[PCCraig]

Here in Chicago a Michelin three-star chef, Grant Achatz of Alinea is opening a new restaurant called “Next” which will completely change its menu every 12 weeks. Seems simple enough, but the catch is that every menu will represent a specific place and time. The first menu will be “Paris, 1906.”

(For more information on the restaurant and the chef, see the following very interesting article from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/dining/16next.html )

In creating the menu, Chef Achatz researched cookbooks from that period and began making dishes, starting with a soup, made to exact classical specifications. The response was polarizing. Some who sampled the soup thought it tasted "French" and "perfect"; others couldn't finish the bowl.

So what does this have to golf course architecture? Chef Achatz and modern day golf course renovators have a lot more in common that you might think. They both now have the distinct benefit of advanced technology and information, they both follow specific blueprints of a past time, and they both have a customer, with a changing palette, that they are working to please.

This got me thinking as to how golf course architects reach back into time to restore classic golf courses and it raised a few questions. Should architects reconstruct golf holes as closely as possible to the original, despite if they think it’s even a good golf hole…or do they have a duty to change it slightly in order to make the best version of that hole? How do we know that the golden age architects would of built the same golf holes that they did today, given modern technology? Should golf courses (and restaurants) be treated as museums?

[JESII]

In my opinion it all depends on who's going to play the course...is it today and tomorrow's players? Or is it the players from 80 or more years ago?

[Rob Bice]

Great questions!  A few thoughts:

1.  The restoration/renovation process (club board interest, membership support, financial considerations, etc.) are complicating factors.

2.  It seems that one of the driving forces behind a restoration/renovation is to undo work done over time and through successive green committees and superintendents.  While well intentioned, the various committees make their own subjective assessments as to what tweaks could improve the design and over many years you end up with somehting that doesn't fit.

3.  Getting membership support is a huge factor.  There are many hopeful cooks in the kitchen and the explanation of 1) this is how the course was originally designed carries a lot of weight compared to 2) this is how we can make the course better.

In my opinion, a lot comes down to the ability and reputation of the architect responsible for the restoration/renovation.  Curious to hear other thoughts.

[George Pazin]

Mostly depends on who's doing the deciding, imho.

[SL_Solow]

I think we are missing the point of Pat's inquiry.  Clearly what will be done is dependent on who makes the decisions.  I think Pat is asking the Board's views on the substance of those decisons; what do each of us believe should be done?  I have had the experience of being one of those "in charge" during the restoration/renovation of a golden age course.  I think it is a mixed bag.  Even for club players, the new equipment has made most of the older courses play a little short so if there is room to lengthen them it may be adviseable in spots.  additionally, the new grasses and standards of maintenace may require some minor tweaking if the club wants conditions similar to others.  But for the most part, absent some terrible weakness, I believe it is usually best to try and stay very close to the original framework.  Most of the significant changes I have seen make good courses worse, not better despite the best intentions of the members and architects.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

To me, there is a difference between the restaurant and the golf course ... technology. 

If today's golfers were asked to go back to 1920's equipment, and green speeds of 5 or 6, then restorations to that era would be VERY controversial.  But as long as they get to use today's equipment to play the golf course with modern maintenance standards, then the restoration of the design is not really a huge change.  The golf course certainly plays easier for people in 2010 than it did in 1920, but golfers whose handicaps are over 8 or 10 will most likely enjoy that change instead of arguing about it.

[Jeff_Lewis]

You use the word "best".  Best in whose view? Most of the damage to great old courses was done precisely with the intention of "improving" them or "bringing them up to date".

To do a real restoration, you need to respect the original architect enough to want to trust what you reasonably believe were his original intentions.  If that means a bunker has to move, that's ok. The slippery slope of "improvement" is quite treacherous.  At least when everyone's goal is to remain consistent with original intent, that keeps everybody on the same page.  Essentially it goes like this: "Tillinghast or Ross or Colt was a legendary genius, and if he wanted it this way, who am I to question that?"

If you don't like a hole on a Tillinghast or Ross course that's pretty much as it was originally intended, feel free to change it.  That's just not a restoration, and probably not a great idea either. 

[Tom MacWood]

I don't get the comparison. There is obviously a huge difference between changing a menu and changing a golf course. Menus change regularly and its relatively easy to do so, not the case with golf courses.

