Leaving Well Enough Alone

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Great question and I will answer it for Tom    and then he can correct me!  There is not a single architect out there that ever did work and didn’t think what they were doing was not better than what they started with.  If there is, they should not be practicing or why did they take the work in the first place!

[Ally Mcintosh]

And I will add to Mark’s answering for Tom:


The difference is the amount of times you tell a club something is not needed.


Architect A will start from a base of doing nothing and will have told a club this more times than not.


Architect B will not only tell every club that they can improve x, y & z. They will also invent as many ideas as possible in order to leave their mark.


It’s a matter of degrees. Everyone falls somewhere along that line. No one believes every course always needs left completely alone, primarily because there are often previous mistakes from Architect B to be fixed.

[mike_malone]

 I was never able to find any minutes or receipts from the early years at Rolling Green so I won’t speculate on the club’s relationship with Flynn. My personal speculation is that the original green superintendent was a strong influence on the club. He planted thousands of trees fairly early on. The 30’s articles from Joe Bausch show significant green work. The huge single bunkers were split. 3 Bunkers were added in the back of 12 and 16 which are wedge approaches to angled greens. Several other bunkers were added as well.

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks Mike.  Judging from Flynn's relationship at other clubs, it does sound like something went wrong at Rolling Green with Flynn.  As Tom stated, it is not uncommon for an architect to fall out of favor with some clients.  That makes things tricky with an architect like Flynn as he liked to "improve" his golf courses over time as he saw how they were played.  As we both know, he didn't even finalize his bunkering schemes on some until several years after opening to make sure it was what he wanted.  Architects today don't have that advantage. 

[Edward Glidewell]

Kyle Franz has been hired to renovate Raleigh CC, one of a few courses reputed to be Donald Ross’s last. I like what Rich Mandel did a bunch of years ago but this looks to be an extensive redo including enlarging some greens to allow for more pin placements, softening the slope on the fifth green, adding 22 bunkers, and increasing length by about 200 yards.

I've seen some photos of the renovation and don't like the look of the bunkers -- not that they necessarily look bad in a vacuum, but they don't look like what I'm used to seeing on Donald Ross courses. They look, at least to me, like something Tom Fazio or Rees Jones built. But it's not finished, so who knows what it will look like when the work is complete.

[Edward Glidewell]

I know of a private club built in the 1920s that eventually changed the club by-laws to require a golf course architect to consult/sign off on any changes made to the course. It was done in response to a club member who was a great amateur player (won numerous amateur tournaments, qualified for/played in the US Amateur something like 20 times) and had tremendous pull at the course. He was solely responsible for planting trees, moving bunkers, and so on to fit his whims.


What do we think about a rule like that? I think it's theoretically a smart one, because it prevents green committees/chairmen from changing things as they see fit without further input/checks. In actual practice, though, I'm not sure it really does anything. I don't think it would be too difficult to find an architect willing to sign off on whatever the committee wanted to do -- after all, the architect would be paid for the privilege! It may just result in additional expenses with no benefit whatsoever.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
Great question and I will answer it for Tom    and then he can correct me!  There is not a single architect out there that ever did work and didn’t think what they were doing was not better than what they started with.  If there is, they should not be practicing or why did they take the work in the first place!

Mark,


Truer words never spoken. But those other architects did not start a thread entitled "Leave Well Enough Alone".


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I know of a private club built in the 1920s that eventually changed the club by-laws to require a golf course architect to consult/sign off on any changes made to the course. It was done in response to a club member who was a great amateur player (won numerous amateur tournaments, qualified for/played in the US Amateur something like 20 times) and had tremendous pull at the course. He was solely responsible for planting trees, moving bunkers, and so on to fit his whims.


What do we think about a rule like that? I think it's theoretically a smart one, because it prevents green committees/chairmen from changing things as they see fit without further input/checks. In actual practice, though, I'm not sure it really does anything. I don't think it would be too difficult to find an architect willing to sign off on whatever the committee wanted to do -- after all, the architect would be paid for the privilege! It may just result in additional expenses with no benefit whatsoever.

Those rules are just a hurdle that can easily be overcome with a pliant architect on the payroll.

The stricter version [but still not really effective] is to make a bylaw that the membership has to sign off on any changes.  New South Wales GC has such a rule, so we can't proceed with any work there that changes the footprint of any bunker.  Their last go-round, they transformed one bunker into two or three smaller sod wall bunkers in many spots; then they created new "waste areas" [which are NOT bunkers ] in other areas. 

But to actually change the bunkers with a plan, the members will have to sign off on every one, probably in multiple parts.

