[Patrick_Mucci]

When a feature becomes obsolete and no longer functions as intended, at what point should it be reactivated/reclaimed/restored ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat, in certain circumstances, you could even add "removed" to your list.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  The term "obsolete" was once applied to those mounds in the 12th green at Garden City.  It is all [ALL] a matter of perspective.


However I do have one correction for your post.  If a feature is still there and you deem it "obsolete," you cannot RESTORE it.  Restoration means putting it back where it was; the other definitions of it are b.s. meant to obfuscate deliberate change.  You can modernize it; you can renovate it; you can even remove it [although I do not understand why you'd bother to spend money removing it, if it is in fact "obsolete"].


And if you did any of those things, then I could restore it, a few years later. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Note To Self: January 7th, 2016. The word "obfuscate" used by someone other than Gib Papazian on GCA. Had Gib used it, it certainly would have been preceded by a reference to a red-head and followed by synonyms for vulgarities outside my idiolect.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
If you take the word “restoration” literally, I mostly agree with you.  The problem with a literal interpretation, however, (and you know this very well) is that a golf course is not designed to be “looked at”, it is meant to be interacted with and the golfers and the equipment they use to do this are in a constant state of change.  As such, the golf course by definition would have to change with it IF you wanted to restore/maintain the original architectural intent.   If a feature was meant to have a certain design intent, and over time that feature has been removed and/or its design intent has changed, you are not “restoring” it by just putting it physically back where it was.  This goes back to our other discussion about looking at tees first to “restore” design intent!  Why else would many of the classic architects built elasticity into their designs?  If they didn’t anticipate that golfers and equipment and the "interaction" with their design would change, they wouldn’t have done that.  Do you disagree?


I think the big problem is that MANY architects go beyond “restoration” or simply don't care about it.  They don’t study the evolution of the course and/or don’t care so much what was once their or what the original architect intended.  There is no right or wrong and I am not placing judgment, I am just stating fact.  If a course in interested in some form of “restoration” they better hire the right team/architect or they might not get what they were hoping for.


Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:


I think the only thing we can agree on is that putting back the bunkers where they were, is different than putting them into a different position that you think will play similarly to the way the course did in a different era with different equipment.


My objection is to using the same word to describe what are two very different things.


My feeling is that the first one should be called restoration, and the second something else.  If you've got a better term for putting bunkers back in their original location, feel free to suggest it.  Otherwise, it would be better if you'd find a different word for what you are proposing, so that clubs aren't confused between the two ... if that's not the very purpose of borrowing my word.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Are you suggesting "design intent" is not important or should not be taken into consideration in trying to bring back the original architect's look, feel and playability?  I am not smart enough to come up with a new word what to call this, but I do know that it is an important part of the process? 


Believe me, I am like you in that adding tees (in addition to the original ones) can and should be the first thing to look at.  I know you do that because I have played courses like SFGC where you have added them (did the club force this on you or did you approve it). 


I ask again, why did many architect's design elasticity into their designs?  Wasn't it in part for this purpose? 

[Bill_McBride]

If it's not a restoration it's a remodel.  Are there other choices?

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Define "restoration"?  That is the challenge when it comes to something that is not a static piece of art and that is meant to be interacted with. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
Define "restoration"?  That is the challenge when it comes to something that is not a static piece of art and that is meant to be interacted with.

Pick a specific date in time you prefer, use plans, aerials etc, to "restore" the course to what it was on that date.


Has anybody ever actually done that?   I hear Mid-Pines could be an example. 

[MCirba]

I'd humbly suggest the word "Reformation" to describe the act of using one's interpretation of  the "design intent" of the original or subsequent architects and then attempting to "improve" the course based on one's understanding of the demands of the modern game intermingled with that interpretation of original intent.

In essence, an architect moving bunkers based on where he/she thinks they should be to maintain original intent is "reforming" the golf course.

I'd also humbly suggest that without good written documentation original design intent is sometimes maddening to accurately discern.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I started a thread on this a while back. And, while Patrick's specific question (on another thread) about the 16th at Garden City is a good one, and your grappling with the element of original 'design intent' is important, I still think that the issue is binary, ie there are "restorations" and there are "renovations". That's it. A 19th century Victorian rowhouse was and is meant to be lived in; but it was built in a very specific way with a very specific look. Sure, you can re-side the brick with stainless steel to fit with modern energy-efficiency needs, but then no one could - or should - try to pawn that off as a "restoration".
I don't understand the love of the word anyway; "renovation" from what I can tell is a perfectly good word, and, from what I can tell, accurately reflects the vast vast majority of all the work architects today are doing at old courses.
Peter

[MCirba]

Peter,

I think the problem with the word "Renovation", other than politics and marketing, is that it covers too broad a spectrum, from light touches like new back tees and moving bunkers slightly closer to presumed targets, to slightly decreasing the tilt in a green to entire re-routing and vast interior hole changes and new holes entirely.   