If it were possible to take the chef's concept and apply it to a golf course some interesting products could be Boston 1898; London 1914; Melbourne 1928; LA 1926. Unfortunately doing like that would not be possible, or at least not practical.

IMO there are a relatively small number of courses that should be preserved and protected.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I tend to agree with you on this one.

Its marketing. I would love to taste the difference between tomato soups circa 1910 and 2010.  They are still made of tomatoes, no? Maybe the new genetically created tomatoes taste different, or we add more salt or more cream, but how much different could that be?

And, there are many renovation projects labeled different ways. Imagine a gca moving a green side bunker 15 feet to accomodate an existing cart path that was never there in the original course.  If the club was marketing it as a restoration, moving that bunker wouldn't change their marketing one iota.

To answer Pat's question, I believe most gca would follow the make it best for our clients and now (and the reasonable foreseable future) It is a rather new, and IMHO limited, concept to restore something to some past time frame.  If you consider any design (other than museum dioramas) to be creating a funtional place for its intended purpose, then restoration is really sort of a false design premise, unless that  concept happens to make the place the best it can be, which could theoretically be possible.  But, it rarely is given how things change - besides cart paths, enviro reggies, and more urban runoff changing drainage patterns, so much has changed in the last 80 years, it just isn't the case in many situations.

For those courses lucky enough to be caught in time warps, restoration is most likely the way to go. For others, it is a consideration, but not necessarily THE consideration.

Now, to those who point to adding waterfalls, etc. to classic courses, I suggest that is a matter of poor design not the overall concept of what time period (now and the future vs the past) to design the course to.  After all, following the latest trend isn't any better than replicating a trend from the past.

And, perhaps true minimalism is to know when to do not a lot, or assessing the cost benefit of a waterfall vs whatever was there.  I don't know if XXX CC needed a waterfall in 1982, but it may have, IF the primary goal was to sell new memberships and the course looked dated. 

In another thread, we talk about the effects of WWII.  I do know that it wasn't just golf that strove for a modern look of design in that period, and we can't fault that generation for wanting to truly reinvent the world after the great conflice.  So, there is a factor of whose opinion makes it best, which is influenced by lots of non golf factors. 

Saying that we have the final answer now, in the form of restoration is a pretty narrow prism.  Such certainty probably existed in the minds of those who added those waterfalls, too, you know!!

[PCCraig]

In my opinion it all depends on who's going to play the course...is it today and tomorrow's players? Or is it the players from 80 or more years ago?

Jim:

Only today's golfers can play today's courses. But what does, or should, the golfer value more? An "authentic" experience, meaning playing a course exactly as it was, or what the architect (chef) believes would be the most pleasurable experience?

[PCCraig]

I don't get the comparison. There is obviously a huge difference between changing a menu and changing a golf course. Menus change regularly and its relatively easy to do so, not the case with golf courses.

Tom,

Clearly you don't have the slightest idea of the amount of work, time, and risk involved in changing menus at the 3-star Michelin level. In many ways I would argue it's easier to change a golf course.

When you say "IMO there are a relatively small number of courses that should be preserved and protected. " does that mean you believe that renovations are a waste, and that any work a GCA does on a golf course should be towards creating the best options on the land given?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I presume you mean "restorations" in the post above?

I have often opined myself that there are a relatively small number of courses that should be preserved and protected.  Well, preserved. Protected implies some sort of legal protection, which is also an interesting issue.

But, in preservation, I look at it this way - If Ross did 400 courses, but 300 were paper jobs, which Ross courses "ought" to be preserved?  The top 100 he took a personal interest in and the "best" of the paper jobs for posterity?  That also equates to the top 25% Ross courses.  Or should it be the top 2, 5, or 10%?  Top 50% seems like too much to me.  Maybe half the 100 he took an interest in?  Or the ones where something happpened, like a US Open?  Or where Ross came back to work a remodel?

What is the standard?

And, the truth is, not many courses at all are anything like Ross left them, changed by greens committees, the depression, the war, and other gca's.  It may be getting easier, but its hard to know what the course looked like.  It's all just a guess in too many cases, but championed by those who love the thought of restorations as a great thing.

PS-Nice win against the guppies last night. I hope the Hawks didn't tick them off enough to beat the Stars tonight, but rather just wore them out.

[PCCraig]

Jeff:

If you're not tasting a soup exactly the same way as it was made in Paris 1906 with the same ingredients...is it the same soup? What happens if the soup tastes bad? Do you have an obligation to change it, or preserve it because that is the "correct" thing to do in a restoration?

