[PCCraig]

A golden age golf course gets roughed up by well intended but misguided Green Committees in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. Trees (hundreds, maybe thousands) are planted, fairway lines changed, greens have shrunk, bunkers rebuilt with flashed sand faces, bunkers removed & grassed over, and the tee boxes warped. Otherwise, the design and lay of the land is unchanged.

Many classic clubs across the country could be lumped into the case study above. Many hired architects to come up with "Master Plans" and to consult through a "restoration"/"renovation."

It would seem to me the majority of restoration work is common sense...cut down trees, widen playing corridors, restore the greens to their original size, and rebuild the bunkers & tees. The remaining would be up to construction or in-house team with the guidance of a few aerials.

So, what exactly does an architect add to the process of restoring a classic golf course?

[Don_Mahaffey]

They coordinate the restoration and keep it on track.
What is common sense today was common sense yesterday.
A qualified architect stops the cycle of willy nilly improvements.
IMO, this is more important then channeling dead guy intentions.

[Adam Warren]

I can in some ways see your point.  Tree clearing, etc are certainly things an experienced super and pro might be able to lead.

However, I would think I would feel better about an archie being involved in green resoration for sure, and likely with the bunkering aspect.  These are two very important pieces that I don't know that I could trust it would be done in the way that would translate to the change in todays game.  It is very possible that the bunker that is needing restoration might not even be a factor for todays game and need to be changed and/or moved.  

I am surprised at the Master Plan process.  I won't elaborate much further.

[Terry Poley]

If committees screwed up courses in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's why all of a sudden can they get it right today?

When does a Master Plan fail at a private club?  When committee members start giving their input, and trying to make architectural decisions.  I've seen it happen!  The plan will always fail...

When are master plans successful?  When you hire a talented architect and listen to him…. Let him direct the project, free of personal agendas…  "my father planted that tree", "in my normal saturday group I usually throw a press at them on this hole we can't make this easier for my opponents", "thats my aiming tree!",  "you just want to make the course easier"…. etc.

[David Royer]

Don, I couldn't agree more.  We are in the midst of a master planning process with Brian Silva.  I just got off the phone with a member asking me why do we need an architect and why can't we use a 15 year old plan.  I asked him if much has changed in his business during the same period. I would add that a good architect keeps the green committee motivated and excited to create movement. 

[Chris Shaida]

It sure seems to me that there is also a lot of technical knowledge and experience that needs to be brought to bear about what happens in and under the ground.  I think most of us (non-architects) on this site tend to discuss 'architecture' as though it was all about just what we 'see',  about the pictures.  From my little bit of experience in observing an architectural change, there is a surprising amount of stuff that needs to be thought through and that is quite important that one doesn't really see once it's finished.

[jeffwarne]

A golden age golf course gets roughed up by well intended but misguided Green Committees in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. Trees (hundreds, maybe thousands) are planted, fairway lines changed, greens have shrunk, bunkers rebuilt with flashed sand faces, bunkers removed & grassed over, and the tee boxes warped. Otherwise, the design and lay of the land is unchanged.

Many classic clubs across the country could be lumped into the case study above. Many hired architects to come up with "Master Plans" and to consult through a "restoration"/"renovation."

It would seem to me the majority of restoration work is common sense...cut down trees, widen playing corridors, restore the greens to their original size, and rebuild the bunkers & tees. The remaining would be up to construction or in-house team with the guidance of a few aerials.

So, what exactly does an architect add to the process of restoring a classic golf course?

In your first sentence lies your answer

[Jim_Kennedy]

Peace of mind for the members as they're going to be the ones paying for it.
Peace of mind for the Super, as sans architect, he's going to be the one paying for it.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Pat -

An architect does so much more than just the master plan.

1. Project coordinator
2. Manages contractors
3. Selects shapers
4. Presents to membership
5. Hopefully consults for your club for 10 years+
6. Takes the politics out of the situation
7. Adheres to a budget
8. Knows the difference between a strategic tree and an "emotional" tree.
9. Reestablishes grassing lines (not just widening corridors)

If you follow a strategy of using:

A. In-house resources exclusively
B. "Friends" of the super to do work
C. Corner-cutting tactics to save $

You will get a product that your club deserves and one that will continue to fuel debate, controversy and member dissatisfaction.

Let the pros do their work and get the super and the G&G committee out of the way. Establish a sub-committee to select and interview architects.

If you choose to so things as you discuss above, (IMO) you will be ensuring that the project has 4 masters, 3 directions, 6 priorities and close to Zero % chance of success. AND it may end of costing you more $$ because your construction contractor will manage your project instead of the architect managing the construction.

[William_G]

Pat -

An architect does so much more than just the master plan.