[Carl Rogers]

TD, if you are still reading at this point in the thread, Riverfront continues to fill a couple of bunkers each year. .......
As management does not maintain them, it does make the argument for the bunker as a through the green waste area.

[Edward Glidewell]

Those rules are just a hurdle that can easily be overcome with a pliant architect on the payroll.


The stricter version [but still not really effective] is to make a bylaw that the membership has to sign off on any changes.  New South Wales GC has such a rule, so we can't proceed with any work there that changes the footprint of any bunker.  Their last go-round, they transformed one bunker into two or three smaller sod wall bunkers in many spots; then they created new "waste areas" [which are NOT bunkers   ] in other areas.But to actually change the bunkers with a plan, the members will have to sign off on every one, probably in multiple parts.

That was my takeaway. There will always be someone willing to sign off for the paycheck.


As for the rule you mentioned -- that sounds like a disaster. It's too strict; I imagine it would be almost impossible to ever make any changes. Even if the changes were voted on as one full package (as opposed to a more granular version) and passed, it would likely result in an exodus of members who were opposed to the changes.


Or at least that's what would happen at most private clubs in the US. I don't know enough about private club culture in Australia to know if they would suffer from a similar problem.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Those rules are just a hurdle that can easily be overcome with a pliant architect on the payroll.


The stricter version [but still not really effective] is to make a bylaw that the membership has to sign off on any changes.  New South Wales GC has such a rule, so we can't proceed with any work there that changes the footprint of any bunker.  Their last go-round, they transformed one bunker into two or three smaller sod wall bunkers in many spots; then they created new "waste areas" [which are NOT bunkers   ] in other areas.But to actually change the bunkers with a plan, the members will have to sign off on every one, probably in multiple parts.

That was my takeaway. There will always be someone willing to sign off for the paycheck.


As for the rule you mentioned -- that sounds like a disaster. It's too strict; I imagine it would be almost impossible to ever make any changes. Even if the changes were voted on as one full package (as opposed to a more granular version) and passed, it would likely result in an exodus of members who were opposed to the changes.


Or at least that's what would happen at most private clubs in the US. I don't know enough about private club culture in Australia to know if they would suffer from a similar problem.

Portmarnock has that rule. Any bunker movement needs EGM approval. Unfortunately it still hasn’t stopped unnecessary changes to the course.

[Thomas Dai]

I realize that the rising water and loss of the pebble ridge necessitate a redesign of holes 7-9 at Westward Ho! I am fearful that they will destroy the flow of the course. I am especially saddened that number nine will be changed from a great little par five to a par four.

I believe some of the bunkering short right of the 9th has already been revised.
As I suspected that despite thoughts to the contrary this might happen I took a whole bunch of photos of the green a while back. Might even have taken a video too.
Atb

[Ben Stephens]

Tim

I think you are viewing the golden age through slightly rose tinted spectacles. It was indeed a wonderful time for golf course architecture in terms of the advancement and dissemination of ideas and the design and construction of some wonderful courses. However the ODG's from that era weren't shy in changing each others work or on occasion their own work. So did they get things "wrong" or did some one just find a way to make a hole/course better ?

The other thing is we tend to judge some of these ODG's by what is in the ground now and that may well have been altered over the years by other architects, erosion, plant growth etc. So when you say you want to preserve Harry Colt's design at some lovely old links, how sure are you that what you are in fact looking at is his handy work ?

Niall

Niall,


I accept your point about ODGs changing each other's work. In fact, to show how bias I am, I have no doubt that if I was a member of the Honourable Company, and Simpson came knocking, I would likely have opposed any changes he made. And I acknowledge that he improved the course from all that we can see, and gave us one of the best par-3s in Scotland.


All that being said, I still believe, based on what I've seen and read (which isn't as much as some!), that many courses haven't materially improved post-golden age as a result of changes that weren't restorative in nature (either to a principle, or what was actually on the ground). In my mind, and this may be revisionist history, I can accept ODGs changing older courses, and even changing each other's work because they were establishing a new type of golf course design (strategic), where rules were being literally written and rewritten at the time.


Since then though, I can't see any major shift in GCA thinking that makes me feel older courses can be improved upon. For sure tastes and styles come and go, but the golden age was going from victorian and primitive styles of golf courses to ones that enhanced enjoyment and brought golf to the masses. I don't see a similar change in thinking that would lead me to believe that altering a Harry Colt course is a good idea.


