually long, tedious and often political and that is not the "building" part of it.

My suggestion about extensive documentation for golf courses (surveys and photos) is the help it would provide future individuals and/or organizations in trying to "interpretatively restore" elements of courses.  Some amount of precision, IMO, would be helpful???   I think a lot of you spend a lot of time being Sherlock Holmes with mixed or arguementative results.

I do not think that a lot of clubs or any of you on this site would tolerate a "Golf Course Historian" (if there was such a thing) micro-critiqueing bunker maintenance.

Regarding 'extensive documentation'...it is possible with today's 3D terrain modeling tech to create the 'virtual golf course' from tee to green in hi-definition color, trees and all, and as a 3D record drawing, As-Built and CAD file such that owners and their chosen designer(s) have a legacy or archive level set of data and information about their valuable (think cost to build) and possibly historic golf course.

Unfortunately, the humble As-Built does not get its due and could play a more prominent role in both an owners and designers short and long term legacies.  To be fair, the technology needed to create a really good 3-dimensional 'model' is just now here and cost effective enough to use, but just think of the possibilities for historical design analysis and review...especially in 10, 20 or 50 years from now...all right there at your fingertips.

 
 

[Norbert P]

 Maybe the UN should get involved.  That way they could stand up to the bully redesigners and get the press to back them and villify these evil historic golf course destructors and then not do anything.