Redesign or renovate?

[Tommy Williamsen]

In the past ten years or so I have played some of the better known courses that have been "renovated." They have had a bunch of tree removed and bunkers resigned and moved. Some greens were rebuilt to accommodate faster greens. These courses were designed by Tilly, Ross, Colt, and some of the better known and respected architects. Before they were renovated many of them had been redesigned, i.e. Oakland Hills & Baltusrol. At some point the powers that were thought the courses needed to be changed. RTJsr came in and made bunches of changes. We all know that history.


Years from now will Pete Dye's courses or TD's courses, or C&C's courses be "tweaked" to make changes or will they remain as intact as they are today. Will some of the bunker styles be redesigned to make them easier to maintain, or will the design remain?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

... and then restored to the original configuration 3 generations later

[Thomas Dai]

Something that might, might, help the powers at be from changing courses much or too much is the large amount of photographic and video records now available for courses.
More photos on clubhouse walls is a useful way to remind future powers that be how things used to be or originally were.
Mind, the next generation usually thinks little of the previous generations work and folks of every generation have ego issues. Vested interests including money making opportunities as well. Plus there’s the likes of equipment and maintenance issues, maybe even climate change issues too?
Time machine time.

Atb

[Forrest Richardson]

All golf courses change, even as we discuss here. In the minutes (or seconds) since you found this thread and clicked, subtle changes have occurred to every course you ever stepped foot upon — from wind, erosion and all sorts of natural causes. They may be subtle and minute — but they are changes. Over time, they mean less depth, more depth, filled-in holes, more holes, dead trees, more trees, wash-outs, rivlets, etc.


I always ask the question on restoration — to what year, month and minute would you like the course "restored"? Of course, there is no answer. We can only restore to a particular time, and that is what "we" — in the present — feel is right and proper. Look at Chicago GC...it's Seth Raynor and the 1930s. Is that OK? I think so, but it;s not Chicago GC from the 1920s or earlier.

[Jeff Schley]

All golf courses change, even as we discuss here. In the minutes (or seconds) since you found this thread and clicked, subtle changes have occurred to every course you ever stepped foot upon — from wind, erosion and all sorts of natural causes. They may be subtle and minute — but they are changes. Over time, they mean less depth, more depth, filled-in holes, more holes, dead trees, more trees, wash-outs, rivlets, etc.


I always ask the question on restoration — to what year, month and minute would you like the course "restored"? Of course, there is no answer. We can only restore to a particular time, and that is what "we" — in the present — feel is right and proper. Look at Chicago GC...it's Seth Raynor and the 1930s. Is that OK? I think so, but it;s not Chicago GC from the 1920s or earlier.

Forrest good point. Today with clubs wanting as much prestige as they can push the envelope for the most famous architect who has ever worked on their course, or claimed to have visited. Without proper historical documentation (which some have), it is a guessing game to whom to attribute what to whom. Others don't care and just care about the marketing aspect.

[Tom_Doak]

I always ask the question on restoration — to what year, month and minute would you like the course "restored"? Of course, there is no answer. We can only restore to a particular time, and that is what "we" — in the present — feel is right and proper. Look at Chicago GC...it's Seth Raynor and the 1930s. Is that OK? I think so, but it;s not Chicago GC from the 1920s or earlier.

Forrest:


I have been consulting for Chicago Golf Club for quite a while now, and we never really talked about a date to restore to until last year.  Before that, we weren't really rebuilding much -- just taking down trees, re-establishing mowing lines [based in part on an aerial photo from the late 1930's], and adding a couple of back tees.


The club did take on the job last fall to rebuild all of their bunkers, and in doing so, the Board voted to restore several lost bunkers that had been in Raynor's 1925 plan.

[mike_beene]

You probably have a lot more freedom redoing a course like mine where less acclaimed architect’s ( Bendelow and later Ralph Plummer who changed half the holes) did some good but not historically sacred work. Nobody claims you ruined the Mona Lisa.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Not sure about that.  I recently lost a project to a gca who convinced them that a 1971 Floyd Farely design should be restored.  My reaction was, "Whaaaaa?".

[Carl Rogers]

IMO, Riverfront 2.0 will be a course with less than 50 percent the number of bunkers than the 1999 version.  It is already most of the way there, but it needs a professional re-work to make it appear that all the bunkering was never there.


For many years bunker maintenance was non-existent.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest summed it up well.  The other thing I will add is that some things (courses included) age well and some don’t.  It is very subjective.