But even if we take the above to be false, and I accept that this is just my opinion, but I'd rather have a Harry Colt that is a Doak 6, than a Colt, Steel, Mackenzie that is a Doak 7. I'd rather see a Colt course and understand who he was as an architect, what he valued, and what made him different, rather than playing a 'better' course. I love variety, and therefore, I'm always going to say 'leave it be and enjoy it for what it is'. I'm sure Colt or Mackenzie had a few misses, but I don't think that's any reason to update their courses. (I do acknowledge what Mark / Vinny say and minor tweaks here and there to a living breathing course are inevitable, but I believe were talking about updating greens/holes/routings, etc).


To bring the principle up to date, if we look at a Doak course like Renaissance, it isn't one of Doak's most well known courses, and I don't even think Tom himself would put it in his Top 5 favourite courses that he's done, but I'd be saddened if someone else came along in 30 years time and said 'Yup, I can improve this course'. Maybe he could, but I'd rather see what Doak did and understand / study where his strengths and weaknesses lay.


I appreciate I am a bit naive in this sense, but that's what I cherish, and some of the thinking behind why I will likely always want to 'leave well enough alone'.


If it isn't well-enough - then have at it!


PS - SPOILED: Eden Course - how has no one brought that up?!

Tim,


Played Eden course many times whilst at University - time they relocated the driving range on the Strathyrum course and redirect it in a northely direction as facing south is the cardinal sin when designing driving ranges. This would allow to partially restore some of the last 4 holes from the original Eden course.


Another one SPOILED is Stoke Park (from impression from photos as I have not played there) - even though they have spent millions on it - it doesn't feel like a Colt/Mackenzie course.


and .... Huntercombe - those tree plantings over the last century needs to be really pared back


Cheers
Ben

[Niall C]

And I will add to Mark’s answering for Tom:


The difference is the amount of times you tell a club something is not needed.


Architect A will start from a base of doing nothing and will have told a club this more times than not.


Architect B will not only tell every club that they can improve x, y & z. They will also invent as many ideas as possible in order to leave their mark.


It’s a matter of degrees. Everyone falls somewhere along that line. No one believes every course always needs left completely alone, primarily because there are often previous mistakes from Architect B to be fixed.

Ally

Please post examples where an architect has proposed work for the sake of adding to his fee and where he/she didn't think what they were doing was of a benefit.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

And I will add to Mark’s answering for Tom:


The difference is the amount of times you tell a club something is not needed.


Architect A will start from a base of doing nothing and will have told a club this more times than not.


Architect B will not only tell every club that they can improve x, y & z. They will also invent as many ideas as possible in order to leave their mark.


It’s a matter of degrees. Everyone falls somewhere along that line. No one believes every course always needs left completely alone, primarily because there are often previous mistakes from Architect B to be fixed.

Ally

Please post examples where an architect has proposed work for the sake of adding to his fee and where he/she didn't think what they were doing was of a benefit.

Niall

No

[Tom_Doak]

Please post examples where an architect has proposed work for the sake of adding to his fee and where he/she didn't think what they were doing was of a benefit.

Niall:


It's definitely being done, just not quite in the way you imagine.


The main way it's done is to specify construction methods that drive up the price of the project:  for example, building two new greens to USGA standards, instead of trying to match the other sixteen.  A $250k renovation generates higher fees than a $100k renovation.


Next level:  instead of just renovating the two greens, let's rebuild all 18 of them to USGA standards, to be consistent.  And let's re-do the greenside bunkers around them, with the best, most expensive new bunker liner technology.  And put in a new, state of the art irrigation system.  Now you're into the millions, and the architect's fee is much higher . . . and you are still only redesigning two greens.


Some of the most prestigious clubs in the U.S.A. are now in the middle of EIGHT-FIGURE renovation projects, while assuring us they are not changing the design of the course at all.


The knock-on effect of that is, it's hard to rebuild things exactly as they were.  You may argue that the architect is using that license to improve little features along the way, but the question is whether the club would have contracted for such tweaks or even agreed to them, if they weren't lost in the shuffle of a huge renovation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

And I will add to Mark’s answering for Tom:


The difference is the amount of times you tell a club something is not needed.


Architect A will start from a base of doing nothing and will have told a club this more times than not.


Architect B will not only tell every club that they can improve x, y & z. They will also invent as many ideas as possible in order to leave their mark.


It’s a matter of degrees. Everyone falls somewhere along that line. No one believes every course always needs left completely alone, primarily because there are often previous mistakes from Architect B to be fixed.

