Design or Redesign, that is the question.

[Sean_A]

Ed,


Despite what others are saying, restoration, renovation, redesign, design is a pretty much accepted standard.

Ally


I disagree.  Restoration is used very often for Renovation.  Redesign is not a simply used term...sort of like how long is a piece of string.


Ciao

Yes, they are used wrongly because people don't take the time to understand what they mean. So they should educate themselves.

There are very specific differences between each term. It just so happens that work on a course can have elements of more than one.

Restoration is also used because it can be expedient in terms of club politics. 

As far as design/redesign, I don't think there is a generally accepted difference between the terms.  It is often a judgement call...hence...how long is a piece of string?  For me, a redesign would be a course which is unrecognizable from the original. 

We can look at Sunny Old as a perfect example.  Exactly how can only one archie be given design credit?  Colt is usually given credit , but it is clear that much of Park's course remains.  Although, it is equally clear that the current course is nothing like Park's.

Same for Muirfield.  Colt gets the credit, but its clear that much of the OTM routing remains in place and provided the bones which we now see..including the famous double loop routing. 

To me, both archies for both projects should be listed as the principle designers.  Saying either course was redesigned implies that nothing much of the originals exists.  There are so many courses in GB&I which a one word description of design heritage utterly fails to convey an accurate description.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Agreed, Both Park and Colt are named architects for the design of Sunningdale Old.


I also agree that one word cannot always - or even often - describe a course's design history.


Doesn't change what those 4 words mean and that they are the best suited terms to describe work on a golf course if looking for a short, sharp description.

[Sean_A]

Ally

What does redesign mean?  For me, a redesign would be a course which is unrecognizable from the original. I doubt we all see it that way or any other specific way.  Archies will want to use the term as often as they can reasonably get away because they know what it implies. 

And none of this discussion hits on course additions....

Ciao

[Ed Homsey]

I thought I put this thread to rest, but note the interesting examples that Sean has presented that illustrate the futility of trying to assisn designations to each architect's work on a course.  I can see where that would be particularly impossible on most courses in the UK.  But, that said, if at all possible, where I use either the term design or redesign, I plan to have brief descriptors of how those terms should be applied to a particular course.  I don't see how redesign can stand alone, without some explanation.  And, that explanation should include or imply the features remaining from the original design.  As I say that, I'm reminded of one of our courses that remains problematic, in terms of classification.  We know that another course existed before the Travis design was partially implemented.  I have not yet found documentation about what remained of the original course, nor the identity of the original designer.  But, the search for that information continues.


I would not consider using the term redesign unless there were significant changes to the routing of the original course.  I would prefer that there would be enough left of the original course that demonstrates its existence.  Hard for me to define how much is "enough".

[Sean_A]

Ed & Ally

Don't get me wrong.  I agree that for a short, sharp explanation, design, renovation and restoration are decent stand-alone terms...far from perfect though...obviously, as a discussion such as this can occur.  I disagree about the term re-design...there is no standard wide definition in golf for this term.  I also think there should be a term/phrase for added holes. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Re-design work is moving green sites, adding holes or re-routing part of the existing course.


It doesn't mean the whole course has been re-designed with the inference that the architect of the re-design gets the credit over the original design.


Both can sit hand in hand quite comfortably. You would have two named architects.

[Sean_A]

Re-design work is moving green sites, adding holes or re-routing part of the existing course.


It doesn't mean the whole course has been re-designed with the inference that the architect of the re-design gets the credit over the original design.


Both can sit hand in hand quite comfortably. You would have two named architects.

Ally

Surely you have a better idea of the difference between redesign and renovation? 

And only half joking...what is a renovation project which doesn't actually improve a course 

For me, a real redesign absolutely implies there are at least two archies of equal (or near equal) standing for a course.  That is for me what differentiates a redesign from renovation.  And if a redesign goes far enough, I would say there is a new designer who should get most credit.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Renovation is everything that does not include routing changes or moving green sites.


By the way, this isn't my take on it. They are the same broad parameters used by many golf course architects.


One will generally get a redesign credit if introducing three or more new holes.


You can renovate most of the course and redesign an element of it. It's not about assigning the title to the course, it's about assigning the correct credit to the architect.


It makes it quite easy really, for example Lahinch:


OTM - Design
Charles Gibson - Redesign
Alister MacKenzie - Redesign
Martin Hawtree - Renovation


Although even here, you could give Hawtree redesign credit for the new 8th, 11th and moving of the 7th and 12th green sites. That's why all 4 names are given named credit behind the course.


Clubs themselves will always pray on the best sales technique. Hence they might use the wrong terminology or they might give credit to a big name architect who only spent a few hours at the site blessing someone else's change.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Actually, to give some other context that neither backs up nor rejects the four groupings, the EIGCA uses the following ledger on its website:


18 = New 18 hole course
9 = New 9 hole course
9+ = Additional 9 holes to an existing course
A = Major rework of at least 3 new holes
B = Major rework of at least 9 new greens
C = Other major rework of at least 9 holes


For what that's worth.

