Toronto GC-Getting Redesigned by Martin Hawtree

[Paul_Turner]

One of Canada's oldest courses is getting a redo by Martin Hawtree.  On his website the work is stated as "renovation/restoration"  but from his other work I suspect it will be much more renovation than pure restoration and likely to involve quite a lot of changes, see: Birkdale, Lahinch, Belvoir Park, Royal Dublin, Melbourne, Burnham, De Pan, St George's Hill, Sunningdale.

Anyway I reckon the course could do with a bunker redo (too clean and a bit boring) but it should be based on what was there in the past, not on a generic "Colt" bunker.  Moving or altering greens is unwarranted in my opinion, even the ones that aren't original Colt/Alison are good (2nd) or excellent (16th)

Anyway, this is how it looks now:


4th..thought of a redan type




2nd

2nd fall off

3rd

3rd approach

5th

6th

7th

9th

9th

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

15th

16th

16th green

17th

Home

[Rob Rigg]

The placement of some of the fairway bunkers - ie) jutting into the fairway or even cross fairway - is interesting.

I do not recall seeing that at any of the TO courses that I have played.

Is this unique to TGC, or Colt's efforts in the area, or just indicative of the courses I have played (which is certainly not all inclusive)?

[Sean_A]

Paul

Toronto looks to be an interesting course.  You are right, the bunkering is rather visually ineffectual and could do with some revision.  I don't know why the club is altering greens, but if that is what they are going to do, Hawtree isn't a bad candidate for the job.  By all accounts his work at Lahinch and Royal Dublin is outstanding.  I know the tid bit of work he did at Burnham is very good, it took him a while to get there, but he did in the end.  Birkdale's changes looked very good on telly last year.  Sure, in the case of Birkdale and Burmham there are doubters, but for sure the 6th green at Burnham is outstanding and the par 5 17th green looked to be great during the Open.  The worst charge I hear against Hawtree is that he doesn't keep the new stuff similar to the old stuff.  To me this is a load of hogwash.  What counts is if, given his mandate, he created something good and thought provoking.  Hawtree certainly does this in spades.

Ciao

[Bryan Izatt]

I was just reading about this in Ontario Golf.  Here's their take on it.  Sounds like a little bit of both renovation and restoration.

"ENGLISH TEE
Although it dates back to 1867, making it North America’s third-oldest golf club, Toronto Golf Club’s lasting imprint was left by England’s Harry S. Colt, who laid out the present-day course in 1912. So perhaps it’s appropriate that the refurbishing of the highly lauded course has been entrusted to another Englishman, Martin Hawtree—a man not unfamiliar with Southern Ontario, having designed Tarandowah Golfers Club, which won Ontario Golf magazine’s Best New Course in 2008.

To prepare for renovations, Toronto Golf Club—one of two Colt designs in Canada, the other being Hamilton G&CC—will be shutting down for play on July 2 and will reopen in the spring of 2010. Its nine-hole Watson Course will remain open throughout the renovations.

“It’s a bold step for this club,” says general manager Glenn Smale, noting the project went out for tender in November and came back under budget. “Basically we’re trying to restore the Colt flavour by tweaking the course.” That includes a little bit of everything: a new irrigation system, bunker relocation and removal, breaking up some tee decks to make the course more playable for high handicaps, fairway realignment, new fescue grasses on the fairways and elsewhere, as well as improving the views throughout the course. “Martin’s knowledge of what Colt was doing has been a great help,” Smale says. “There’s no one in the world who understands Colt better.” —BRENT LONG"

[Paul_Turner]

Sean

No I disagree Hawtree should keep the greens in character with the rest of the course...that was my problem with the 6th at Burnham and I just from TV the 17th at Birkdale.  The 7th at Belvoir Park, 5th at Pan are examples of poor Hawtree greens that don't fit.

Bryan

I don't know the details but if the objective is to "restore the Colt flavour by tweaking the course" it's a rather vague statement and could mean anything. If you were doing a proper restoration, the first stop would be to research how the course has evolved, there are plans drawn by Colt of Toronto so that would be a starting point...simple bunker removal and relocation  isn't "restoring Colt flavour" and obviously changing the contours of original greens isn't either.

And obviously I disagree the quote from the course manager "There’s no one in the world who understands Colt better.”

[Paul_Turner]

Ok I found out which green are being changed:

The 2nd which is a Watson greens I believe.  So how does Hawtree "restore" this green?  Is there photo evidence of the originals or will it be his interpretation of a suitable "Colt" green?

The was a Shell's Wonderful World of Golf match played in the 1960s but I'm not sure if this was prior to the changes.  It still would be worth watching to see how the course has evolved.