1. Project coordinator
2. Manages contractors
3. Selects shapers
4. Presents to membership
5. Hopefully consults for your club for 10 years+
6. Takes the politics out of the situation
7. Adheres to a budget
8. Knows the difference between a strategic tree and an "emotional" tree.
9. Reestablishes grassing lines (not just widening corridors)

If you follow a strategy of using:

A. In-house resources exclusively
B. "Friends" of the super to do work
C. Corner-cutting tactics to save $

You will get a product that your club deserves and one that will continue to fuel debate, controversy and member dissatisfaction.

Let the pros do their work and get the super and the G&G committee out of the way. Establish a sub-committee to select and interview architects.

If you choose to so things as you discuss above, (IMO) you will be ensuring that the project has 4 masters, 3 directions, 6 priorities and close to Zero % chance of success. AND it may end of costing you more $$ because your construction contractor will manage your project instead of the architect managing the construction.

well stated

[Jason Topp]

Pat - take a look at the following holes at Oak Ridge for the danger of doing it without an architect:

6 - Back tee is at the wrong angle and screws up interesting strategic options that existed before
    - tree removal on left looks goofy and, as a result, some new trees have been planted.

10 - pond expansion has limited options off the tee and tree planted beyond the pond intrudes into the line of the 2nd shot which is difficult enough without the tree.

18 - for some reason there is a new WILLOW TREE short left of the pond.  Why anyone would plant a willow tree on purpose on a golf course, particularly on a hillside is incomprehensible to me.

These changes were under my watch as co-green chair and I think we did more good than harm overall.  However, I suspect a good architect would have avoided these mistakes. 

[Frank Pont]

Pat -

An architect does so much more than just the master plan.

1. Project coordinator
2. Manages contractors
3. Selects shapers
4. Presents to membership
5. Hopefully consults for your club for 10 years+
6. Takes the politics out of the situation
7. Adheres to a budget
8. Knows the difference between a strategic tree and an "emotional" tree.
9. Reestablishes grassing lines (not just widening corridors)

If you follow a strategy of using:

A. In-house resources exclusively
B. "Friends" of the super to do work
C. Corner-cutting tactics to save $

You will get a product that your club deserves and one that will continue to fuel debate, controversy and member dissatisfaction.

Let the pros do their work and get the super and the G&G committee out of the way. Establish a sub-committee to select and interview architects.

If you choose to so things as you discuss above, (IMO) you will be ensuring that the project has 4 masters, 3 directions, 6 priorities and close to Zero % chance of success. AND it may end of costing you more $$ because your construction contractor will manage your project instead of the architect managing the construction.

All the above is very true.

But PCraig is right that GCA  is no Nuclear Physics, its pretty straightforward intellectually compared to the other jobs I have held.
That makes it so surprising that so many well meaning and seamingly intelligent people can get it so wrong

[Ryan Kelly]

Seems pretty simple to me - it's the same reason you wouldn't go to court without an attorney - which I am not.

[PCCraig]

Thank you for all of your replies.

Take a look at the below, which links to a document written by Bruce Hepner. Would Mr. Hepner's list of suggestions, if followed, not cure many of the basic issues associated with restoring classic golf courses? Assuming you had the technical expertise in-house and a low budget, could you not just use the below as a roadmap of sorts for 90% of pre-WWII golf courses?

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/mitgc/article/199389.pdf

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat, probably a lame analogy, but consider:
Why does a football team need a coach?
We all know the desired outcome is simply scoring more then the other team, how hard is that? Based on your personnel you structure an offense/defense/special team and go win. What is the big deal?
The big deal is it takes someone who knows how to organize all the personalities, structure a season plan, structure a game plan, teach it all, and review and adjust it all.

Knowing what to do is the easy part - most of the time - although plenty still get it wrong.
Going thru a classic course renovation is like letting the players coach the team. If you have really great players who can all put aside their ego and follow one of their own, then yes, it is possible.
If you owned an NFL team, is that what you would do?

In your scenario, a member owned club with decentralized decision making is going to have a very tough time finding that one guy everyone will listen to. And that one guy would need to be an incredible politician, architectural/construction expert and have enough skills to develop, communicate, and implement the plan. Until one actually goes through that, I don't think they can really understand all it entails.

Now, if you are a single owner who doesn't have to deal with all the members and politics, have some architectural skills and some construction know how, and can just fix or adjust if you get something wrong, then I believe it is completely doable.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - I've thought the same thing once or twice before, my thinking being that in cases of 'restoration' of a classic, someone like me or you (who know nothing really about architecture/design and have no illusions about our talents) might atually be better at it than a professional architect (who would no doubt have many 'ideas' - and the skill and experience to put those 'in the ground'). But then I think: 'well, a restoration is never a true resoration' -- if not least of all because some of these old classic probably had a few holes that didn't drain very well and a few greens that didn't work very well and a few fairways that were/are too close together -- and so an acutal architect is needed to both restore and improve.