[Sean_A]

Renovation is everything that does not include routing changes or moving green sites.


By the way, this isn't my take on it. They are the same broad parameters used by many golf course architects.


One will generally get a redesign credit if introducing three or more new holes.


You can renovate most of the course and redesign an element of it. It's not about assigning the title to the course, it's about assigning the correct credit to the architect.


It makes it quite easy really, for example Lahinch:


OTM - Design
Charles Gibson - Redesign
Alister MacKenzie - Redesign
Martin Hawtree - Renovation


Although even here, you could give Hawtree redesign credit for the new 8th, 11th and moving of the 7th and 12th green sites. That's why all 4 names are given named credit behind the course.


Clubs themselves will always pray on the best sales technique. Hence they might use the wrong terminology or they might give credit to a big name architect who only spent a few hours at the site blessing someone else's change.

When I see your Lahinch attribution it really doesn't give me anywhere near the picture I know exists. 

I also think the difference between redesign and renovation is extremely misleading and very unhelpful to the reader. Plus, there is a black hole between no routing changes and three new holes. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Renovation is everything that does not include routing changes or moving green sites.


By the way, this isn't my take on it. They are the same broad parameters used by many golf course architects.


One will generally get a redesign credit if introducing three or more new holes.


You can renovate most of the course and redesign an element of it. It's not about assigning the title to the course, it's about assigning the correct credit to the architect.


It makes it quite easy really, for example Lahinch:


OTM - Design
Charles Gibson - Redesign
Alister MacKenzie - Redesign
Martin Hawtree - Renovation


Although even here, you could give Hawtree redesign credit for the new 8th, 11th and moving of the 7th and 12th green sites. That's why all 4 names are given named credit behind the course.


Clubs themselves will always pray on the best sales technique. Hence they might use the wrong terminology or they might give credit to a big name architect who only spent a few hours at the site blessing someone else's change.

When I see your Lahinch attribution it really doesn't give me anywhere near the picture I know exists. 

I also think the difference between redesign and renovation is extremely misleading and very unhelpful to the reader. Plus, there is a black hole between no routing changes and three new holes. 

Ciao

Depends on the level of detail you want. I'll write you 2,000 words on the design history of Lahinch. Or I'll write you 4 words. There's a place for both.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:


Didn't Martin Hawtree sell his work to Lahinch as a restoration of MacKenzie's plan?


If so it's rather cheeky to take renovation credit for that ... even if I don't think it was a very good attempt at restoration. Also "credit" is not the right word for moving the 11th green ... that's a "debit" to his account.


Part of the problem we are discussing here is that magazine editors and golf writers don't want to make space for 3-5 names as the "designer" of each course [especially underneath the course's name on a "top 100" list].  So they are more likely to take Sean's short-cut than the EIGCA approach.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Using one word descriptors for design credit isn't my short cut unless a one word descriptor accurately describes architectural history.  My entire point has been that not all courses fit neatly into the system Ally supports and that instead of conveying useful info, what can and does happen is misrepresentation. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean - if you can't fit it in to short, neat answers then you won't get the information at all. You will end up with much more misrepresentation that way.


If you want the general public to understand that 4 architects should be credited with design work on a certain course, then you need to credit them. Or the biggest or earliest name wins.


I completely agree that none of the terms are ideal but I'd rather we worked against something rather than nothing.


Tom - I forgot that Hawtree sold Lahinch as a restoration of sorts - it was me who called it a renovation.

[Sean_A]

Ally

This is where I differ once again.  If the abridged version of the story is a misreprensentation it is best not to tell the story.  Provide a link to a place that does the job properly and be done with it.  Links are often the best thing about articles and lists.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

This is where I differ once again.  If the abridged version of the story is a misreprensentation it is best not to tell the story.  Provide a link to a place that does the job properly and be done with it.  Links are often the best thing about articles and lists.

Ciao

Wishful thinking.


Fine for GCA buffs but for everyone else, no go. The story will continue to get told but wrongly.


To give one example, Eddie Hackett will continue to be the design name given to Strandhill, despite the fact he visited for 4 hours total on his way west purely to bless Martin Niland's design for holes 16, 17 & 18.

[Sean_A]

Ally

Now you have me really confused.  On the one hand it seems as though you want to perpetuate misrepresentations via one word descriptors because it strikes you that this is the best method of communicating info and that we must accept the limitations.  On the other, you seem to be saying it doesn't matter anyway.  I thought it did matter for Ed and that he is genuinely seeking to provide concise, accurate and representative architectural history. Because magazine ranking lists are loose with accuracy is no reason to repeat their mistakes.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Fair point, Sean - I'd moved away from Ed's initial premise to be honest.


I'm talking about a wider audience which in the end are the ones that matter.... Or we shouldn't focus on the name of the architect at all. This is probably the best solution.