I agree with this.  Some random comments -


Although we marvel here at the number of $10Mil renovations, so do gca's at home and office.  But how many are there, really?  150 out of 15 Million courses?  Our penchant for discussing only the top courses may sway our views on just how prevalent this is.  Maybe Fazio or a few others have those types of renovations and even expect them.  That said, in talking to Tom Marzoff a while ago, he stressed that they are mostly trying to reduce scope and spread out work because it's best for their clients, even if a one shot big fee would be better for them. (Although most of us do master plans with at least the hope of getting much smaller commissions over the next ten years or so)


I will also say that while every course varies in what it needs and wants, at least in my case, the master plan process of analysis, multiple options and a recommendation, and then the owner's final decision remains the same for all projects.  Case in point, in a current 36 hole master plan, I recommended rebuilding greens from the ground up on one course, and merely re-grassing on the other, after bringing in an agronomist and developing those recommendations.  In recent master plans I have recommended renovations going from $1.2M to over $9Million (total cost, including fees, permitting, grow in, bonding cost, etc.)


One biz consultant I know strongly advocates for budgets topping out at $4.5Mil, saying that is all that can typically pay for itself.  The "boilerplate" part of my master plan report says, "Spending less usually (except on rare exceptions) beats spending more."


Going back to that 36 hole master plan, I cost out different methods. In the case of greens, here is what I wrote:


Recommendations – Full renovation to California Style greens.  Given the importance of your greens, it reduces risk of failure. In addition, we have estimated the cost of full, new USGA greens construction as $7.60 per S.F.  broken out as follows:



Drain Tile - $0.08 - 9% of cost
Pea Gravel Layer- $1.54 – 20%
Mix Layer- $5.65 – 70% (Using Pre-Blended 85/15 Greens Mix, if we can find local sand, this can be reduced)
Miscellaneous- $0.07 – 1%


The relatively low cost of drain tile suggests it is worthwhile to replace for certainty reasons.  If one thing were to be eliminated to save cost, it would be the pea gravel layer at 20% savings



In other words, analysis of a lot of relevant factors determines what type of renovation to pursue. IMHO, it is probably just as wrong to go in with an attitude of "We won't make any changes" as it is going in with "We'll blow it all up."  Going in with a "We'll do what we have to do, and no or not much more" based on analysis, consensus building, etc. is the most sincere approach to any master plan or renovation.


As always, JMHO.


And again, sorry for the formatting.  Think it may be my choice of internet browsers, and will change. 
Off to a field visit on a $2.7Mil renovation with lots of irrigation, drainage, but only design work to a few holes, save the new forward tees we are adding on every hole.  Believe me, there was no way I could convince them to spend more because I wanted to, even though it is always tough to just solve the worst 50% of their drainage problems because that is all they can afford.

[Tim Gallant]

And I will add to Mark’s answering for Tom:


The difference is the amount of times you tell a club something is not needed.


Architect A will start from a base of doing nothing and will have told a club this more times than not.


Architect B will not only tell every club that they can improve x, y & z. They will also invent as many ideas as possible in order to leave their mark.


It’s a matter of degrees. Everyone falls somewhere along that line. No one believes every course always needs left completely alone, primarily because there are often previous mistakes from Architect B to be fixed.

I agree with this.  Some random comments -


Although we marvel here at the number of $10Mil renovations, so do gca's at home and office.  But how many are there, really?  150 out of 15 Million courses?  Our penchant for discussing only the top courses may sway our views on just how prevalent this is.  Maybe Fazio or a few others have those types of renovations and even expect them.  That said, in talking to Tom Marzoff a while ago, he stressed that they are mostly trying to reduce scope and spread out work because it's best for their clients, even if a one shot big fee would be better for them. (Although most of us do master plans with at least the hope of getting much smaller commissions over the next ten years or so)

Jeff,


Thank you for the interesting post and example detail. I recently saw that Kyle Franz, Bradley Klein and Tyler Rae were doing work at Wampanoag CC - an old Ross course. I'd be curious to know what the plans are there. I wonder if a course like that gets more bang for their buck than say an Oak Hill or Inverness because it's less high profile.


Sorry - slight divergence from the topic I'm now back to leaving well alone 

[Paul Rudovsky]

  First, you didnt really have sustained recessions during 1946-1993 so a) there were more new courses being built during this time than 1993-2020 and b) as a result, you didnt have as many architects going around selling renovation work to clubs with money because they couldnt get any new course commissions.  So, its possible that other than renos being done to beef up courses for tournaments, there just wasnt as much then as there is now.


Also, courses from the 1920's and 30's are all the rage right now so there is demand to restore those courses back to how they were when they were originally designed (whether the holes play better now or not).  Once courses from the 60s and 70s come back into vogue, and they will because everything is cyclical and people will get tired of giant putt putt courses and will once again (like our fore fathers) recognize that getting the ball airborne is a critical part of the game, you'll see much more of the post war and modern era courses getting the de-tree treatment.



