Restoration vs. Renovation

[K.Hegland]

First of all I want to let you all know what a huge fan I am of this site, being a student in Turf at MSU I constantly trying to learn as much as possible about golf architecture, GCA keeps me informed and constantly learning.  I'm currently compiling a 30 minute power point presentation for one of my classes, the topic being Golf Course Restoration vs. Renovation.  I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to get some postive feedback on what people from all facets of the world thought about this subject.  I'm looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!!!

Thanks for your time and effort

[Peter Galea]

Here's my opinion. Short and sweet.

Renovate when the golf course doesn't "work" anymore, and it's a time when it can be done cost effectively. There can be a myriad of reasons for doing this.

Restore when the course is solid but some of the "parts" are not acceptable.

[Paul Richards]

k:

The Master Plan Committee here at Beverly CC was faced with
this quandary.  Our course is a Donald Ross design.  Unfortunately, Mr. Ross has been dead for some time.  What
to do?

We hired Ron Prichard to restore the course that Mr. Ross
designed for us, but with the caveat that technology has
changed tremendously since the course was built.

So the renovation is in keeping with the spirit of Ross's
design, but also with today's technology in mind.

[corey miller]

the problem in these restoration/renovation plans is that many of the decision makers at these clubs do not understand the distinction and use it interchangebly.

[Jeff Mingay]

Good point, Corey... the really scary thing is that there are plenty of golf architects who don't understand the distinction between restoration and renovation either!

I recently signed a deal with Sleeping Bear Press to write a new book tentatively titled, "The Art of Classic Golf Course Restoration." I have hopes the book will make clear the distinction between restoration and renovation... we'll see.

In the meantime, I want to encourage anyone and everyone with any interesting/useful information about golf course restorations and renovations to contact me at jemingay@aol.com. Please. I'm anxious to hear from architects, superintendents, green chairman, club members, average golfers, et.al. who have anything to say about the subjects.

The "meat and potatoes" of the book is planned to be a series of case studies of completed works... but it's constantly mutating as I receive more and more info.

Again, looking forward to hearing from people...

Jeff Mingay
jemingay@aol.com
Tel. 519-254-6846
Fax. 519-258-8375

[K.Hegland]

First of all I want to thank everyone who has responded.  I appreciate everyones input, the more opinions and different points of view the more I learn and in turn inprove my project.  

Mr. Galea,
When you state the course doesn't "work" anymore do you mean the design doesn't work anymore (ie, yardage as become obsolete, fairway bunker no longer in play), or do you mean certain features don't work anymore, (ie bunkers don't drain properly, green complexes have shrunk or lost the original design), or is it a combination of both.  With that said I offer the same question about "parts" not working.

Mr. Richards,
It seems like technology has become the big issue on golf course restoration, how did you tackle this issue at Beverly CC?  In keeping in the "spirit" of the original designers intent, do you think this in only likely to happen at courses with famous architects such as a Ross, MacKenzie, Raynor?

Mr. Miller,
I agree with you one hundred percent.  I think the whole key to completing a Restoration or Renovation is educate yourself, the green commitee and anyone who is involved, so that all can come together and make educated decisions for the good of the course and golf as a whole.

Thanks gentlemen

[TEPaul]

Corey is exactly correct--many of the decision makers do not understand the distinctions between restoration and rennovation and use the terms interchangeably. They sometimes use the terms interchangeable too even if they do understand the distinctions but generally interchange them for purposes of political expediency within the club and membership!

My own club's "restoration master plan" is a good example of this! We started out calling it a "Ross RESTORATION plan" and in the beginning that wasn't selling very well amongst the membership! So we started calling it an "Improvement Plan". That sounded better, I guess, and the membership accepted the idea more readily. As we went through a number of "forums" explaining what we were planning on doing and why the membership began to understand it all better and began to understand the true meaning and validity of "restoration". So they started buying into that term and accepting it! But the interesting thing is the plan was not altered at all as to the intent of "restoration" vs "rennovation" (or "improvement"--whatever anyone thought that meant)--it was the same thing it had always been--it's just the perception of it changed amongst the membership! So now everyone is back to calling it a "Restoration plan" again!

