Manufacturers G&CC (Flynn, 1925) in Ft. Washington, PA- Bunker restoration...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Manufacturers enlisted the services of Forse Design and Mottin Golf Course Renovations, LLC, both of which hold Flynn credentials. The bunker restoration project, which cost less than $850,000, began in the fall of 2014 and wrapped up prior to Memorial Day 2015.
  “We truly kept much of Flynn’s original vision,” Jim Nagle of Forse Design said. “Overall, the project was a resounding success because of the team efforts of everybody involved. There weren’t many challenges.”


http://gapgolf.org/charts.asp?twc=3048&sfile=static/archive/2016_manufacturers_bunker_restoration.html

[Tom_Doak]

Jim [if you're around]:


You and Ron seldom weigh in on our regular arguments here about the meaning of "restoration" and how much change can be cloaked under that term. 


Your quote about "much of Flynn's original vision" make me wonder what parts you DID restore as they'd been built originally, and what parts you moved, for whatever reason.  Can you elaborate a bit?  I'm not going to jump you for your decisions, or even comment really; I'm just curious where you draw the line, and whether club members pushed for specific changes you might not otherwise have recommended.


For that matter, when you do a master plan, how much do you negotiate it with the committee before you put it into print?  I've been trying to teach my young associates that you really shouldn't do it that way, or else you wind up putting things in print that you don't really agree with, and then ten years later it's hard to come back and tell them the truth.  To me, a club should pay for an architect's recommendations, after which it's totally up to the club to decide what to implement or not ... but they should not be putting words into the architect's mouth. 

[Joe Bausch]

Pics of Mannies from late last season:

http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/Manufacturers/index.html

[Jim_Coleman]

Tom:
     I can't tell you how much I agree with you.  About 20 years ago Gil Hanse did a master plan for Rolling Green.  It turned into a negotiation.  Biggest dispute was over "native grasses" - Gil wanted them added, the Board did not.  The plan did not include them.
     A second dispute concerned whether the plan should be incorporated into the club's by-laws.  The board wanted to, and Gil spoke in favor.  The proposal was voted down, because by-laws by definition are inflexible, and design must be flexible.  Turned out that years later Jim Nagle was hired to undertake a very popular "restoration."  Needless to say, the restoration was his, not Gil's, although Gil's plan was considered.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:


I've never been a fan of that idea that a Master Plan should be incorporated into the club's by-laws.


First of all, most of the clubs which have hired me were working off someone else's previous master plan, until they realized it was broken.  And second, sometimes it takes me years of getting to know a course before I understand the value of a particular feature, so trying to put everything in stone on Year 1 does not make much sense.


I think the by-laws argument was probably instigated by some architect who wanted to ensure they'd have a steady diet of consulting fees from a club for years to come.


P.S.  Manufacturers and Rolling Green were the two courses I most enjoyed discovering while we were building Stonewall way back in 1992.  At the time, both were overgrown by trees; the pictures I've seen of both look terrific.  Gil and I could have told them that 24 years ago, but I don't think anyone would have listened!

[Rory Connaughton]

Hopefully Jim or Ron will chime in. I was fortunate to play Mannies last summer. I was really taken with the course. The bunker work and tree removal is outstanding but what takes it over the top for me is the greens. Very sophisticated use of intersecting slopes.  In my universe of Flynn experience, among the very best.

[Mark McKeever]

Agreed Rory, not to mention one of the best sets of par 3's in GAP!

[JNagle]

