A suggestion by Doak...

[Forrest Richardson]

This sounds like a great opportunity Tom. So, when will you join ASGCA so we can help form a committee to carry out this neat idea?

[Tony Ristola]

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?

It's not just the design documentation that lacks but a roadmap for the future.

It's also why accurate documentation of who the architect carrying out the work is of vast interest... to sort through who did what... why did course x, y and z turn out so well but courses m, n, o... with better land fell short.

It's a bit of our history that is virtually flushed down the sewer system.

Preservation List.
Why not have architects make their own preservation list, and publish each list on a website for golfers, owners and caretakers (BoD) to see. Need not much more.

In fact...

Why not have The Historical Registry here at GCA? There are enough knowledgeable folks here to create it. There would be a lot of great discussion for courses on "the fringe".
It would be pretty independent too... which adds credibility.
Add The Preservationists List above the "Contributions" link. Split it in two columns; Architect and Aficianados... keep the list secret for 18-months... allowing folks to mull over and contribute at their leisure... Then release the entire package in one shot and get the press involved...  think the magazines might pick up on it when released? I'd venture a yes.

Golf wins in the process and GCA gets a broader audience.

That way concerned parties could access valuable info, and we just might lose fewer features, holes and courses considered valuable.
It would broaden the scope of the site where it can make an impact.

Frankfurter GC could have used such a reference. Nice land, old Colt course, really friendly... wonderful folks at the club, but the course is now a mix of old English Parkland/Heathland and modern amoeba/clover leaf bunkers. One such bunker form must have been repeated 20 times.

Folks at these clubs often have little idea what they have... why not add to this  forum, a research center to this specific purpose?
It's a perfect fit for GCA... and would generate a lot of valuable discussion.
Threads, past and future, outside links could be linked to the respective courses... directly under their name for easy reference.
Architects not wanting to join the greater discussion could send emails for their choices to be posted; all it would take is a form email to architects of all stripes.

It would be a valuable tool for educating and selling a club on preservation. As Ian noted, nobody wants to be told what to do with their property... but should a number of architects vying for a job reference GCA's Historic Preservation List and tell the club that he will only take the job if it is a preservation/restoration... there would be more weight behind the sales pitch; and at worst could be a force for neutralizing efforts by less sympathetic or knowledgeable architects from what many here would consider architectural malpractice.

It would be a market driven solution rather than a top down dictate, and GCA would play an important role.

[Forrest Richardson]

Why not have The Historical Registry here at GCA?

Well, for one it would have so little credibility that many would not take it seriously. Sort of like having Wikipedia contributors run NASA, only with less oversight and controls. What is more, Ben has developed a knack for determining what goes — so it is likely that you may see a movement killed in its tracks it it did not meet the letter-of-the-law which does not formally exist.

[Jim_Kennedy]

There is an existing framework that might be applicable to certain golf course:

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/hli/landscape_guidelines/index.htm

[Tony Ristola]

Why not have The Historical Registry here at GCA?

Well, for one it would have so little credibility that many would not take it seriously. Sort of like having Wikipedia contributors run NASA, only with less oversight and controls. What is more, Ben has developed a knack for determining what goes — so it is likely that you may see a movement killed in its tracks it it did not meet the letter-of-the-law which does not formally exist.

1. The list would be split between architects and aficionados. It would be more credible than an ASGCA only created list.

Even without ASGCA members I'm sure there are enough folks capable of rendering solid judgment. After all, there's what... only 185 members.  There are 25 million golfers and those with real interest in golf architecture of those 25 million are found here. Further, beyond the small group of association architects, not all are known for having stellar records of respect of historic architects and their courses... so the more folks involved, the better the result should be.

2. It wouldn't be rushed.

3. Likening this to NASA... ROTFLMAO.
This isn't NASA by a long shot, and nobody is running anything; it's a list compiled by folks who have (or should have) a love for the game. Some would have financial interests, others wouldn't.

4. Golf course rating lists have had an impact, and there aren't too many architects involved with these.

5. GCA members would most likely come up with better Top 100 lists.

As for Ben, that's his decision... the concept dovetails perfectly with the site, and would generate a lot of great discussion.

.

[Mark_Fine]

Have to think about this.

[TEPaul]

TonyR:

Your posts #26 and #29 are interesting and worthy of consideration.

To put together some kind of list or registry for historic or significant GCA however would be tricky business for a number of reasons that would certainly include credibility, resource information effectiveness or just plain effectiveness to produce any kind of impact.

Whoever tried such a thing I think would have to realize going into it that it can never have any kind of mandate or requirment that anything proposed actually be adhered to. Ian Andrew's reason for that is pretty clear and irrefutable.

But it certainly could be something of an opinion poll that could also included various guidelines to accomplish such things as preservation of certain significant or historically significant GCA.

In that vein the guidelines contained in the "Treatment" definition of the article Jim Kennedy posted for the "Registry of Historic Places" could probably be quite useful if developed well for GCA. Obviously the Registry of Historic Places was developed by the US Dept of Interior, a federal agency, and no such federal agency or federal or state agency would get involved in the preservation of GCA for pretty obvious reasons. Nevertheless, some entity could try it with GCA.

