Well, lots of things to chime in on here.....
Geoff,
I wasn't specific enough in putting words in your mouth, but I meant my comments to apply only to you participating at Rivera. I got the sense that you would love to be involved in pure restoration projects, but only with full control. Call it politics or compromise, but I felt from your comments that you are too idealistic to want to participate in the actual renovation of Rivera already going in a different direction than you want.
It is a fact that courses change over time, and club needs change over time, both of which make accurate restoring very difficult to quantify, and certainly subject to intelligent discussion. In my view, there will always be difficult decisions and compromise,in the process, without a definitive answer as to "What is right". As we have discussed here before, in the real world there are many competing objectives that force compromise on almost every project. The subset of architects, members and owners that would join you in preserving many courses exactly like they werein the 1930's, even if they don't fit current objectives, is (like it or not) very small.
I can agree with your stance in "truth in labeling" concept. I would like to see a small number of signifcant courses by classic architects preserved just as was. How would those courses or what year they would be preserved be chosen or defined, I haven't a clue. But, like you and others, it would be great to play an Oakmont, Riv. or whatever as it was for historical study and pure pleasure.
For clubs not doing that, architects and the USGA should proabably say "We are looking to the future and not the past in these renovations. We are trying to be sympathetic to the original, but make no guarantees" as we must insure future viability of the facility for its intended uses (including, as applicable, the Owners desire to host a tournament.") On the other hand, who but lawyers would want more disclaimer statements (on scorecards in this case) for the obvious?
The term they use when they convert a train station to a museum or restaurant is "adaptive reuse". It means they are trying to save the exterior of the structure while making it economically viable with a different use. It doesn't seem quite as applicable to golf, but if you figure that the game has changed so dramatically as to be unrecognizable to Hogan, perhaps not.
As an architect, I can tell you that it is hard to defend your designs against an infinite universe of options of "What if". In essence, the critic throws out the "it didn't have to be that way" making the architect prove a negative, which is always impossible. I can also say truthfully, it's always easier to criticise work after its done than it is to turn out a final product.
You obviously know more about 7 and 8 than I from my few times playing the course and "photograph opinions". I wasn't critising no. 8 at all, nor do I think there is a secret back foor. It's just that pros figure this stuff out fast! I did want to ask if the green surface itself was redone? I recall it being high on the right front, which might make an approach from the right a bit difficult to hold? Can you enlighten me as to your opinion as to why it was obvious to many it wouldn't work well?
Admittedly, I was speculating on how Mel Brooks would like to look down on a sandy waste area! The story of Opryland is true enough though. Specifically, do you think the USGA or PGA tour would play an scrubby sand hazard between fairways, given the pros propensity for "fairness?" And if not, what is the viable alternative, if not rough?
Tom MacWood -
Remodelling University focuses on the process of creating and selling a master plan and renovation program. It certainly stresses full disclosure and continual communication as to objectives. As part of that, determining your need, including whether to restore, renovate sympathetically, or blow it out and start over is covered in general. Each club must make up its own mind of course, and at San Antonio, we had two club managers who were facing those types of decisions.
As to the general tone of these threads, I felt the invectives going back and forth regarding Riviera really started with the titles of some of the original threads, notably "The outrage at Riviera", which seemed to set an "anything goes" tone. Without that, perhaps the discussions could have focused on more specific topics, as I personally prefer.
And does this site change modern architecture? I know that I have tried a few things I may not have otherwise tried, if not inspired by the various sections of this site (including old course photos)