You and Ron seldom weigh in on our regular arguments here about the meaning of "restoration" and how much change can be cloaked under that term.  [/color][/size][/color]Ron has talked more and more about participating on GCA.  Often times our non-participation is from a timing standpoint.  We are simply pressed for time and have outside activities robbing our free time at home.  But, your point is well taken and something we should expand upon in another thread when time permits.  Maybe my responses below will provide some insight into our thoughts about restoration.[/i]
[/color]Your quote about "much of Flynn's original vision" make me wonder what parts you DID restore as they'd been built originally, and what parts you moved, for whatever reason.[/size][/color][/i]
[/color]We attempted to restore all bunkers that appear in the Dallin images from the late 20’s and again from the mid-30’s.  We utilized aerial photos as well as birds-eye photos which helped reveal sand heights, horizon lines and undulations, where possible.  The photos were an excellent resource throughout the entire process which evolved over a nearly 15 year period.  We had the photos uploaded into our phones, printed on paper and zoomed into for specific bunkers, we would run into the men’s locker room and look at photos hanging there that we did not have access to in the field and finally we would take the large black/white original photos with us onto the course when weather permitted. That is the basis for the quote regarding Flynn’s vision.  We also expanded some fairways and approaches to reinstate that vision.  There were, in some instances, bunkers that were added through the years prior to the development of the Master Plan.  Many were not constructed properly – either perched above the ground, had what we call “fat” earthworks which did not fit the character of the original bunker surrounds or were placed in a position that did not compliment the strategies of the hole.  There were a few bunkers (left side #1 fairway, right side #2 fairway, #10 and #17 greens and the right side of lower #18 green) which were relocated a few yards or more to account for large volumes of water draining directly into the bunkers.  Bunkers on #11, #15 and #18 were removed.  Any bunkers that were reinstated were Flynn bunkers that were removed over the decades which have architectural merit either strategically or visually.[/i]
[/color]Over the years we have rebuilt the 4^th, 9^th, 17^th and both 18 upper and lower greens.  Again, the vision was to maintain a certain Flynn look and feel about them.  We feel strongly about greens on classic courses maintaining a certain amount of difficulty and challenge.  Not just flattening a green to meet some standard for cupping areas, rather allow those greens to continue to push the envelope with overall slopes and cupping areas well into the 3% range.  The club has come back and asked our opinion of the rebuilding of the 9^th hole.  The hole is a short par 5, easily reached in two by many members.  The complaint is that the green is still too severe.  We have gone on record as saying as long as the hole plays as a par 5 the green must remain as-is.  There has been talk of a slash hole or changing it to a par 4, but the likelihood of a change is slim.  We will continue to maintain our position regarding the difficulty of the rebuilt green.  We did however, raise the front portion of the lower 18^th green at the request of the club.  The green was rebuilt but just did not gain the additional cupping area we hoped for.  Our final analysis was that we did not give them the appropriate cupping based upon their intended green speeds.[/i]
[/color]  Can you elaborate a bit?  I'm not going to jump you for your decisions, or even comment really; I'm just curious where you draw the line, and whether club members pushed for specific changes you might not otherwise have recommended.[/size]
[/color]Whether its Mannie’s or any other course, we are not going to implement changes to a course for the sole purpose of making members happy.  We will, on every plan we develop, listen to the members and thoughts that they may have regarding some issues.  At that point we must interject our expertise and decide whether or not the idea fits the intended results.  Much like we will evaluate our own ideas for a plan.  I have been told from a number of clients that one reason we have been retained or have long standing relationships with clubs is because we listen.  They respect our judgement and defer to our decisions (most times), but they do appreciate being a participant in the process.  [/i]
[/color] [/i]
[/color]As for Mannie’s, prior to construction we were asked about a bunker on the 15^th hole that was removed in the early 2000’s just before we were hired.  The plan never called for the reinstatement of the bunker, but we did plan to rebuild a William Gordon bunker added short of the original Flynn bunker.  We looked at both bunkers and their impact on play, final appearance based upon how they could be constructed……  We found that our decision to not reinstate the Flynn bunker in lieu of the Gordon bunker was incorrect.  So, the Clubs desire to revisit the bunker was the right call.  As for the rest of the course, there is nothing that was pushed for by members which we conceded and allowed to be reconstructed or added.[/i]
[/color]For that matter, when you do a master plan, how much do you negotiate it with the committee before you put it into print?  I've been trying to teach my young associates that you really shouldn't do it that way, or else you wind up putting things in print that you don't really agree with, and then ten years later it's hard to come back and tell them the truth.  To me, a club should pay for an architect's recommendations, after which it's totally up to the club to decide what to implement or not ... but they should not be putting words into the architect's mouth. [/size][/color][/size]
[/color]What a great question.  All depends on the project.  The Country Club of Buffalo called their master plan the – Donald Ross Golf Course Restoration Plan.  There was little negotiating on the project.  They had a photo taken within in one year of opening, they had Ross plans and a vision to restore as much as possible.  Any negotiating came down to tee locations, tree removal or cart paths.  Even then negotiating may not be the right terms.  The club had many committees comprised of various age groups and playing abilities.  It was stated from the beginning their purpose was not to critique the plan, rather they were to look at it based upon the yardage that seemed most suited for their various groups.  Ron and I both tour the courses with a hand-picked committee which does not favor any one playing group.  We recognize the need to represent each group.  Their input is valuable in developing a plan.  We will visit with that committee a number of times throughout the development of a plan and discuss the proposed changes.  It’s at that point that we may modify a design based upon that feedback.  That’s not to say there are even changes made at that time.  Having the committee members with us in the field allows for them to gain an understanding of what we are proposing.  The follow-ups are often a confirmation of what has already been discussed. The last part of your statement/question is very true.  We agree.  We have a number of plans where clubs have asked us to remove this or that because, at the moment, they know they cannot afford to implement that change.  We have stood our ground maintaining that we do not want to remove the concept from the plan.  Once something is off a plan it is near impossible to get it back on later.
 [/i][/color][/size]

