News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« on: December 06, 2009, 01:15:35 PM »
Pittsburgh Field Club.

Generally, there's a preference for architectural continuity, an architectural theme that's consistent through out the golf course.

Oak Hill may be a good example of a course where there's a clear disruption or disconnect between the style of the architecture. 
Ross versus Fazio.

The Pittsburgh Field Club (1915) has had the following architects work on the golf course.

In 1915, the club moved to its new home in the Fox Chapel area of O'Hara Township, where it purchased a 171-acre tract of land in what was then a sparsely populated rural location. Alexander H. Findlay, known as the father of American golf, voluntarily designed the new 18-hole golf course.

Soon after, five holes underwent Donald Ross revisions. The renovations continued through time, with a parade of course architects -- Albert (A.W.) Tillinghast, Willie Park Jr., Emil Loeffler and John McGlynn, Bill Irvin, Robert Trent Jones, Arthur Hills, Craig Schreiner and Tripp Davis -- playing a major role in the course's evolution.

Does the course reflect a "Heintz 57" in the variety of its architecture, or, is there a good degree of continuity ?

A broader question is:  What, in the underlying (original) architecture caused the golf course to undergo architectural surgery, over and over and over again ?

A related question is:  Will the club continue to introduce architectural alterations ?
And if so, why ?

Don't repeated, ongoing architectural revisions indicate that the revising architects got it wrong ?

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2009, 01:36:05 PM »
Pat, a couple responses/questions.

You say Findlay "voluntarily" designed the course. Who has ever "involuntarily" designed a course? Do you mean that he took on the job for no fee?

Second, are all redesigns necessary? If not, then if a course is continually redesigned could the reasons be found within the membership of the club as much as it is with the course itself? Some folks just like change, no?

My questions are general in nature, as I am not familiar with the course in question.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Jim Thornton

Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2009, 01:47:35 PM »
Pat-

Interesting question.

I began to think about fashion, which changes almost yearly.  If you wore a suit to work, would you be comfortable wearing wide lapels if thinner lapels were currently in vogue?  If so, would you risk being seen "out of style" by your colleagues/clients.  How about hair styles (bad example for me since I have none, but I will use it nonetheless)?  If long hair and mutton chops were in style, would you be comfortable going to work with a buzz cut?  Some might in the interest of staying true to their own personal identity, but many would not.

Is fashion a reasonable metaphor for golf? 

I'll give you my own two cents on the question.  I think the most enduring fashion icons (think Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly, just to name two of my personal favorites) were know for wearing classic designs that would not be out of place in any fashion era.  That would be my sense in golf - iconic courses such as Merion, Cypress, and Shinnecock have stood the test of time and would be relevant and "in vogue" in any era.

Your thoughts?

Jim

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2009, 02:20:33 PM »

Don't repeated, ongoing architectural revisions indicate that the revising architects got it wrong ?

Got what wrong?  Sounds to me like a membership that can't figure out what they want.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2009, 03:03:28 PM »
It depends on what kind of quality design was there to begin with, and what quality was built into the remodels, and the need to remodel them VS the whims of the membership, fashionista like as mentioned above.  If it is whims of a restless and capricious membership that have a club culture that places no real value on tradition or historical aspects, well then it is their club and the can change it as much as the like. 

Who designates Findlay as the 'father of American golf'?  Is that club progaganda in their history or club descriptive materials?  They are well past any notion of 'preserving' any historic features it seems to me.   Maybe they just don't like what preceded, and were best served doing what they did over the years.  And, it could have been physical short comings of the ground that needed to be reengineered to meet changing environment or irrigation/drainage issues.  If they retain members, they are happy with their costs, dues, maintenance and such, then good on them, it is theirs to do with what they choose, in their own club ways. 

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.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2009, 03:09:25 PM »
RJ Daley,

The Pittsburgh Field Club designates Findlay as the "Father of American Golf"

Dale Jackson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2009, 03:53:24 PM »
Pat,you are getting at a topic I have pondered quite a bit and have thought of asking about here.


Does the course reflect a "Heintz 57" in the variety of its architecture, or, is there a good degree of continuity ?