Although there's much about architecture that's subject the terms restoration and rennovation are not interchangeable and have very specific distinctions and meanings. There really shouldn't be much argument on that point! It really just boils down to calling what your doing what it really is or not!

Pure restoration is just that--restoring back to what things were in most everyway you can. Certainly there are a number of things about absolute restoration which might not be particularly effective or expedient when you consider how golf and maintenance has changed over many decades. But even in a "pure restoration" those considerations can very much be factored in intelligently and effectively! It does take a certain understanding and acceptance among groups of people however and sometimes that gets very tricky and often very frustrating.

in the next post I'm going to give a couple of interesting examples of how those groups combine, compete and interrelate with each other to get various degrees of "restoration" or "rennovation".

I wanted to put these posts on the "ever changing canvas" topic but I thought this topic might be more apropos.

[TEPaul]

Here will be some of the clubs that have undergone what has been called "restorations" and how anyone can see varying degrees of what that actually can be as to "purity".

Firstly, to my knowledge Huntingdon Valley may have undergone the most complete "restoration" to date. Even Huntingdon Valley's restoration can be quite easily misunderstood, however, by even good architectural analysts.

They did an absolute ton of research on every single phase of both architecture and agronomy and playability. The intent seemed to be to almost return the course to a "playability" of a former time! Architecturally they also did a ton of research but very much in the context of the thinking of their original architect--William Flynn.

In this context they actually applied Flynn's own recommended and preplanned principle of "elasticity". Because of that some will say Huntingdon Valley's restoration was not a restoration because some holes were lengthened etc and that then would consititute a difference from the way things once were.

I don't agree at all and I think what they did by lengthening the course where it seemed necessary was only utilizing intelligently that very preplanned design principle that Flynn employed originally. Naturally Flynn's purpose was to accomodate changing realities within the game and to also perserve design intent in that fashion.

But the real difference in Huntingdon Valley's restoration was the extent of the purity of their agronomic restoration and what that meant in the area of "playability". That has been so pure I would very much recommend that any other course that is contemplating going down that path really understand the details of it simply because it very well may not be for every club and every membership! It's a very different, very research oriented, very pure, almost like a throw-back in time! It is a very valid restoration though and one that sort of points out how complex these processes of restoration can be!  

[JEarle]

TEPaul
 Interesting comment reguarding the agronomic part of the restoration process. Do you have any more details on exactly what the club / superintendent accomplished? I have always found that the agronomics of most courses are so far off that any hope of a " pure " restoration is lost. The #1  problem being the irrigation. We hear about the addition of new irrigation systems as part of the plan. I assume this means more heads, more water capacity and the ability to put out enormous amounts of water. With all this added irrigation how does a club avoid " overwatering " ? Not just from a play stand point - firm and fast, but also from an astethic point of view? Even minimal amounts of water can destroy years of hard work, as well as the designers "spirit", to the golf course. It would be interesting to hear any specifics abour Huntington Valley, as a large majority of courses seem to overlook the most important part of this process.    

[TEPaul]

The next example is an interesting one and one that's probably as representative of other courses in America as you can find.

That would be Westhampton C.C. (Raynor-1914) probably the first solo project by Seth Raynor.

What Westhampton has been doing for a number of years probably could not be called "restoration" or "rennovation". They seem to have been doing a little of everything over the years.

The key to the overall preservation of Westhampton, in my opinion, is Mike Rewinski, Westhampton's superintendent for a couple of decades. Mike seems to have both a real interest and a real understanding of the original architect and all that the particular architecture and the particular "playablity" of the original design intent is supposed to mean and be.

But over the last few decades Mike Rewinski has been walking through a constant progression of revolving green chairmen all with different interests and demands, different levels of understanding and different agendas. Sometimes that's included input from architects but mostly it's been done in-house.

Mike has very much gotten into in-house architectural work throughout the course but through it all has kept the entire look of the architecture about as close to Raynor as could be despite some pretty off-beat architectural ideas and demands from a succesion of green chairmen.

Through all this Mike seems to have sort of combination of true respect for the value of Raynor's architecture for some really interesting and quality golf, but at the same time sort of a bemused feeling about the highly manufactured and engineered look of Raynor's features.