[Joe Bausch]

For those with the quality of my eyes these days, I'm re-presenting Jim Nagle's recent post below.   



TD:  You and Ron seldom weigh in on our regular arguments here about the meaning of "restoration" and how much change can be cloaked under that term. 


Ron has talked more and more about participating on GCA.  Often times our non-participation is from a timing standpoint.  We are simply pressed for time and have outside activities robbing our free time at home.  But, your point is well taken and something we should expand upon in another thread when time permits.  Maybe my responses below will provide some insight into our thoughts about restoration.


TD:  Your quote about "much of Flynn's original vision" make me wonder what parts you DID restore as they'd been built originally, and what parts you moved, for whatever reason.


We attempted to restore all bunkers that appear in the Dallin images from the late 20’s and again from the mid-30’s.  We utilized aerial photos as well as birds-eye photos which helped reveal sand heights, horizon lines and undulations, where possible.  The photos were an excellent resource throughout the entire process which evolved over a nearly 15 year period.  We had the photos uploaded into our phones, printed on paper and zoomed into for specific bunkers, we would run into the men’s locker room and look at photos hanging there that we did not have access to in the field and finally we would take the large black/white original photos with us onto the course when weather permitted. That is the basis for the quote regarding Flynn’s vision.  We also expanded some fairways and approaches to reinstate that vision.  There were, in some instances, bunkers that were added through the years prior to the development of the Master Plan.  Many were not constructed properly – either perched above the ground, had what we call “fat” earthworks which did not fit the character of the original bunker surrounds or were placed in a position that did not compliment the strategies of the hole.  There were a few bunkers (left side #1 fairway, right side #2 fairway, #10 and #17 greens and the right side of lower #18 green) which were relocated a few yards or more to account for large volumes of water draining directly into the bunkers.  Bunkers on #11, #15 and #18 were removed.  Any bunkers that were reinstated were Flynn bunkers that were removed over the decades which have architectural merit either strategically or visually.

Over the years we have rebuilt the 4th, 9th, 17th and both 18 upper and lower greens.  Again, the vision was to maintain a certain Flynn look and feel about them.  We feel strongly about greens on classic courses maintaining a certain amount of difficulty and challenge.  Not just flattening a green to meet some standard for cupping areas, rather allow those greens to continue to push the envelope with overall slopes and cupping areas well into the 3% range.  The club has come back and asked our opinion of the rebuilding of the 9^th hole.  The hole is a short par 5, easily reached in two by many members.  The complaint is that the green is still too severe.  We have gone on record as saying as long as the hole plays as a par 5 the green must remain as-is.  There has been talk of a slash hole or changing it to a par 4, but the likelihood of a change is slim.  We will continue to maintain our position regarding the difficulty of the rebuilt green.  We did however, raise the front portion of the lower 18^th green at the request of the club.  The green was rebuilt but just did not gain the additional cupping area we hoped for.  Our final analysis was that we did not give them the appropriate cupping based upon their intended green speeds.


TD:  Can you elaborate a bit?  I'm not going to jump you for your decisions, or even comment really; I'm just curious where you draw the line, and whether club members pushed for specific changes you might not otherwise have recommended.


