[Lou_Duran]

I've always felt that it was more of a marketing Phenom. In the 80's, old line clubs were under pressure from a slew of new options and needed to differentiate their courses.  A group of architects siezed on this and became "experts" of D.O.G.  X or Y. and went around to Clubs of that pedigree and sold them on the need of Restoration.  It soon became a self-fulling prophesy as Club A saw what Club B anc C were doing and had to get on the Band Wagon.

Say's Law- supply begets its own demand.  I remember talking to a relatively well-known architect several years ago who said he found a niche which kept him so busy updating one ODG's courses that he didn't pursue new construction any longer.  Key was "specializing" on a designer who had a large body of work throughout the country (geographic diversification), and establishing himself as an "expert" before the better known architects jumped into the business and grew it.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Personally I think a good restrarion project is harder to pull off than an orignal piece of work.
I admire those who choose this delicate task...they know there is always going to be somebody who says it is not as good as the original.....that is a constant battle I would imagine.
So many great courses have been allowed to decline from thier original form by time and ill informed greens commitees, that I love to see a good restoration job completed.
The one that always comes to my mind in Pine Valley...those hidden bunkers in the trees..the double fairway at number 17.....We really do not know how Crump et al wnated the tress growth to "line" the fairways, my guess is that they wanted each hole to be self defined and as such did plan on alot of the tree growth, but clearly theu did not place bunkers in locales they thought there would be trees later.
It is my favourite course anywhere...but would love to see some of those areas.."restored"

[Tom_Doak]

I get frustrated when what I do is looked down upon as disingenuous.

Ian:

My apologies as well.  You're not the guy I was looking down on. 


Michael Wharton-Palmer:

I wouldn't agree that a restoration is harder to pull off than a new design.  They are just different in nature.  The one part of restoration that IS certainly harder is the political part.  It's much harder to please 300 members than it is to please a single client.

[JNagle]

I think there is another factor associated with one doing restoration rather than new.  Location.
I joined Ron Forse nearly 15 years ago.  At that time Ron was removed by four years from his
last new course (yes, Ron actually did some new course designs).  At that time Forse Design did not
meet the criteria for acceptance into ASGCA.  There were a number of courses still being constructed in
PA and close by once I joined Ron in 1998.  When we inquired as to why we did not get this job or that, we were
often told it was because we were not members of ASGCA.  When someone would call ASGCA looking
for an architect within a specific region they would suggest their own members, no matter the ability or track record.
As the new work was drying up and couple that with being labeled "restoration" only, one must tend to lean towards the
other category - restoration vs. new.  Additionaly, Ron has always maintained that every Club has paid their bills
whereas some developers have not. If you are not a known commodity outside your general location, it can be difficult to
garner new work.  I know there are no boundaries in design, but there can be limiting factors.  Known for one thing and not
the other.  We have often heard the comment, "oh you guys do new work!"

Another note worth mentioning is that not all architects promote themselves as being an expert of one
particular ODG.  Some place those labels upon them.  The philosophy of being "expert" of one architect is flawed.  
Just as architects who only perform new designs saw as the industry fell off in the last few years.  There are principles
of quality architectural design that are evident in most of the ODG's work that can be the basis for restoartion work.
No project can ever be sold on the just the basis of what an ODG did, rather there must be sound architecture and reason.  
Not just for the sake of that is what the course once was.

[Ian Andrew]

Personally I think a good restrarion project is harder to pull off than an orignal piece of work.

Michael,

It's actually not.

The scope is smaller and the extra issues like enviornmental legislation rarely creep in.
It's harder to build new. I'll support that end of Mike's arguement all day.

That said building a course with integrated housing (and yes I've done that too) is twice as hard as a stand alone course. I built a course called Ballantrae G&CC north of Toronto for Doug that was Audoban Certified fromthe opening (that's a lot of detailing of filter pockets and aquatic planting), had an on site treatment system that needed the golf course to work (involving massive infiltration systems buried within the holes that had to be accounted for in the design), infliltrations sites for groundwater recharge (which the whole course had to drain into), storm water management system involving pond liners (a bugger of a thing to do well with manholes feeding them). Throw in the restrictions of legislation, all the servicing pipes crossing the site. Then throw in changes to the housing cut/fills (that you have to deal with) and a change in loting mid build and frankly a stand alone course is a breeze.

I still think all work has merit as long as it's well built, no matter how small.

[Mike_Young]

I find it fascinating that you all believe someone couldn't simply choose to do "that" work instead of new work because they enjoyed it.

I've got a friend who is a mason, he repairs churches and government buildings mainly (old family business). He occasionally does new work and hates it. When I asked him about the work he said he would rather do the restoration work because these buildings need to be there for future generations to appreciate long after he's gone.

Not everyone desires to be in the car at the centre of the parade. Not all motivations are the same for being an architect.

Ian,
I wasn't thinking of you or Jim when I made my comments.
But I do agree with you on your above statement regarding your friend the mason.  It's is a good example of just what I'm trying to say.  The important thing is; HE IS A MASON.  I could read 10 books on masonry and the different techniques over the years and how Ronald Doss, the great mason from 100 years ago laid bricks and I still would not be a mason.  Your a golf architect so f you choose to do restoration work that's fine but don't let some guy come and tell a club that he slept with this ODG and he knows what  he would have done when the guy has never been involved in the entire design  process for a project.  That's all I'm saying.  ( a couple of Knollwood guys are here in Costa Rica this week.) One asked if I knew you and that he had met with you.  I let them know your beard was fake.
Jim,
ASGCA has a lot of fine individuals as members but the organization is a joke and a lot of the members know that.  The interesting thing to watch over the next few years is how their requirements will change so that they can continue to receive dues paying members and how will they allow many of the members to remain members when they will be out of the business.  Just read their recent promotions where they are promoting things they would have never touched a few years ago and watch how many vendors they will be hitting up.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()