But original greens, the 11th and 15th will also be changed which is really bizarre.  They both have great sites and steep pitch.  This isn't restoring Colt flavour...it's removing it!!

On the positive side you can see that some of the fairway lines are way too narrow so if they plan to open the course up that would be good in my opinion.  I guess also felling some trees to open up the course more would be good too...but the course isn't at all claustrophobic as it is now.

Will the bunker redo look much like the new bunkers at Sunningdale or those at Belvoir Park?  Or will it be based on what Colt and Alison actually built at Toronto?

[Sean_A]

Sean

No I disagree Hawtree should keep the greens in character with the rest of the course...that was my problem with the 6th at Burnham and I just from TV the 17th at Birkdale.  The 7th at Belvoir Park, 5th at Pan are examples of poor Hawtree greens that don't fit.

Paul

IF an archie is gonna be brought in to make changes, I like to look at the work based in the context of the changes themselves rather than what someone's guess of what Colt (or anybody for that matter) would have wanted or done.  The debate for me is more about are the changes necessary (I am highly skeptical of spending money on courses which are already deemed good or great unless the goals of a club change - if this is the case I would question why the goals have changed) and less about making the changes in character with what existed previously or what someone thinks Colt would have approved of - its a pointless exercise because it all comes down to opinion anyway.  To me its more about quality and variety then adhering to an ODG's blue print, but importantly,there are exceptions.   

For instance, Burnham's 6th green is perhaps the best green on the course because of how it plays and the variety it lends to the course.  It is far better than what existed previously - which was created by Martin's father.  However, that hole isn't terribly old anyway.  None of the members I know dislike the green because it's character is different to the previous green or the other greens.  They dislike it because its difficult to approach. 

Another example is St Enodoc's new 16th green.  Is it in character with the other greens? - possibly, it depends on one's opinion.  What is certainly different is the bunkering style which I think a great improvement on the other holes.  Is the green good? - yes.   Was it necessary to spend the money to build a new green? - absolutely not.  I think it was a waste of money because the old green was good too. 

Hoylake's Royal is another example.  I think it is a good green.  Not necessarily in keeping with the other greens, but I think better than most on the course and certainly better than the old Royal green once we accept that the club needed to alter the site due to its goal of hosting an Open.  People can argue about this, but the club has a rich tradition of hosting championships and sacrificing a bit of history to keep their Open history moving forward was worth the sacrifice.  Such is the reality of the world we live in and golf course design isn't immune from this reality, nor has it ever been.  The great championship courses of the GB&I have been in near constant fluctuation for about 100 years.  Nothing stands still, though I can sympathize with you in that sometimes they should.

Ciao 

[Jeff_Mingay]

Hole 10 at Toronto Golf Club; early days.

[Paul_Turner]

Sean

I guess we'll disagree on the merits of those two greens and why the changes were necessary.

But I agree with your point re St Enodoc and as the greens 2,11 and 15 at Toronto are already excellent, the changes are unnecessary and could be a costly mistake.  I do think Hawtree will be "interpreting" Colt rather than researching fully.  So then it just comes down to his opinion.  

[Sean_A]

Sean

I guess we'll disagree on the merits of those two greens and why the changes were necessary.

But I agree with your point re St Enodoc and as the greens 2,11 and 15 at Toronto are already excellent, the changes are unnecessary and could be a costly mistake.  I do think Hawtree will be "interpreting" Colt rather than researching fully.  So then it just comes down to his opinion.  

Paul

 Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie.  The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses.  In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew.  But then if one cannot accept that clubs control courses and archies are the instrument of the clubs, it is likely that one will never think Hawtree can do good work on an ODG's course.

Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I completely disagree with your assessment that architects are the instruments of clubs.

Frequently, architects talk clubs into doing stuff they never would have considered otherwise.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

I completely disagree with your assessment that architects are the instruments of clubs.

Frequently, architects talk clubs into doing stuff they never would have considered otherwise.

Tom

Its simple, who signs the cheques and who cashes the cheques?  Because a club hires an archie doesn't mean it abdicates the stewardship of the course.  The club should do loads of research themselves on the course and archies before even talking to one or making any decisions on what "needs" to be done to the course and why.  If the club did their job properly I think most restoration/renovation/redo archies would be out of business for lack of work because so much stuff is done unnecessarily, but whose fault is it if a club is talked into doing work that isn't best for the long term of the course and club?  I am sorry, archies sell a service and it is the job of the club to decide if it wants the service.  Its cut and dry and no different from any other business service.  Its one thing to be lied to and quite another to make a bad decision.   