A broader question is:  What, in the underlying (original) architecture caused the golf course to undergo architectural surgery, over and over and over again ?

Don't repeated, ongoing architectural revisions indicate that the revising architects got it wrong ?

There must be a Heintz 57 feel to the course, unless a lot of very different architects, working at a lot of different times ,managed what we rarely see, sympathetic restoration/rennovation/alterations that honours previous design, while advancing the course.  I would be extremely doubtful about that happening!

While it could be something in the underlying architecture, that motivates the membership for near-constant change, it could be the constant changes just reflect a membership's desire for change and a continuing culture of having the latest architectural fad and look, rather than honouring the original design.  Or it could be a combination of underlying architectural deficiencies and wanting the latest look.

It also seems to me that the more work is done on a course, especially if it takes it away from the original design, the less the membership has to anchor it, as it contemplates more changes.  Almost none of the iconic courses in the world (but certainly not all) have strayed too far from their original designs.

I've seen an architecture, something new, that has been in my mind for years and I am glad to see a man with A.V. Macan's ability to bring it out. - Gene Sarazen

Dale Jackson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2009, 03:58:58 PM »

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?
I've seen an architecture, something new, that has been in my mind for years and I am glad to see a man with A.V. Macan's ability to bring it out. - Gene Sarazen

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2009, 04:03:47 PM »
Pat it always bothers me when newly designed holes are forced upon an older design.  A couple come to mind.  The Elkridge Club in Baltimore is, I think a Seth Raynor dessign.  Many years ago they called in someone to design a couple of new holes.  It ruined the course.  It was like dating a blond who "powders her nose" and comes back a red head.  They have since fixed that.  There are many courses that were ruined because an architect didn't try to fit new designed hole with the natural flow of the course.  Others come to mind: Inverness, Rochester CC in MN.  Some course have since rectified the situation.  You something is bad when members that wouldn't know a redan from a sedan notice the difference.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2009, 08:48:53 PM »
Tommy, I agree with you in principle, but there are certainly times when such a thing works. I've played over at the Denver Country Club, and many hands have touched that course. Despite that, the feel of the course is in no was schizophrenic to me. As Dale mentions, it may be rare, but it can happen.

Haven't a bunch of architects had their way with Gulph Mills, no? Does that course have the kind of integrity that Pat is talking about?

Any pictures of  Pittsburgh Field Club available?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2009, 08:59:19 PM »
Kirk, the ones I mentioned were failed additions.  I have played many courses where the architect did a wonderful job fitting new holes in the style and feel of the rest of he course.  It has to be a difficult thing to do.  I would think that most architects today would love it when a person plays a course where new holes have been added and doesn't which holes they are.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Lester George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2009, 10:15:55 AM »

Sounds like they are "nibbling" at each individual problem with different architects and never really biting into the real problems.  (Whatever they may be).  Different club leadership always wants to leave it's mark rather than going for the big picture of getting continuity in architecture or solving the the bigger problems. 

Eventually they each try to "nibble" away at what they think they can accomplish without focusing on the grander scheme.  Ultimately they embark on the path of mediocrity and never accomplish anything but worsening their course and diluting their market standing. 

They need a Master Plan of Improvement that demonstrates a direction for the future.  The right architect will eventually come along and get them to recognize this and put them on the path to continuity.  Nothing against those that have been there, but the right plan is like novocaine, give it time and it will work.  IT MUST BE THE RIGHT PLAN and the RIGHT ARCHITECT to execute it.

Lester 

Lester   

TEPaul

Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2009, 10:24:41 AM »
Pat:

I know how much you like the subject of this thread because you sure have presented it on here enough times and in enough variations and iterations over the years! ;)

Nevertheless, it is a very good and very important subject. However, I've always felt it's a subject that one certainly can't generalize about, either on here or anywhere else. I think it's a subject that just has to be looked at with each individual club with its whole course and even its individual holes.

I know what I'm talking about because of my own club and course and this very important question. For instance, as you know we had a lot of architects come through our course over its history and had we decided to take out most all of what Maxwell did for us in the 1930s on about five holes and return them to the way Ross originally had them we definitely would have made a serious mistake to the detriment of the golf course.

