[Carl Johnson]

Are there any rules of thumb about attributing a course to particular architect(s) following a re-do?

Say you have a U.S. course designed by the revered Old Tom Archie in the early 1920's.  The club is proud of its old "Archie course," but  eighty years later the members decide to re-do the course to bring back something like the original green footpads, add bunkers where they may have been abandoned over the years, restyle bunkers, and add new tees to accomodate modern technology, among other things.  None of Old Tom's plans for the course exist, so a literal restoration is not possible.  An up and coming young architect, Ian Restor, is hired for the project.  Ian specializes in re-doing Archie courses in Archie's spirit.  In addition to the work described above, three original holes are abandoned and replaced with three new holes, one of which is not in the Tom Archie style.  Moreover, three new green sites and one new teeing location are created, changing two formerly straight holes into doglegs.  Otherwise the origninal routing is retained.  Generally, the membership is very happy with with the changes.

Is this still an "Archie course?"  An "Archie-Restor course?"  Should the course claim Archie alone as the course architect?  Or, should Archie and Restor both be listed as the architects?  Or simply Restor?  Some may rightfully say these questions are immaterial, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume they are material.

How have others handled these questions?

[Tom_Doak]

Attribution is interesting for these sorts of jobs because there is no real answer to the question of "Who decides?"

The architect will pretty much say whatever he wants about it -- I've heard the same project described as a restoration of Old Tom and as new work, by the same architect, depending on the audience to whom he was talking.  The club may (or may not) take an official position on the matter, and the magazines may make their own interpretations for their various rankings as well.  [Nobody but GOLF DIGEST put Mr. Burbeck on the credit list for Bethpage, to cite one famous example.  Haven't checked to see if he's still there.]

Back when I was still writing for GOLF Magazine, the magazine left it up to me to decide how the credits should read, and I can't recall anyone ever writing to complain about it [other than Tom Weiskopf let us know once it was officially Weiskopf & Morrish and not the other way around!].

In the situation you describe, clearly, that should be Archie / Restor in my mind, because both did a lot of work that survives.  However, if you back away a bit of what Restor has changed, then it becomes less clear whether he should be on the credit list or not.  Geoff Cornish listed himself in the credits of every course he ever consulted upon, whether or not they'd done any of the proposed work or whether it had been bulldozed by someone else ... I think that's ridiculous, and impractical too, in that there's not enough room to list every architect that ever consulted on a course.

[Phil_the_Author]

There is a golf course in the Southwest U.S. which was designed by Tilly. A number of years later they built a second 18. In doing so they used 9 of Tilly's work with 9 of the other now-forgotten architect in creating the two courses for play. Just a few years ago they contacted me and asked if I thought it would be proper if they advertised that they had TWO courses designed by Tilly...

I told them that how they marketted their facility was their business...

[Carl Johnson]

Tom, thanks for the insights.  You're right.  Who's doing the talking, and the perceiver, are key.  The re-doer ought to want credit for his work, and rightly so.  The club/course wants recognition, and rightly so.  I tried to describe a situation that was borderline, but based on the facts as I presented them, not necessarily the entire picture, I'd go with crediting both architects, old and new . . . both have contributed to a successful course, as you concluded (as I understood you).  Yet, and this is from the standpoint of the club/course, how do you acknowledge the contemporary architect without diminishing the heritage of the original architect?  I see this as an important question not only from the standpoint of the architects invovled, but also from that of a club/course that is trying to tell its story.  The latter is important not only for existing members/players, but also in terms of recruiting new members/players, without which the course could not flourish (assuming quality).  In other words, from the course's standpoint, marketing is the issue, but as I see it only marketing that is percieved to be truthful.  I can see through fabrications, and I always assume others can, too.

[Niall C]

Clearly no one, other than the owner or club members, has control over how a course is marketed, however are there any restrictions on architects who are members of EIGCA or its american equivalent on what they can claim ? For instance, at what point can an architect claim that the course is one he substantially designed even though he didn't do the original course. Conversely, can an architect continue to claim that a golf course is his work after it has been substantially altered ?

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:  Good question.  I'm not in either the ASGCA nor the EIGCA, but from what I have seen of their members' credits to themselves, I suspect as long as they ever got paid by a club they are allowed to list that they "redesigned" it.

Owners / club members may have control over their own marketing efforts, but not much control over what is written about the course editorially.

This is one reason that an architect threatening to "take his name off the course" has little impact.  As long as he worked on the course, a court is not going to find that the course was lying by crediting him for the work.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()