Westhampton is probalbly the ultimate in odd juxtaposition between natural ground and highly manufactured architectural features. The reason is that Westhampton's site is extremely flat. And again probably somewhat like Yeamans Hall, the actual percentage of engineering done on the site to the overall acreage is obviously very low. So you have some highly engineered features (particularly bunkering) just popping out of flat ground with no attempt to meld it into the landscape. The whole idea of the way it looks I think sometimes makes Mike Rewinski sort of scratch his head and it does me too. But he has actually copied this look in-house architecturally for one green chairman after another and has done a damn good job of it.

Mike seems to have also done some things on his own particularly on and around the greens that are very sympathetic with all that Raynor's Westhampton was supposed to be and how it was supposed to play. I think Mike really understands that the real meat and real value of Westhampton (like a lot of other Raynor courses) is actually on and around the greens anyway! This is where the golf course really shines and I think Mike's figured out how to walk this complex line between all these different interests and agendas and keep that part of the course about as pure as anyone probably could.

Sometimes things happen like on Westhampton's "Short" hole that is a total "architectural disconnect" like when one green chairman decided to pick up total course length by insisting on a back tee for this hole at around 185-190 yards. This kind of thing just really doesn't work architecturally for anyone on a green like that one (a very good "short" green, by the way) and Mike knows that but afterall it's just a tee and he realizes it will hardly ever be used anyway simply because the fact that it doesn't work is so obvious.

So Westhampton to me remains a golf course that still very much retains the original Raynor design intent, look and feel and the reason is because Mike Rewinski understands what that is and has been keeping it all together in one way or another all these years--through a pretty damn tough progression!

But Mike, if somebody starts to insist that those greens get redesigned comprehensively, that's where and when you gotta put your foot down or they'll really lose it at Westhampton!

[brad_miller]

TomP, has given JeffM two good examples that might be of use for his book project, which might help in the never ending battle of "preserving the old, influencing the new"

What other restorations, renovations are worthy of note both good and bad, please lets focus more on the good, for I could see Jeff using 3-4 to one ratio good-bad in his book.

This project sounds interesting, just think of the before and after pics, one way to move the cause forward.

I'll nominate Fenway as one project worthy of Jeff's consideration, but they should complete their effort with the tree work that still needs to be done, Fenway think Winged Foot, which also might be a good case study itself!

[TEPaul]

The last example will be NGLA.

Everybody who knows anything about the history and evolution of architecture in America knows that NGLA was a true architectural pacesetter! It has been described as the first great golf course in America in an overall sense. In other words, MacDonald's mission was to make both the routing and the quality of each and every hole both varied and first rate! Basically he felt that had not even come close to being done previously in America. but that was very early--around 1908!

NGLA has always been there solidly among architectural cognesenti but for many decades sort of faded from general visibilty probably because the club has always been very private and they never were looking to keep the course at the forefront of architectural opinion or all this ranking and rating shennanigans!

The course itself obviously evolved into a state of sort of benign neglect in that many trees grew up and the course probably didn't even think to keep itself in a mode of what might be called having "the lights turned up full" on its architecture. The club never let its conditioning go or anything like that but probably just went into a mode of what worked just fine for the needs of its membership.

Obviously, the club decided some time ago to start to unveil the true brilliance of the architecture and all NGLA is by a deliberate and slow going restorative processes with a really good superintendent in Karl Olsen. Trees were removed all over the course and the process was started to "turn the lights back up" on NGLA's unique and amazing architecture through both architectural restoration and ideal maintenance practices for that particular architecture.

And that's exactly what's been done. I don't think this was contemplated or done in a traditional "restoration plan" so much as a gradual "restorative process".

And as far as I'm concerned NGLA is all the way back with the lights turned up just about full! Karl Olsen is really good at the historical research (and the club or any of us should not forget George Bahto's contributions in this research process). Olsen is also clearly brilliant at the agronomic side of things that I've come to call the "ideal maintenance meld".

Karl Olsen has done a great job with the architectural side of things too in a restorative sense--both overtly and in some really interesting nuancy ways--that would almost have to be pointed out by him!