Peter

[Jason Thurman]

Here's the part I struggle with:

Does hiring an architect actually stop political infighting and committee/board member input into decisions?

My club is considering whether or not to begin a master plan adoption process, which would include interviewing architects and hiring the right one. We're mostly doing it because we don't want our superintendent to be pulled in 100 different directions by 100 different members. I guess I'm just not convinced an architect's mandate will carry any more weight than a mandate written by the greens committee and adopted with the board's approval.

Considering our budget and the guys on our greens committee, I really have no worries about what the committee would write into its 10 year plan. I simply wonder how well our superintendent would be allowed to follow it, even at the expense of the whims of influential members who might want to divert the big picture budget for the sake of keeping the rough bright green during the summer.

[Mike_Young]

I think I know what Pat is trying to say.

The problem with many of the suggestions is thinking that every architect will do the right thing.  They may do what they think is the right thing BUT...is it?   So much is opinion in this business.  
For example:  one archie may come in and tell a membership they need to eliminate a greenside bunker on the right side of a green so that members can approach it easier from the cartpath.  Another may look at the same area and say that ODG#1 wanted that bunker there and we need to move the cart path...another may push for steeper grass faced bunkers saying it eliminates maintenance and then another comes in a says face the bunker with sand because it is easier to rake the sand than flymow the grass.  
I think where a good archie will really help is in incorporating water movement that most never realized was there to begin with...JMO

[John Kavanaugh]

On my recent visit to Streamsong our host stood up at our opening dinner and proclaimed that we were blessed by the presence of a GolfWeek Rater and that he would be available to answer any questions that we had concerning the design of the courses.  He was a little embarrassed but gave us all a confident nod assuring us that we are in good hands.  

I would hazard a guess that Pat is now in the same boat, or throne, depending on your perspective.  A young member from the big city with blue ribbon credentials.  I see no reason why he can't guide his club to a successful restoration.  What's the worst thing that can happen, cut down one too many trees?

If I was on a board and had a young member who has and does rate for various magazines I would trust him with such simple work.  But then again, I would never serve on a club board.

[PCCraig]

On my recent visit to Streamsong our host stood up at our opening dinner and proclaimed that we were blessed by the presence of a GolfWeek Rater and that he would be available to answer any questions that we had concerning the design of the courses.  He was a little embarrassed but gave us all a confident nod assuring us that we are in good hands. 

I would hazard a guess that Pat is now in the same boat, or throne, depending on your perspective.  A young member from the big city with blue ribbon credentials.  I see no reason why he can't guide his club to a successful restoration.  What's the worst thing that can happen, cut down one too many trees?

If I was on a board and had a young member who has and does rate for various magazines I would trust him with such simple work.  But then again, I would never serve on a club board.

The case and discussion above has nothing to do with my home course. Even if it did, I'm not a member of the Green Committee or carry any weight whatsoever in any decision making regarding the golf course. Nor does my home course's situation mirror the above case study.

I have no idea what me being a Golf Digest panelist has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

My post should be taken at face value.

[John Kavanaugh]

Architects are so hungry right now that you can hire a competent one for the cost of removing a few trees.  This thread is purely ego based.  Of course you hire an architect.

[Garland Bayley]

I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Did they need an architect?

[John Kavanaugh]

I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Did they need an architect?

Open can, find worm. 

[jeffwarne]

I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Did they need an architect?

How'd they get to the point of needing a restoration?
Unenlightened superintendants?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If committees screwed up courses in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's why all of a sudden can they get it right today?

Terry,

What makes you think that "architects" weren't involved in those changes in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's ?

When does a Master Plan fail at a private club?  When committee members start giving their input, and trying to make architectural decisions. 
I've seen it happen!  The plan will always fail...

Not necessarily.
Often good to great ideas emanate from within a membership.
To posture that all ideas/imput from members should be automatically discarded would be a mistake.
How do you think Aronomink was restored ?
Do you think that architects just drove in the driveway and made their suggestions ?

When are master plans successful?  When you hire a talented architect and listen to him….

Under what basis would you hire an architect ?
Do you think you just call them in and give them carte blanche to alter the golf course ?

Let him direct the project, free of personal agendas…  "my father planted that tree", "in my normal saturday group I usually throw a press at them on this hole we can't make this easier for my opponents", "thats my aiming tree!",  "you just want to make the course easier"…. etc.

Those are suggestions/ideas that usually don't make it past the first meeting of a well structured committee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()