Ciao
   

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -

thanks much for the picture of the 10th in the old days. Just fyi (but as you probably know), Arnold Haultain of "The Mystery of Golf" fame was a member at Toronto from 1894 to 1930 (I think he moved back to England at that point). I wrote General Manager Smale to ask if AH had ever written anything about the course, and he was kind enough to write back -- unfortunately "we‘ve looked through minute books and found nothing". I wonder if anyone has ever read anything by AH on the course. Reading The Mystery of Golf, I like to imagine that if AH ever thought about architecture AS architecture, he was thinking "Colt".

Peter



 

[Paul_Turner]

Sean

I guess we'll disagree on the merits of those two greens and why the changes were necessary.

But I agree with your point re St Enodoc and as the greens 2,11 and 15 at Toronto are already excellent, the changes are unnecessary and could be a costly mistake.  I do think Hawtree will be "interpreting" Colt rather than researching fully.  So then it just comes down to his opinion.  

Paul

 Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie.  The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses.  In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew.  But then if one cannot accept that clubs control courses and archies are the instrument of the clubs, it is likely that one will never think Hawtree can do good work on an ODG's course.

Ciao 

Some of that is true, the bottom line is that on some courses that Hawtree has consulted on have resulted in work that isn't Colt like and doesn't fit....the bunker on the 8th green at St George's Hill is the most obvious example.

And Tom is definitely right about architects putting ideas into club committee's heads.  We've seen time and again.

[Sean_A]

Sean

I guess we'll disagree on the merits of those two greens and why the changes were necessary.

But I agree with your point re St Enodoc and as the greens 2,11 and 15 at Toronto are already excellent, the changes are unnecessary and could be a costly mistake.  I do think Hawtree will be "interpreting" Colt rather than researching fully.  So then it just comes down to his opinion.  

Paul

 Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie.  The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses.  In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew.  But then if one cannot accept that clubs control courses and archies are the instrument of the clubs, it is likely that one will never think Hawtree can do good work on an ODG's course.

Ciao 

Some of that is true, the bottom line is that on some courses that Hawtree has consulted on have resulted in work that isn't Colt like and doesn't fit....the bunker on the 8th green at St George's Hill is the most obvious example.

And Tom is definitely right about architects putting ideas into club committee's heads.  We've seen time and again.

Paul

My position on blaming archies for clubs' poor management is all above.

I agree about the 8th at St Georges Hill.  I think the bunkering looks atrocious and like a giant puzzle intended for 2 year olds to fit together, but I don't think he has changed how the hole is played.  I don't know what Hawtree's mandate was.  Perhaps the he was told to keep sand in the pits first and foremost.  Personally, I think sand blowing onto fairways/greens was a bit of a problem with some Golden Age courses.  Hence we see how sand and fairway are clearly defined these days.  I prefer the messy look for a sandy/heathy site, but I don't pay the bills.



Post your old photo of #8 to provide a contrast.

Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I'm missing something here.

I agree with you that ultimately, clubs are responsible for what happens to their courses, even though 90% of clubs don't really understand what they are getting into on a renovation, and how little a set of plans has to do with what gets built.

But on the one hand you give the architect in this case credit as "a salesman," but when he's done work you don't like you give him a pass on it by saying "I don't know what his mandate was."  You seem to have a no-fault policy toward architects.  If you're going to give them any credit for their creativity, then you also have to give them the blame when they build something not so good, don't you?

[Sean_A]

Sean:

I'm missing something here.

I agree with you that ultimately, clubs are responsible for what happens to their courses, even though 90% of clubs don't really understand what they are getting into on a renovation, and how little a set of plans has to do with what gets built.

But on the one hand you give the architect in this case credit as "a salesman," but when he's done work you don't like you give him a pass on it by saying "I don't know what his mandate was."  You seem to have a no-fault policy toward architects.  If you're going to give them any credit for their creativity, then you also have to give them the blame when they build something not so good, don't you?

Tom

I am not giving the archie credit for being a salesman.  He could sell a pile of junk.  That doesn't make the junk any better, but the club is still responsible unless they were mis-sold. 

I don't give Hawtree a pass for SGH #8.  I think it looks dreadful and reflects badly on him and the club.  All I am saying is that perhaps Hawtree was caught in a corner with some sort of compromise.  I don't know and this is why I am often reluctant to say bad things about archies - I don't know all the restraints they had.  In general, we are much better off talking about the work produced rather than the archies who produced it.  My main point is that the archie is not the be all and end all when it comes to architectural decisions on older courses, yet this is how most tend to look at these sorts of things. 

Ciao

[Paul_Turner]

Tom Macwood asked me to post this:

Sean Arble said: "Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie.  The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses.  In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew." 