So with NGLA the overall restoration is a very good one, although a few "purists" might sometimes mutter that things might be a bit more "clean" than they need to be. But Karl has his bosses too!

You could fool me on that though and what I think NGLA has done is highlight some true unique and great architecture with maintenance practices (particularly a combination of real "through the green" speed with the perfect combination of "on the green" firmness and speed)!

So they turned the lights back up alright and because of the great architecture combined with some really cool and intelligent maintenance practices those light are about as bright as you can find anywhere!

To Rich Goodale and Tom Huckaby who saw the course unfortunately in a maintenance cycle when the course was very slow---sorry about that--you'll have to go back again and experience what this "ideal maintenance meld" thing is all about. It will absolutely blow your mind--I guarantee it!

[JEarle]

TEPaul
How can we go about hearing exactly what Mike R. did at Westhampton or Huntington Valley from an agronomic aspect to facilitate his plan. You site a good example of what we are discussing, but I would like to hear of some specifics. How did he establish a baseline for the play conditions and aestetics? How does he handle the handwork required to control water? Basically how does he maintain the course to highlight the architecture features thus providing the proper playability of the golf course?
How come we don't hear of clubs / committees who establish a criteria on the courses play conditions ( firm and fast, etc.) ? They could use the spirit of the original designers to establish the baseline for the course and adopt this plan. This would allow the club to guide or hire a superintendent who has experience in this type of setting.  

 If anybody is looking to do research or write about the subject of "restoration vs. renovation" they need to examine the maintainance approach. It is the single most important part of the equation. Yet it seems to be they most overlooked.

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom P

If the Huckster's mind gets any more blown away than it did when he saw NGLA soft and slow his head will explode like those guys in "Scanners", and it will not be a pretty sight!

[THuckaby2]

Ahhh, but I did "see" NGLA in the proper maintenance meld... in the form of the conditions we found at the lesser course right next door.  As I said at the time, I am not wholly without imagination.  And let's just say if NGLA in this meld blows me away more than I am imagining it, I will be VERY surprised.

That being said, I sure as hell would love to test this theory some day!  


TH

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Well then forget about the Huckster if his mind has already been blown. If you saw the course in that "ideal maintenance meld" you would have had your mind blown too, your eyes fully opened and your appreciation level of NGLA absolutely maxed out!!

That's what happened to me there anyway. I'd been studying this stuff everyday for about three years, all of it, just like I am still and I was really struggling to put it all together. Then I saw that and BAM after all that time everything sort of fell into place. I'm talking the "ideal maintennce meld" into great architecture here. I told Bill Coore that everything seemed to fall into place all of a sudden and he said, that's it, you have to be familiar with all the parts and pieces first and then you have to see them at their best all working together in combo--that's the great symphony beautifully played I guess.

Since then I've seen it three more times--Royal County Down, Oakmont and to a larger degree than I might have expected on a little course around here late last fall called Cedarbrook!

The interest, enjoyment and challenge level is magnified I don't know how many times when the inherent architecture gets highlighted by the perfect mix of ground conditions!

[THuckaby2]

Tom:  yep.  I am NOT the issue here, that's my point.  I most definitely GET what you're saying and after reading it from you here as I have before, I now tend to LOOK for it.  Our one glorious day at Southampton, it was indeed too bad it didn't exist at NGLA... but it surely did across the street and I was indeed blown away there, for just this reason.

NGLA just has a lot of other "personal" meaning to me... such that I guess in the end, Rich may well be right - it might not be a pretty sight if I do see it as you did that day.  In any case I have a good picture in my mind indeed, seeing as I did across the road.

My thing is that NGLA-doubter Goodale here is the one who needs to be convinced, that's all.  Though I sure as hell would love to see it, I just need no convincing!

The interesting thing too for me is, as I look for this, I too have found it... at the much-discussed Barona Creek!  That hopefully will open Rich's eyes when he sees it in April.

TH

[K.Hegland]

Wow, I go to class and the topic takes off, thanks.  I'm reading this all trying to absorb as much as possible while trying to decipher what I want to research further.  I appreciate the response.
TEPaul,
I really appreciate your examples, one of my classmates worked for Karl at the National this past summer, I had the pleasure of meeting him in Orlando at the National GCSAA Conference, so I have had the opportunity to get some quality photos of NGLA with some background to go with. I am a huge Raynor fan so the Westhampton example was a true treat.  I worked for Doug Petersan last summer, I'm sure your familiar with his bunker restoration at Baltimore CC, he has an endless supply of knowledge in the field.