Whether its Mannie’s or any other course, we are not going to implement changes to a course for the sole purpose of making members happy.  We will, on every plan we develop, listen to the members and thoughts that they may have regarding some issues.  At that point we must interject our expertise and decide whether or not the idea fits the intended results.  Much like we will evaluate our own ideas for a plan.  I have been told from a number of clients that one reason we have been retained or have long standing relationships with clubs is because we listen.  They respect our judgement and defer to our decisions (most times), but they do appreciate being a participant in the process.

As for Mannie’s, prior to construction we were asked about a bunker on the 15th hole that was removed in the early 2000’s just before we were hired.  The plan never called for the reinstatement of the bunker, but we did plan to rebuild a William Gordon bunker added short of the original Flynn bunker.  We looked at both bunkers and their impact on play, final appearance based upon how they could be constructed……  We found that our decision to not reinstate the Flynn bunker in lieu of the Gordon bunker was incorrect.  So, the Clubs desire to revisit the bunker was the right call.  As for the rest of the course, there is nothing that was pushed for by members which we conceded and allowed to be reconstructed or added.


TD:  For that matter, when you do a master plan, how much do you negotiate it with the committee before you put it into print?  I've been trying to teach my young associates that you really shouldn't do it that way, or else you wind up putting things in print that you don't really agree with, and then ten years later it's hard to come back and tell them the truth.  To me, a club should pay for an architect's recommendations, after which it's totally up to the club to decide what to implement or not ... but they should not be putting words into the architect's mouth.


What a great question.  All depends on the project.  The Country Club of Buffalo called their master plan the – Donald Ross Golf Course Restoration Plan.  There was little negotiating on the project.  They had a photo taken within in one year of opening, they had Ross plans and a vision to restore as much as possible.  Any negotiating came down to tee locations, tree removal or cart paths.  Even then negotiating may not be the right terms.  The club had many committees comprised of various age groups and playing abilities.  It was stated from the beginning their purpose was not to critique the plan, rather they were to look at it based upon the yardage that seemed most suited for their various groups.  Ron and I both tour the courses with a hand-picked committee which does not favor any one playing group.  We recognize the need to represent each group.  Their input is valuable in developing a plan.  We will visit with that committee a number of times throughout the development of a plan and discuss the proposed changes.  It’s at that point that we may modify a design based upon that feedback.  That’s not to say there are even changes made at that time.  Having the committee members with us in the field allows for them to gain an understanding of what we are proposing.  The follow-ups are often a confirmation of what has already been discussed. The last part of your statement/question is very true.  We agree.  We have a number of plans where clubs have asked us to remove this or that because, at the moment, they know they cannot afford to implement that change.  We have stood our ground maintaining that we do not want to remove the concept from the plan.  Once something is off a plan it is near impossible to get it back on later.

[JNagle]

Thanks Joe, not sure what happened with that post.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Agreed Rory, not to mention one of the best sets of par 3's in GAP!

I cannot think of another course in the area that has the quality and great looks of these par threes. Had the chance to rate it last year and played from the back tees, three of the par threes were over 220 yards, just a great set of holes. The  one set into the quarry was a blast to play. Overall just a great course and fun to play. The tree program opened up views that are just spectacular.

[Rory Connaughton]

Jim,


  Thanks for the thorough response to Tom's questions.  Having worked with Ron and Jim for close to a decade, I can say that the only regrets we have had are when we have delayed implementation of their recommendations. I also give Jim specific credit for saving our 15th green from the "we need more cupable areas" crowd!  As for master plans, our green committee has managed to avoid the adoption of something formal as that would require negotiating with our board  


The work at Mannies is so good. It deserved a lot more attention last year.

[/size][size=78%]  [/size]

[Kris Shreiner]

Joe,
Thanks for re-posting that.

The information and responses to how Jim and Ron undergo the process in what they do is described to a degree I've seldom read before.
Having last played Mannie's late Fall of '14, I probably missed seeing a lot if what has transpired. That said, I can say the course is a testing charmer!   
The day I played, conditions were VERY firm, windy and challenging. Those greens were diabolical to putt...but not unfair.
Kudos to the club, the Mottin team, and Ron and Jim's  thoughtful guidance on teasing as much Flynn as is practical out of a terrific property.
Cheers,
Kris