The only preservationist validity to address in our era it seems to me, is if there is a club that has nearly universally accepted classic golf architecture still intact to a recognizable extent, has historic merit, and a following of those that recognise these significant concepts. Then, there ought to be an advocacy for preservation or restoration. But, if it is a private club, it is obviously still up to the owner/members. If their club culture respects or takes pride in the distinction of being significant, then great. If their culture places little or no value in tradition, historic value, and classic design, or is that kind of capricious club that just can't maintain continuity of leadership or image, then call in the archies that will overhaul it, and if their results are a mish-mash, excoriate them in the commentary. If they do a good job, recognise that too.
Could not agree more with these sentiments and that is a subject I have been thinking about.
Is it worth preserving an old course just for preservation sake? If we could magically restore some of the late 1800s North American courses, with that era's oft reviled architecture, should we do so just to restore a "museum piece", or should there be golfing values inherent in the design to make it restoration worthy?
Although, I am no expert on turn of the century courses, it seems the courses remaining close their original designs - Garden City, Myopia, NGLA (I am sure there are others) - are highly regarded because of their architectural value, rather than a ongoing desire by their memberships over the years to blindly retain their original courses merely for preservation sake.
A related subject - is a course worth preserving/restoring merely because it is historically significant from an architectural perspective.
To use a not well known but important example, Royal Colwood in Victoria, BC in 1913 was the first course west of the Mississippi to be designed using strategic principles. With no lineage to the well regarded eastern courses of the day, it emerged out of the then-backwater of the Pacific Northwest, to become one of the best regarded courses of its day in North America. It was the first design of A.V. Macan, a still under-appreciated architect who worked on the Pacific Coast for 50 years.
It remains largely unchanged since those early days, and to play it is to play a very old fashioned design, mostly undisturbed by time. The club is beginning a restoration of some of what has changed, mostly these are changes in bunker style, occasionally changes in bunker placement, and restoration of some original bunkers removed through the years. We needed to ask ourselves was the original design still vital or had time and technology passed it by? Was its place in history as Macan's first course worth taking into consideration? Was restoration merely for restoration sake a good enough reason to undertake the work?
In the end, the Club has chosen to restore, rather than renovate, and it was a fairly easy choice. But it was made easy, not because of a desire to restore for restoration sake, but because we believe the original design continues to be the best expression of the golf course, and that because it remains vital, it is worth restoring.
Are there any courses that are from the ODG era or earlier that remain faithful to their original design or have been restored, but that are not well regarded architecturally?