I've heard the term "sensitive" used to apply to the former but generally if it needs a qualifier the base term isn't particularly descriptive, in my view.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I totally agree with you, it is not easy to determine that design intent and the problem is that it takes a lot of work.  Some architects can whip out a Master Plan in no time at all.  I’ve done about two dozen or more and can’t remember completing one in less than six months.  You remember one I did for Brookside CC (you helped my find the original architect).  It was a lot of effort. 


Peter,
Renovation has a different connotation from restoration.  If someone told you they restored an old corvette and someone else told you the renovated an old corvette, you might think differently about what was done to both.  The challenge is restoring  “design intent” as restoring the look and feel and physical location of features (except internal green contour on greens that have been completely changed) can be fairly easy to do if you have done the proper research.  Restoring design intent requires extensive study of the original architect.     

[Joe Hancock]

Maybe this isn't relevant to the discussion, but what about the consideration one must take to understand the differences in maintenance today vs. when a course was originally implemented? It occurs to me that when we discuss bunker placement it is almost always in the context of carry, and I'm not sure that totally encompasses how bunkers were utilized pre-automatic irrigation practices. The ball bounced a lot more back then, I'm sure. Or, what about grass selections and mowing heights, and mowing patterns? Are those all part of the function? I say yes, but I don't think anyone is clamoring to restore maintenance standards to yesteryear.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Are you suggesting "design intent" is not important or should not be taken into consideration in trying to bring back the original architect's look, feel and playability?  I am not smart enough to come up with a new word what to call this, but I do know that it is an important part of the process?

I ask again, why did many architect's design elasticity into their designs?  Wasn't it in part for this purpose?

Mark:


"Design intent" is certainly NOT important when you are trying to restore the original architect's look and feel to a course.  Those are matters of fact that are more easily restored if all the pieces go back to where they were.  My newest consulting client is a club where the previous architect's plan was to "restore bunkers back to the original [famous architect's] style" ... even though there are now 60 or 70 bunkers, when the original design only had half that many. 


It is the "playability" angle where architects show off their brain power and insist that everything needs to be different now, assuming that the goal is to challenge A SCRATCH PLAYER the same way the course did in 1925.  They define everything by how the course was "intended" to play for the scratch golfer back then, as if the scratch player was the main focus of the design.  That's where our disagreement lies.  You want to restore the course for the 2-handicaps; I want to restore it for the 10-15 handicaps who are the brunt of the membership -- whose games have not changed all that much in the intervening 90 years. 


The 8- or 10-handicap can play the course exactly as the architect visualized it to be played by those scratch golfers 90 years ago ... as long as you don't move the bunkers to places they weren't, and call it a "restoration".


Elasticity is fine, if it there is room for it -- unless, by building back tees on some holes, you are making the case for moving bunkers on the other holes where there's no room for a back tee.


My recommendations on elasticity have been different for different clubs.  Many courses have already built a lot of back tees, and they're not going to take them out.  Some have plenty of room for more distance, and I've taken advantage where it was available.  At a few, such as The Valley Club of Montecito, they were so close to a true 100% restoration that I declined to add even a few back tees that the committee clamored for.  I knew they'd just find someone else to do it, but I recommended what I thought was right.  So now Todd Eckenrode gets to hang out there, after we did 97% of the work [and 100% of the restoration].

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You are making a few statements that I never  said?   First of all, where did I state I am restoring design intent for "only the scratch golfer"?  I most certainly am not!  I have said in earlier posts that the back tees are only used by a handful of members and too much time and attention is often paid to them.  I am more concerned about the far majority of other players on the golf course than the few who play the tips. 

Where we appear to differ is that you don't seem to think that the average golfer has changed over the years.  That would say to me that you feel the classic architects who designed elasticity into their courses felt the same and only did this for the scratch players?  I beg to differ.  I believe the game has changed for almost all levels of golfers (not just the plus twos) and this should be taken into consideration for restoring "design intent". 

[Tom_Doak]

The 8- or 10-handicap can play the course exactly as the architect visualized it to be played by those scratch golfers 90 years ago ... as long as you don't move the bunkers to places they weren't, and call it a "restoration".


Elasticity is fine, if it there is room for it -- unless, by building back tees on some holes, you are making the case for moving bunkers on the other holes where there's no room for a back tee.

Mark:


I've reprinted part of my statement from above, for emphasis.


Let's talk about it without the handicaps.  My point is that the course works EXACTLY as it always did for the subset of players who hit the ball 230-250 yards off the tee.  That subset of players is a different group now than it was in 1925 ... their handicaps are a bit higher, and the number of players that fall into the group is quite a LOT higher.  There might even be some women among the group now.