JC--Beg to differ on recessions 1946-93.  The 1970's was a period of prolonged persistent recession (high inflation and high unemployment simultaneous...prevously though to be an impossible task).  It often gets forgotten because it did not start with a "bang" (a la 2008) but it was substantive and long lasting. 


Interestingly, (at least IMO) the 1946-93 period was also one of poor new course development.  Outside of Peachtree, not much to show for a period of 47 years.  Part of the reason may have been the substantial growth of the housing industry after GI's returned from WWII...there was no good land available near major cities and building in places like the NE Sandhills and Oregon coast was viewed as "built it and they won't come".  Additionally there was the advent of environmental regulations in the 1970's...and architects and engineers had to develop was to work around these legal issues...it takes time for these learning processes to happen and become part of the profession.


Finally...I think the architects of '47-'93 were not as good or creative.  Dye was the exception but not much else stands out.  And the developers were not as good either.  Giver me Keiser and a Youngscap rather than a Lyle Anderson (Scottsdale) or Frazier (Hilton Head) any day of the week

[Tom_Doak]

 I recently saw that Kyle Franz, Bradley Klein and Tyler Rae were doing work at Wampanoag CC - an old Ross course. I'd be curious to know what the plans are there. I wonder if a course like that gets more bang for their buck than say an Oak Hill or Inverness because it's less high profile.

How does paying for three architects / consultants instead of one constitute bang for your buck?

[Adam Lawrence]

Another one SPOILED is Stoke Park (from impression from photos as I have not played there) - even though they have spent millions on it - it doesn't feel like a Colt/Mackenzie course.

MacKenzie???

[Ben Stephens]

Another one SPOILED is Stoke Park (from impression from photos as I have not played there) - even though they have spent millions on it - it doesn't feel like a Colt/Mackenzie course.

MacKenzie???

His assistant

[Jerry Kluger]

The obvious question to me is: what is "well enough?"  I understand that Donald Ross was credited with designing around 500 courses - are they all good enough that if they were exactly as they were when they were built would they really be special enough not to be touched?  How about the clubs that when the prestige of holding a USGA event and are told by the USGA that they will have to spend x amount of dollars on their course to be considered - should the USGA be told to leave well enough alone?  (I would answer yes to that but I doubt that most clubs would.)


I saw a comment about the work being done at Raleigh CC which is attributed to Donald Ross, although there is some question about that but that is not where I am going.  Richard Mandel has written quite a bit about Ross and was hired to restore RCC using the original plans but he did not have drawings of the greens so he built them as he would envision Ross would have done.  Now the course is being done again by a different architect and part of the work will involve some changes to the greens.  Perhaps this is somewhat like what was done at Hope Valley CC where they softened the contours because they were changing to Champion Bermuda and much faster green speeds.

[Adam Lawrence]

Another one SPOILED is Stoke Park (from impression from photos as I have not played there) - even though they have spent millions on it - it doesn't feel like a Colt/Mackenzie course.

MacKenzie???

His assistant

In 1908? The hell he was

[Jeff_Brauer]

Back from the site visit.  While driving I got to thinking about what might motivate architects to overdesign.


In my office over the years, it was the young guys who hadn't really had a chance to get their ideas in play.  I found myself wondering, does career timing have anything to do with it?  My generation of architects was lucky to be in our primes in the building boom, as someone noted. Someone entering a bit later might never design an 18 hole course.  Would they be tempted to put more of their ideas into something as a result?


Not trying to throw my fellow architects under the bus. My point is, yes there are all types, even in gca, but usually (certainly not always!) the personality type that goes into architecture is not primarily motivated by money and profit, they are motivated by the chance to express their chosen art.  Yes, you do have to think about money at some point, but I'll be most architecture offices think in terms of providing a middle or above salary, not some corporation with huge profits.  At least, I never dreamed of running a big office!


And, most architects are at least in the beginning, motivated by "pure" thoughts of doing their best. I am sure that those with an interest in history were thrilled to find clients who would let them work in an area that really interests them.


OT, but to the question of whether the relatively richer and more famous clubs are seen as an opportunity to pad fees or construction bids....maybe, because I am not in that market.  But the few times I have ventured in, those clubs seemed to think we should discount just for the privilege's of working for them and reminding candidates of what

the opportunity to be associated with

their famed tournament courses could do for a career as part of the negotiation tactic.  And, many of us would agree with them!


Again, random thoughts.