So if a "restoration" or "renovation" isn't restoring or renovating the course to it's exact previous state...then what is it really?

[PCCraig]

Pat,

I presume you mean "restorations" in the post above?

I have often opined myself that there are a relatively small number of courses that should be preserved and protected.  Well, preserved. Protected implies some sort of legal protection, which is also an interesting issue.

But, in preservation, I look at it this way - If Ross did 400 courses, but 300 were paper jobs, which Ross courses "ought" to be preserved?  The top 100 he took a personal interest in and the "best" of the paper jobs for posterity?  That also equates to the top 25% Ross courses.  Or should it be the top 2, 5, or 10%?  Top 50% seems like too much to me.  Maybe half the 100 he took an interest in?  Or the ones where something happpened, like a US Open?  Or where Ross came back to work a remodel?

What is the standard?

And, the truth is, not many courses at all are anything like Ross left them, changed by greens committees, the depression, the war, and other gca's.  It may be getting easier, but its hard to know what the course looked like.  It's all just a guess in too many cases, but championed by those who love the thought of restorations as a great thing.

PS-Nice win against the guppies last night. I hope the Hawks didn't tick them off enough to beat the Stars tonight, but rather just wore them out.

Jeff:

Yes I meant restorations, sorry.

I like your Ross example. His most famous course, #2, has been "restored" by C&C. But all things considered was it a restoration or was it forward progress? If it were a restoration, they should of restored everything, including the greens, to the same shape it was when Ross first left it. In my mind what they is probably closer to what most other GCAs do with a "restoration": bring the course up to date with classical styling (bunkers, wire grass, and wider fairways).

P.S. - It was a good win last night. We needed that! I hope the Sharks and Stars wear each other out as I would like to see them both drop in the Western standings!!

[Rob Bice]

But, in preservation, I look at it this way - If Ross did 400 courses, but 300 were paper jobs, which Ross courses "ought" to be preserved?  The top 100 he took a personal interest in and the "best" of the paper jobs for posterity?  That also equates to the top 25% Ross courses.  Or should it be the top 2, 5, or 10%?  Top 50% seems like too much to me.  Maybe half the 100 he took an interest in?  Or the ones where something happpened, like a US Open?  Or where Ross came back to work a remodel?

What is the standard?

And, the truth is, not many courses at all are anything like Ross left them, changed by greens committees, the depression, the war, and other gca's.  It may be getting easier, but its hard to know what the course looked like.  It's all just a guess in too many cases, but championed by those who love the thought of restorations as a great thing.

PS-Nice win against the guppies last night. I hope the Hawks didn't tick them off enough to beat the Stars tonight, but rather just wore them out.

Let's assume a club makes a decision to restore it's course thus eliminating the "what is the standard" question.  In practical terms, a restoration is largely about undoing the changes you mention that happen over successive green committees and gcas.

Slight changes to the original design (if you can truly know the original design) sound good in theory but in practice are very difficult when you are dealing with a membership with varying degrees of knowledge who are paying the bills.  Even assuming a knowledgeable membership, slight changes to improve the design are subjective and have the potential to leave you in the same position you were in prior to the restoration.

Although I don't have a Hawks logo, I am a fan.  Crazy how tight the West is right now.  The Hawks are in fourth place but could easily miss the playoffs.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't get the comparison. There is obviously a huge difference between changing a menu and changing a golf course. Menus change regularly and its relatively easy to do so, not the case with golf courses.

Tom,

Clearly you don't have the slightest idea of the amount of work, time, and risk involved in changing menus at the 3-star Michelin level. In many ways I would argue it's easier to change a golf course.

When you say "IMO there are a relatively small number of courses that should be preserved and protected. " does that mean you believe that renovations are a waste, and that any work a GCA does on a golf course should be towards creating the best options on the land given?

I'm sure there is some work and risk involved, on the other hand most of the best restaurants I know have menus based on the best, most fresh ingredients, which usually means what is in season, and the menus change at the very least with the season, if not more often, sometimes weekly or even daily. It is not that uncommon. Many elite golf courses go decades without being changed. I don't think the analogy works.

No, I don't believe renovation necessarily is a waste. If a mediocre golf course can be made into a good to very good course, by all means. It is when you start tinkering with the very good to great course that I begin to worry.