If you move the bunkers around, you will be changing the shot values for this set of players -- not restoring it -- in an effort to achieve a certain "design intent" for the lower handicappers.


If you just add tees for the other guys to play, no problem.  But when you start moving bunkers, that's not restoration.

[Sean_A]

Mike,
I totally agree with you, it is not easy to determine that design intent and the problem is that it takes a lot of work.  Some architects can whip out a Master Plan in no time at all.  I’ve done about two dozen or more and can’t remember completing one in less than six months.  You remember one I did for Brookside CC (you helped my find the original architect).  It was a lot of effort. 


Peter,
Renovation has a different connotation from restoration.  If someone told you they restored an old corvette and someone else told you the renovated an old corvette, you might think differently about what was done to both.  The challenge is restoring  “design intent” as restoring the look and feel and physical location of features (except internal green contour on greens that have been completely changed) can be fairly easy to do if you have done the proper research.  Restoring design intent requires extensive study of the original architect.     

Mark


Restoring a classic car has nothing to do with design intent.  It is about obtaining original parts and rebuilding the car using those parts.  If the original parts aren't available, then reproducing those parts to original spec is the next best thing.  So like Pietro, I am very dubious of restoration involving interpretation..that is not and never can be restoration.  Bottom line, like people are dying to use the word links to describe their course, there is an accepted definition which has worked just fine.  That is the same for restoration. Archies want to pass off work on the backs of famous archies when in fact the modern archies don't have a clue if an archie would have done A, B or C if given the opportunity...its speculation and speculation is not part of restoration. 


Ciao 

[Mike Hendren]

"Restoration is a narrow minded substitute for imagination."
- Ron Whitten

[Mark_Fine]

Everyone,
I think we all know the literal definition of restoration - “the action of returning something to a former condition”.  Maybe a better question is, can a golf course truly be “restored” by that definition?   It probably can.   The other harder question is this, does the “restored" golf course "function" as it did 90 or 100 years ago?  I will contend that unless the golfer is also playing it with 90 or 100 year old equipment, I don’t think so.  As such, how do you “restore” a golf course if you are trying to not only “return it to its former condition” but to do both? 


If for example, a fairway bunker was meant to be a "carry" bunker 90 years ago for those golfers playing from the primary tee and/or a "target bunker" for those playing from a more forward tee and now that bunker has just become a “duffer’s headache" and/or is no longer in play for most others, do you leave it alone “in the spirit of pure restoration” or do you adjust the teeing area/s so the original function of the bunker is also restored for those same golfers? 


There is no simple answer but to me you first start by figuring out what has changed over the years and what was originally there (at the start or during the time frame you are looking to restore the course to).  Next you try to understand the design intent of what was there (just like I stated above with the “carry fairway bunker”.  Then you look at what your options are to restore both the “former condition” and the “former playability and function”.  Tees are the best solution (and sometimes the only reasonable solution) and sometimes there is no solution and a decision must be made. 


The bottomline for me is that when I am finished with a “restoration” I want people who know what they are looking at, like many of you here, to visit the golf course and think it was hardly if ever touched.  Granted most here can identify added length but if the tees are designed and built properly and lines of play, etc are not altered, they can blend right in.  We have all see examples of added tees that are eye sores and that is the last thing I want to see on anything I am involved with. 

[Tom_Doak]

sometimes there is no solution and a decision must be made. 
[size=78%] [/size]

Those are the decisions that bug me the most:  the ones made with the belief that you've got to do "something".

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
That bugs me too because sometimes the best decision is to leave well enough alone.  The problem as you know is most feel a need to do something. 

[Kalen Braley]

If we're taking sides and counting votes, them put me in the Tom D camp.

When you start injecting stuff like design intent and forcing decisions on things, that's when things can go sideways. Sometimes less really is more, but I suspect too many archies in this situation want to push for more, which often ends up being less.

 Just restore it to original form as best you can with the information you have....that's it.

Now.....if the client wants something updated/renewed or otherwise redone for strategy or playability reasons, that's all fine and good....but to call that a "restoration" seems very inaccurate to me.

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Your statement "Just restore it to original form as best you can with the information you have....that's it.”  is one of the reasons soooo many courses have been changed they way they have been   If only it were so easy but it is far from it.  I don’t know what Tom thinks but I would guess it is easier to design a new course and deal with all those issues than it is to do most restoration or renovation projects.  I’m only on the one side and while it is very rewarding, it takes a lot of time, patience and hard work.  People are very passionate about their golf course and most don’t like change (and that is the ironic part because most don’t even know how their course has changed and if what they have now is better or worse than what was originally there).  If you polled members at many of the great classic courses in the country, you would be shocked at how many don't even know who designed their golf course let alone care.  That is where the whole education process starts

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()