Tom MacWood,
Since I'm quite friendly with the project chairman, green chairman, some of the officers, board members and members at Hollywood, I"m not speculating, I know what the directives were.
And, as much as you and I might have liked to have had the golf course restored, it was never going to happen.
The diverse membership was never interested in returning the golf course to its punitive, former form.
Perhaps the easiest way to convey a "sense" of the membership revolves around the third hole, a good par 4.
There is a tree that was planted to the left and short of the green, it interferes with play to the green from the left side, and rough has been allowed to grow out underneath it into the fairway preventing a ground approach through this rough.
Rees wanted to eliminate the tree and intrusive rough, returning the hole to its original play, but his suggestion was rejected. There was a movement to save the tree, for reasons which totally escape me, that prevailed.
Other members, including members who originally came to the club as tennis members, created other barriers.
You seem to labor under the false notion that all clubs want to restore their golf course.
You have to ask yourself, how did all the changes that took place over the many years since the golf course opened, happen in the first place ? Rees certainly wasn't involved.
The membership/leadership just changed them, sometimes with and sometimes without an architect.
A club, like Hollywood, may feel that the course needs to be modernized in order to remain a fair test for its members and for competitions. I know that Hollywood felt that their 18th hole was a weak finishing hole, and wanted to improve it, which they did.
Architects are rarely invited into existing clubs and given carte blanche, usually they are invited in because the membership or leadership wants to make changes, and the architect is the professional hired to transition those changes from ideas into reality. Architects cannot take it upon themselves to restore the golf course, irrespective of the memberships intentions.
It's interesting that you have always been on Rees's case about his failing to complete restorations, irrespective of the memberships directives, but willing to overlook Tom Doak's failure to restore GCGC and C&C's failure to restore Riviera.
Inconsistency
Bias
I wouldn't mind if your objections were directed equally to all architects who were involved with courses that didn't embark on restorations, but you've been silent with respect to C&C and Tom Doak for as long as I've tuned in to GCA.com.
So, I have to wonder, what your motives and goals are ?
When you bash Tom Doak and C&C for their failures to restore, irrespective of the memberships wishes, just like you've bashed Rees, then at least you will have been open and fair minded.
Lastly Tom, surely you must realize, that those of us who want restorations are clearly in the minority.
Just look at how hard it is to remove trees planted in the last
20-30-40-50 years, a form of restoration, and then extend that resistance to restoration to the balance of the golf course.
It's not always the architect's doing, in the ultimate, it's the will of the membership/leadership that is at the heart of the issue.
But, if you want to continue to bash, just make sure that you're an equal opportunity basher.
