Restoration Experts (branched from the "Whitten's Big 4" thread)

[Ronald Montesano]

Ought we not turn our attention to the finer restoration architects in the game today? Ran's comment on the work done at Orchard Lake (see recent Orchard Lake piece) brought this to the frontal lobe. Would Hanse, Coore or Doak be supplanted by restoration experts in the restoration field, or would they occupy spots on both lists?

I know that everything begins with the property/course you are given (and also the extent to which it was let go), so it reasons that a MacKenzie restoration opportunity would trump a Montesano one (should I ever hire myself out to design a course.) I suspect that there are other obvious points to this, but this is the question that I bring to the table: who has brought out the best in a classic course in the last 10 years? Give your list of designer names and the courses you use for testimony.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, the trends in most magazines are for more lists, to include more people, so in general, I would think they would put different folks on the list, but there would be no hard and fast rules.

Most architects do (or did...) a mix of new and renovation/restoration, so it would be very possible for one to show up on both lists in any given year.  Certainly Doak, Hanse and Foster might do enough of both to warrant inclusions on both, no?

I know this isn't answering your final question, but is aimed more at your initial premise.

[Ronald Montesano]

Honesty Sincerity is what we're after in this thread, Jeff. It helps to know which architects are able to find work in restoration. I imagine it's like continuing professional education, in that you need to really know an ODG architect and his nuances, unless it's not. It might be possible to go in, get the job, then study the plans and do a bang-up job. I hope this thread gains some strength.

[Tom_Doak]

Honesty Sincerity is what we're after in this thread, Jeff. It helps to know which architects are able to find work in restoration. I imagine it's like continuing professional education, in that you need to really know an ODG architect and his nuances, unless it's not. It might be possible to go in, get the job, then study the plans and do a bang-up job. I hope this thread gains some strength.

I think the part about knowing an architect and his nuances is very much overrated ... it's a sales pitch by guys who have done more than one restoration of any designer's work.  It is a mistake to stereotype Donald Ross or Alister MacKenzie or ANY great architect.  They all had things they did a little bit differently, but it was not consistent from one course to the next, because different crews built their courses in different places.

Restoration is really about looking at all the old information on what actually WAS built at the course in question, and taking the time to make sure you are rebuilding it faithfully.  It is more about execution [shaping] than it is about "design", or it should be, anyway.

Unfortunately, because so many guys are trying to make a living off it now, there are a lot of restorations that are much bigger than what they need to be.  Not every chest pain requires open heart surgery.

[Frank Pont]

Tom,

Totally agree with you on that its all about finding old info (aerials, bunker pics) and shaping the old details back in.

However I do not think you can generalize across architects on the importance of knowing their stuff. In my view in depth architect knowledge is more useful with certain classic archies than others.

Colt (and in most cases his partners A &M) was almost boringly consistent in his approach, even with different builders he used. Therefore knowledge of his design philosophy is quite useful, especially there where no detailed old information is available. I find that if something is odd on one of his courses, or does not comply with his design principles, its 90% + sure it has been changed or tampered with.

On the other hand Simpson was totally excentric (or crazy as a bat as one colleague called him), so you never know if something odd was part of his design.

[Jud_T]

Ron,

I was going to mention Ron Prichard in the other thread.  I've yet to see a course he's restored/renovated that isn't really well done, including courses that were mediocre on opening day.

[Ronald Montesano]

including courses that were mediocre on opening day.

Tantalizing! You mean that they were mediocre and he has restored them to that initial mediocrity? This is a serious question, for this reason: someone is currently restoring a William Harries design in suburban Buffalo. It is called Brookfield CC and is an average design on a nice piece of land.

[SL_Solow]

Ronald M.'s most recent post raises the age old question, what are we talking about when we use terms like "restoration".  Are we really trying to put the course back to the way it was?  Are we trying to recreate the style and feel given the passage of time and changes in equipment?  Some architects have used the term"sympathetic renovation" to describe this effort.  In the case of a mediocre course, do we want it "restored".  Do we want a near "redo" or do we merely want to add some length where required, restore corridors, fix up the bunkers etc?  Should Tom Doak have left the routing alone on Medinah 1?  While I concede that some iconic courses should be left alone to evolve as nature requires under the stewardship of people who appreciate the course, there are many others that do not rise to that level.  Still others have been sufficiently changed over time that "putting them back" is impractical.  So what is it that we are evaluating?

[Tim Lewis]

Honesty Sincerity is what we're after in this thread, Jeff. It helps to know which architects are able to find work in restoration. I imagine it's like continuing professional education, in that you need to really know an ODG architect and his nuances, unless it's not. It might be possible to go in, get the job, then study the plans and do a bang-up job. I hope this thread gains some strength.

I think the part about knowing an architect and his nuances is very much overrated ... it's a sales pitch by guys who have done more than one restoration of any designer's work.  It is a mistake to stereotype Donald Ross or Alister MacKenzie or ANY great architect.  They all had things they did a little bit differently, but it was not consistent from one course to the next, because different crews built their courses in different places.

Restoration is really about looking at all the old information on what actually WAS built at the course in question, and taking the time to make sure you are rebuilding it faithfully.  It is more about execution [shaping] than it is about "design", or it should be, anyway.

Unfortunately, because so many guys are trying to make a living off it now, there are a lot of restorations that are much bigger than what they need to be.  Not every chest pain requires open heart surgery.

The club that I worked over the summer is doing some renovation work this fall. I don't think it would really be considered a "restoration", but I wanted to bring it up because the club is actually not a hundred percent on who actually designed the course. They think that Tom Bendelow might of had something to do with it because he designed a course next door, but other than that they don't know much. I would be interested to know how a architect would handle a situation where they were doing a renovation or restoration at a course whose designer is unknown. Does it alter how one would go about the project?

[Jud_T]

including courses that were mediocre on opening day.

Tantalizing! You mean that they were mediocre and he has restored them to that initial mediocrity? This is a serious question, for this reason: someone is currently restoring a William Harries design in suburban Buffalo. It is called Brookfield CC and is an average design on a nice piece of land.

That would fall into the renovation/resto category.  See your PM.

[Ronald Montesano]

Saw the PM. It didn't answer my question of, was the mediocrity preserved or improved upon?

[Ian Andrew]

Ought we not turn our attention to the finer restoration architects in the game today?

When talking about the best in the business ... No!
The measure is what you can do on your own thoughts, not someone elses.

If you consider this harsh, remember what I do for a living, I think I'm being honest with myself as well as the rest of you.
Greatness comes from being an original.

[Jud_T]

Saw the PM. It didn't answer my question of, was the mediocrity preserved or improved upon?

Improved upon.

[Jason Thurman]

including courses that were mediocre on opening day.

Tantalizing! You mean that they were mediocre and he has restored them to that initial mediocrity? This is a serious question, for this reason: someone is currently restoring a William Harries design in suburban Buffalo. It is called Brookfield CC and is an average design on a nice piece of land.

That's the gap between restoration and renovation, isn't it?

It gets really tricky when you talk about a course whose architectural plans don't match the product that was built. For instance, while my club's current iteration largely reflects the course that opened on day 1, a glance at the original routing map shows that many of the design features were never built, particularly a large number of fairway bunkers. Personally, if we undertook a restoration, I'd love to see the incorporation of many of those originally drawn but never built bunkers. I've heard Tim Liddy refer to such approaches as "sympathetic restorations," where the architect approaches the restoration of the course with some liberty.