I don't think the same could be said for some of the other architects who redesigned our course over the decades (much of their stuff should've been taken out in our restoration)----and that is precisely why we hired a really good restoration architect who was given a very comprehensive design evolution of the course from the beginning of the course in 1916 until 1999 to help us decide what to do and what not to do.

Therefore, if you or anyone else on here is going to try to construct some suggestion that there is only one general and/or best way to approach this subject, I feel it is doing a real disservice to all clubs considering this important subject. They are or potentially can be very different in this way with very different evolutions and consequently very different problems and solutions now and for their future.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 10:27:54 AM by TEPaul »

Dean DiBerardino

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2009, 11:26:30 AM »
Pat:

In the case of the Field Club, I think the changes to the golf course over the years had less to do with the original architecture and more with the original piece of land that wasn’t very well suited for golf.  While the original Findlay design seemed to have had many interesting holes (especially the original 12th & 13th), it presented the golfer with an excessive amount of “hill climbing” (as TEPaul spoke of in an earlier thread about PFC).  With the all the changes over the years the golf course is still quite hilly but has to be much more playable than the original Findlay version.  Consider the changes over the years:

- The changes by Ross in late 1915 eliminated the 100 foot ascent up the hill towards the clubhouse by abandoning the original 5th hole.

- The 23 acres of land that were purchased in 1923 and that are now occupied by the current 11th and 12th holes (land with about 25 feet in elevation change) are much more suited for golf than the original land which was occupied by the original 12th, 13th and 14th holes (land with about 150 feet in elevation change).

- In 1938 the elevator next to the 17th green was built to help with the final ascent up to the final green and the 18th hole became a par 3.

As for the “Heinz 57” thought, everything seems to fit well at PFC, at least IMO.  The thing that stands out the most though, is the 3-5-3-4-3 finish.  While many would not want to finish on a par 3, consider that the original 18th hole was a 330-yard, uphill par 4 with an elevation change of 100 feet.  I haven’t played the newly designed par 3, 18th at PFC, which opened this past spring, but hopefully it was done well and won’t be changed for a while.

Did the original architect get it wrong at PFC?  Possibly, but again I think it had more to do with the land than with the original architecture.  I would also guess that the golf course, with all its changes, is more “right” now than when it originally opened back in 1915.  However, the thought of playing the original 12th and 13th holes is more appealing to me than a visit to Primanti Brothers!

(BTW, I obtained all of the elevation information from Google Earth)

Dean DiBerardino

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2009, 11:14:23 AM »
Any pictures of  Pittsburgh Field Club available?

Kirk:

If you haven't seen them already, below are some images from an earlier thread about PFC, most of which were scanned out of the club's history book.  The mages include: the original layout versus a current one; images of the original 12th-14th holes that have been abandoned; and an image from the first tee in 1937 versus a current one.

TEPaul

Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2009, 11:31:17 AM »
Dean:

Man, those are some wonderful old photos of some of the NLE holes!

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2009, 12:28:58 PM »
Loved the photos.  Turning to the main topic, I think it is interesting and difficult.  However the premise posited, that mutiple revisions means that the prior architect failed, while attractive, ignores another main theme often addressed by Pat, the power and ineffectiveness of Green Committees.  In my experience many changes come about because a new regime takes over at a club and wants to "make its mark" on the course.  It hires an architect to "modernize".  this change lasts until another regime decides that it needs a turn.

At my own club, we had several of these revisions until we were hit by a major storm in 2000.  A renovation plan largely undid the prior modernizations and restored the course to a more classic form.  by most accounts it has met with near unanimous approval.  Yet every year, notwithstanding a retainer arrangement with the architect, various committee members lobby for changes.  when asked why, the usual response is "we can always make it better."  Of course they can make it worse too but that is never considered.  We have staved off this faction, but the lesson is that cwertain people always want to fiddle, they can't resist the chance to show their architectural expertise.  If they obtain power, they may be able to make changes  absent an informed and active membership.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2009, 12:38:26 PM »
I am with Shelly on this one. Not sure if you can say repeated renos says anything about the gca's who may have been following orders.