JEarle,
I couldn't agree with you any more on the huge impact that course maintenace has upon the whole Restoration/Renovation project.  It is a point I didn't not highlight enough in my intial post, thanks for the reminder.  

[TEPaul]

Well, if Rich really does need convincing about how superlative NGLA is when it's at top speed then I guess he just does need to come play it when it's that way.

If he does and he still doesn't appreciate it or see the significance of it then I would have to conclude; 1/ He just doesn't really appreciate great architecture in its top playing condition or 2/ He just doesn't understand the ramifications of all this stuff and how it all works and fits together.

I hate to sound harsh and doctrinaire but I'm mean after all just look at the place and imagine the ball in motion on those grounds! What's not to get?

Sure Shinnecock is a great great golf course, more normal for the modern golfer, and in that sense may be even considered near the best in the world to challenge ever level of golfer--but much of that has to do with it's increased length over NGLA. I don't think that detracts at all from the extraordinary architecture of NGLA but maybe Rich does for some reason.

No matter, everyone has their own opinions!

[TEPaul]

K. Hegland:

If you're talking to Karl Olsen and working for Doug Petersen too I really don't know what you need to learn from people like us. Those fellows are the best! I don't know Doug Petersen personally but I've heard just amzing things about him in the restoration context from some of the best in the business.

Actually to really understand Karl Olsen the best thing to do is go to NGLA and let him just point things out to you. That works better for me than just talking to him--I don't know what the Hell he's talking about most of the time--some of it's over my head, I guess.

Maybe he's just real bright and sort of in a "transcending" mode in which case Rich Goodale could just call him up for a chat and they could "transcend" together! That might be the best way for Rich to come to appreciate NGLA! I'm not smart enough for that I guess, it just confuses me!

[SL_Solow]

JEarle; I just participated in a conference with several respected greenskeepers.  Several suggested that the new irrigation systems with a greater number of heads allow them to use less rather than more water.  They indicated that the new controls which allow them to select watering on an individual head by head basis at times and for durations as needed allow them to fine tune watering to use the least amount necessary for each portion of the course.  It also allows them to set up the system so that each head only covers a very limited area.  Many touted this as a cost saver.  Others, I am sure, will continue to overwater to achieve wall to wall green.  But it appears that the technology which at first led to the overgreening and soft conditions which many of us bemoan now can be used to counteract these trends provided the club is sympathetic to the idea of firmer and faster conditions.  We are back to what seems to be a constant in these discussions; the knowledge and attitudes of the decision makers is the most important factor in determining the manner in which a club will be built, maintained, and/or altered.  

[Patrick Hitt]

SL,
I'm sure D Cross was involved in that conversation. Now that we have all of these great grass faced bunkers, we need to be able to water around them to brown them out while keeping the greens and fairways happy. This will indeed cut down on water usage and create more colors and textures.

JEarle,
Check the Interview - feature by Dunlop White in the course section. There is a very detailed piece on how the maintenance was included as a major part of the restoration at HV

[Richard_Goodale]

Toms P and H

I do have a little bit of imagination which, as you both know, I am doing my best to suppress in my unrelenting quest for transcendentally pure reason and knoweldge.

Nevertheless, I do have more than just a clue as to how NGLA might play under fast and firm conditions.  Perhaps someday I can caddy for the maintenance-meld Zen master at the Singles to see it for myself.

Rich

[THuckaby2]

Well said on all accounts, Rich!

Suppression of imagination - love it!  

TH

[THuckaby2]

I played NGLA in conditions as slow as they'll ever get, right after aeration.  I use as modern equipment as exists (have to, play too much competitive golf these days not to).

I was indeed blown away, as Rich says.

Nope, that is one special club.  Whereas it would be fun indeed to play with persimmon, steel, et al, it's never NOT gonna be fun, by my take.

But NGLA is unique.  This might not be the case at other courses, where older equipment might indeed help....

TH