[Sean_A]

I tend to agree with Tommy Mac.  I don't know how many courses should be protected or to which optimal date, but likely for many courses these decisions would be tied into great/famous events which took place.  So for the "protected" courses authenticity (nont sure this is the right word for it) should be goal. 

For most other courses a restoration/renovation (I think the two words are often interchanged even though renovation is nearly always the case) is down to what the goals of the job are.  Its impossible to say which aspects carry more weight in a general way.  For my part, regardless of original intent I would almost always like to see greens enlarged and irregularly shaped.  There are far too many circular greens which are less than captivating for no good reason. 

Ciao

[Bernie Bell]

deleted

[Mike_Young]

All of this is mute if you restore to an exact or if you renovate unless you also maintain it to the same specs that were present at that time.  Greens running 12 on greens meant for 6 or 7...fairway heights, bunker raking, tee heights...I would consider a large part of authenticity to be the maintenance specs...JMO

[Ian Andrew]

It's fascinating to think of the philosophical swings that renovation has gone through with Golden Age courses in particular.

There was the obvious run of modernization that paid no attention to either history or context. This idea was best described by one of Tom Fazio's associates who said to me, "Everything can be improved." I asked, “Even the 12th at Augusta National? His answer was “Everything.”

There was a strong counter-reaction to this where original work was preserved by clubs. There had been so many horrible Modern Renovations done to courses by the Golden Age architects. Clubs lamented what they lost and so did a small group of architects and they collectively begin to return lost work. The movement gained strength and more architects took on that approach. The reaction to this was a belief by some that the restoration movement went to far and some adaption was necessary because the game had changed. The suggestion that not every Golden Age course should be preserved and some rebuilding occurred in the Golden Age.

There has been another more recent swing where there's a return to a little more change. The architects are far savvier in hiding their work and because of this are now making far more changes to the Golden Age courses that in the recent past. We seem to be pushing towards a hybrid movement, where the fabric of the course is preserved, but the puzzle pieces of architecture are moved more to fit a different narrative.

So, what is authentic? Depends on when you ask the question. The answer will reflect popular thought, availability of work, who’s dominant in the business. Yet each change came in pattern comes from someone comfortably out of step with the convention of the day.

[Peter Pallotta]

Fascinating indeed, Ian - thanks.
To borrow the great Roland Barthes quote that Greg supplied on another thread:
"Architecture is always dream and function, expression of a utopia and instrument of a convenience."
It sounds like smart-savvy gca types have figured out how to marry the two and create a 'Convenient Utopia' (which, as Woody Allen might quip, is one of my favourite kinds).
Maybe not coincidentally -- sociologically speaking -- it is also a Convenient Utopia that the tech world & social networks have been dangling in front of consumers (and investors) with increasing fervor.   

[Ally Mcintosh]

Put more simply, more architects are now trying to mirror the look and feel of the Golden Age / the original course, the style.


Once that’s done, it gives more license to move in to full renovation mode because 90% of people think you are restoring by just returning the look and feel.

[Ira Fishman]

Ian and Ally,


Fascinating insights. Can you give some examples of the courses that prompted the insights?


Thanks,


Ira

[jeffwarne]

Put more simply, more architects are now trying to mirror the look and feel of the Golden Age / the original course, the style.


Once that’s done, it gives more license to move in to full renovation mode because 90% of people think you are restoring by just returning the look and feel.

Has anyone ever actually restored a course to original turf heights and fairway/green contours?
Because some of the most interesting greens ever built are unplayable other than at super benign hole placements at current green speeds

[Chris Mavros]

Restoration seems to be the trendy way of saying renovation nowadays IMO.  So many projects going on where the claim is the course is being "restored," but then it's longer, more difficult and the greens are faster, so it's essentially very similar to how courses were changed 20-30 years ago, but now it's under the guise of restoration when back then they were a little more up front about it and termed it as "improvement" or "enhancement." 


It's very much an arms race to the 1920's as each course wants to make sure they stay relevant and can claim authentic Golden Age characteristics.  I have not yet seen any of these restoration projects include dialing back the green speeds though, which to me is one of the inconsistencies no one seems to want to address, or at least put into practice.   


So in response to the OP, progress is prevalent in every project but to me much of it is shrouded as authenticity.  In reality, there are very few courses that should be, or even can be, preserved to original design, so the chase for authenticity shouldn't be as important as actual progress and at the end of the day, that it's the best golf course it can be, today. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()