I think it says more about changing tastes, fads, or trends, and maybe some about technolgy, society (and the role of the CC in that), the economy and perhaps a whole lot of other things wrapped in there.

While some here are drop dead certain that restorations and classic gca is the one true path, I am pretty sure club members in the go go 50's were just as certain that modernization was the way to go.  And, that club members in the 70's were pretty certain that cost savings were going to be the long term trend in golf.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2009, 08:31:24 AM »
If fads and changing styles are the reason that the Pittsburgh Field club invited architect after architect in to alter the golf course, why didn't the Pittsburgh Field Club's two neighbors, Oakmont and Fox Chapel do the same thing ?

TEPaul

Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2009, 11:11:46 AM »
Pat:

Actually Oakmont did make some significant changes to the course beginning not long after the long reign of the Fownses ended. However, most of the changes made to the course back then have now been reversed----including the removal of 5,000-6,000 trees planted after the reign of the Fownses ended. The other change was a certain amount of bunker removal which has also been somewhat reversed. Fox Chapel was not without architectural changes either.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 11:14:38 AM by TEPaul »

Richard Phinney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2009, 11:32:07 AM »
On a links course, I'm not sure an "architectural theme" is always a plus, unless we mean the theme of the particular landscape.  And that is perhaps why there a number of superb links courses that successfully combine a great many ideas over a long number of years.


SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2009, 12:39:42 PM »
Pat;  Let me clarify my thoughts a little further.  Clearly, where a membership is united in the belief that their course is architecturally complete, changes will not be made.  There are some long term examples including the National, Pine Valley, Cypress Point etc.  some may have the advantage of continuity of leadership but your point is well taken.  It has been made before in the context of some well known courses such as Medinah which seem to be continually changing, largely in an effort to keep up with technology.  Where changes that have been made are well received, the likelihood of additional changes is reduced.  Thus to the extent changes follow after a revision, it must be assumed that the architect faile to satisfy the membership over the longer term.

But the conclusion is much too simple to explain the pervasiveness of the phenomenon under discussion.  A lot has to do with the nature of the Club and its governance.  Different cultures and memberships also impact on the respect for existing architecture.  In discussing this issue with members of numerous clubs I have concluded that most changes occur when the membership feels that its course is falling behind the trends at a time when it can afford to pay for changes. Sometomes these "trends" are merely the whim of a powerful President or Green Chairman. Sometimes these trends can be good.  The same clubs that planted large numbers of trees in the 60's, 70's, and 80's are now cutting them down.  Have all of these memberships "seen the light" or are they reacting to the publicity surrounding the activities of courses like Oakmont and the numerous articles written by architectural pundits?  Sometimes there are other motivations.  Clubs anxious to host tournaments alter features in hopes of attracting the USGA, PGA, or the tour generally by flattening greens.  But none of this speaks to a failure of the prior revisions; more likely it evidences changing goals within the membership.  Of course if you have an outstanding design and educate the membership to understand and appreciate it, you have a much better chance of avoiding the periodic remodelling which has occured at so many clubs.

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2009, 01:28:43 PM »


But the conclusion is much too simple to explain the pervasiveness of the phenomenon under discussion.  A lot has to do with the nature of the Club and its governance. 

 But none of this speaks to a failure of the prior revisions; more likely it evidences changing goals within the membership.  Of course if you have an outstanding design and educate the membership to understand and appreciate it, you have a much better chance of avoiding the periodic remodelling which has occured at so many clubs.


Apologies for cherry-picking quotes,but I think this is the impetus for a lot of change.

To a lot of members,architecture is a foreign concept.IMO,an architect's "vision" will frequently be trumped by a Board's desire to change something for competitive marketing purposes.Whether it's making a golf course harder,easier,longer,or anything else different,a lot of changes are driven by the club(s) down the street.

Agreed that an educated Board/membership can help,but there are always guys who feel the need to reinvent the wheel.Unfortunately,sometimes they're given the keys to the bus.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for, or against, architectural integrity, The
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2009, 05:45:31 PM »
I see a lot of similaries with Oakmont in this photo.