The same could be said of Rees Jones with Tilly, Ross, et al. and look at the wreckage he has left behind. There is no substitute for thorough historical research. A golf architects style can vary dramatically based upon the evolution of his style over time, the construction associate, the site, the clients demands, etc. Most of Colt's American courses were built by Carters; most of Colt's British courses were built by Franks-Harris Bros

[Paul_Turner]

Sean

From looking at a lot of old golf course photos, I'm not sure the whole maintenance argument vs sand faced bunkers holds.  A bunker like the 8th at SGH was very close to as designed until 15 years ago, roughly.

[Sean_A]

Tom Macwood asked me to post this:

Sean Arble said: "Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie.  The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses.  In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew." 

The same could be said of Rees Jones with Tilly, Ross, et al. and look at the wreckage he has left behind. There is no substitute for thorough historical research. A golf architects style can vary dramatically based upon the evolution of his style over time, the construction associate, the site, the clients demands, etc. Most of Colt's American courses were built by Carters; most of Colt's British courses were built by Franks-Harris Bros

Tommy Mac channeling thru Paul T

Are you trying to compare Hawtree to R Jones? 

I am not suggesting that archies shouldn't conduct proper research.  Are you suggesting Hawtree doesn't/won't conduct research?  I think it best to carefully consider what one states about archies when one doesn't know the full story.  Without knowledge of what the client's demands are and intimate knowledge of projects, it is pre-mature to blame archies for what is often short-comings in aesthetics.  Its far too easy and simplistic to blame archies for perceived (afterall, we are still talking about matters of opinion) short-comings.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

How many excuses do you want to provide for us architects in advance:

1)  No one here will EVER know what the club's mandate was or wasn't.  Even if the architect tells us after the fact, he might not be telling it like it was.

2)  It's all a matter of opinion anyway.

I guess we might as well shut down the web site, since the above seems to preclude anyone having a contrary opinion on anything.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

How many excuses do you want to provide for us architects in advance:

1)  No one here will EVER know what the club's mandate was or wasn't.  Even if the architect tells us after the fact, he might not be telling it like it was.

2)  It's all a matter of opinion anyway.

I guess we might as well shut down the web site, since the above seems to preclude anyone having a contrary opinion on anything.

Tom

Whoever said anything about a contrary opinion?  If I don't like re-do work I will say so, but that is quite a bit different from pointing a finger squarely and directly at the archie and laying blame.   I said folks shouldn't necessarily blame archies for work done to courses.  First, they are not in control of decision - making unless they sign the cheques.  Second, most folks most of the time don't know the details of a project. These aren't excuses, just facts of life - often times facts that purists just can't deal with.  Often times, in their eyes, no re-do work will be good enough if they are that set in keeping original work.  I am very skeptical of re-do work, but I also understand that it has been going on since before the term golf architect was invented and it will continue to go on precisely because most of what we talk about is based on opinion - no?

Ciao 

[Robert Thompson]

A couple of quick notes on this.

1) there are several greens, as noted, that are not Colt originals. I don't think that is the issue here -- I think the issue is the original greens.
2) two of the greens -- 11 and 15 (both Colt greens) -- are being moved for "safety" considerations apparently. The entrance road to the club is off a busy street and the entrance pulls alongside the 15th green and near the 5th green and 6th tee. The 6th tee is being relocated so it doesn't hit over the entrance road, and therefore will end up near to where the 15th green is. Therefore they are moving the 15th green, a Colt original. This is a damned shame. There is talk in the club of how the greens will be lasered and replicated, but I think that is unlikely. I might be proven wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.
3) the first hole is also being altered to play closer to the ravine on the right, but the green stays in place. In other places cross bunkers, new bunkers and other features are being added, along with a lot of fescue. Let's be clear -- these are not features that are being returned to their original state. They are new features.
4) I have to wonder whether the lure of using a British born architect is one of the reasons Hawtree is at Toronto. There's a notion that he "gets" Colt better than a Canadian or American architect who would simply use the historic info, of which there is plenty.
5) Hawtree's original design, Tarandowah, two hours from Toronto, is quite good. I have no axe to grind here -- but I am concerned.

[Paul_Turner]

Martin Hawtree used a safety audit to move greens at Royal Melbourne East recently.

Is this a coincidence?  What do you reckon Tom Doak?

No way is there a safety issue at Toronto.  The greens have been there almost 100 years and now there's suddenly a safety issue?

2011 is the course's 100 year anniversary and the club will then have a course that's less authentic to the original than ever before. 

[Jeff_Mingay]

As I've stated on another thread recently, Toronto Golf Club possesses the most historically significant golf course design in Canada.

Ian Andrew and I, as co-authors, (proudly!) contribute an essay addressing this topic to the next volume of Paul Daley's Golf Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective series. Moreover, Toronto is a fantastic golf course, as is (aside from perhaps some prudent bunker and tree work, restorative-based alteration to grassing lines, etc.)

I'll leave it at this.