The US Dept of Interior's standards or guidelines for their R of H.Ps as an example of how "treatment" guidelines may work with a registry for historic or significant GCA:

"In 1992, the Standards were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places--buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts, and landscapes. The revised Standards were reduced to four sets by incorporating protection and stabilization into preservation, and by eliminating acquisition, which is no longer considered a treatment. Re-titled The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, this new, modified version addresses four treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes illustrate how to apply these four treatments to cultural landscapes in a way that meets the Standards.
Of the four, Preservation standards require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, including the landscape’s historic form, features, and details as they have evolved over time. Rehabilitation standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a cultural landscape to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the landscape’s historic character. Restoration standards allow for the depiction of a landscape at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods. Reconstruction standards establish a framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving landscape with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
What about this set-up?

http://buffaloolmstedparks.org/

Their golf page:

http://www.buffaloolmstedparks.org/Tools/BroadCaster/frontend/item.asp?type=14&size=0&lngDisplay=1&jPageNumber=2&strMetaTag=

[Tony Ristola]

TonyR:
To put together some kind of list or registry for historic or significant GCA however would be tricky business for a number of reasons that would certainly include credibility, resource information effectiveness or just plain effectiveness to produce any kind of impact.

Let's not make it rocket science.
Like elbows, we all have opinions. Let's put down our three.
Some might put only one.
Some might just look on.

Here's another twist.

We lock the original list (for lack of a better word)... as a historic marker, and then list each alteration and addition. Updated annually as more folks from around the world become aware and folks form opinion. Some of it eventually would become Herd Instinct, hence locking in the original list and the alterations would prove interesting.

Whoever tried such a thing I think would have to realize going into it that it can never have any kind of mandate or requirment that anything proposed actually be adhered to. Ian Andrew's reason for that is pretty clear and irrefutable.

It's not a mandate, it's a selling tool.
I've seen folks here lament about their inability to have an effect.
This is the best opportunity I've seen.
Offer educated opinion and perhaps it could be of use.
If not, what's lost?... Nothing.

But it certainly could be something of an opinion poll that could also included various guidelines to accomplish such things as preservation of certain significant or historically significant GCA.

It could be nothing more.
The discussion, especially of fringe or little known courses could reinvigorate the site.

You have to admit, over the years it has become a site with a certain preference.
Originally folks had a more diverse opinion. I don't know if it's good or bad.
More discussion of what we have a passion could only help.

In that vein the guidelines contained in the "Treatment" definition of the article Jim Kennedy posted for the "Registry of Historic Places" could probably be quite useful if developed well for GCA. Obviously the Registry of Historic Places was developed by the US Dept of Interior, a federal agency, and no such federal agency or federal or state agency would get involved in the preservation of GCA for pretty obvious reasons. Nevertheless, some entity could try it with GCA.

We only need our opinion. Nothing more.
Folks can take it or leave it, but I'm sure many would learn.
That's why discussion of the clubs listed should have reference links... making it easy for all, but especially for club directors and the like.

The US Dept of Interior's standards or guidelines for their R of H.Ps as an example of how "treatment" guidelines may work with a registry for historic or significant GCA:

"In 1992, the Standards were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places--buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts, and landscapes. The revised Standards were reduced to four sets by incorporating protection and stabilization into preservation, and by eliminating acquisition, which is no longer considered a treatment. Re-titled The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, this new, modified version addresses four treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes illustrate how to apply these four treatments to cultural landscapes in a way that meets the Standards.
Of the four, Preservation standards require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, including the landscape’s historic form, features, and details as they have evolved over time. Rehabilitation standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a cultural landscape to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the landscape’s historic character. Restoration standards allow for the depiction of a landscape at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods. Reconstruction standards establish a framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving landscape with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes."

Let's just stick to opinion and reasoned argument.
Nothing more is required.
Architects can sell using this as a reference or not.

Let the market decide.
The internet allows this powerful tool... the masses... be unleashed.

Nothing more is required.
Honest opinion is the best argument.

.

[Kirk Gill]

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.

One other motivation for the preservation of history is the notion that it is disappearing, and the government (The People) get involved because it is deemed to the benefit of all that someone's ability to alter their own private property be curtailed. Note the tagline for the UK's National Trust - "Forever for Everyone." It may be that golf courses have been spared this treatment so far because interest in their history hasn't yet been deemed of general worth, or because the populace at large doesn't really understand the dynamics of golf courses and the degree that they can be changed or damaged over time.

It wouldn't surprise me if at some point someone in government decides that this is an area where meddling can be done, and all of a sudden the stringent guidelines Tom Doak mentioned that are in place for buildings would be imposed on historically significant clubs. Perhaps taking the bull by the horns as you all are suggesting would be a way to get ahead of the curve, and prevent that kind of intervention.

The key trick would be making these lists, whoever creates them, be lists that the clubs want to be on, like all the "Best of" lists.