To restore or not restore - Design Intent

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
That is always the challenge and why I asked the question to Tom Doak on the Memorial thread - who should make the call about restoration and/or at least keep the character etc of the original designer.  As you know and as I pointed out, many times the owner or decision maker doesn't know what they have or don't have because the course has changed/evolved so much or frankly they just aren't into studying that kind of thing. Probably  95% of the members when I joined Lehigh didn't know it was a Flynn golf course or even cared.  So who should make the call?  My approach has always been to at least show the owner/decision maker what was there and how it evolved so they are more educated about the history of their design.  Sometimes the decision what to do at that point is obvious and sometimes it is not 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


There is another thing to consider.  Let's say a Ross course has been turned into a public course, and has somewhat decayed.  If it is struggling in the market, it's hard to know if it is design or general conditioning.  Few do any real study of what causes the decline, but most assume it is maintenance, not an unreasonable assumption......


The biz consultants type might conclude (also reasonably) that the course would benefit from a re-branding.  If it is of good enough quality, there are certainly cases where retro re-branding has been a big success.  But, as you note, so few golfers really know gca history, if you had a public meeting, most would prefer that we redo it in Doak, Hanse, Rees, or whatever style is currently fashionable.  And, if that is what might drive them to play the course (and others to try it for the first time in a long time) perhaps the almighty dollar should rule?


I am reminded that many of the earlier guys courses were actually redos of very primitive Victorian Style golf courses that were proven to be unpopular (I assume)  Ross certainly never considered the earlier style at his projects of that type, he gave the customer what they wanted, which was his then current style, no?

[Adam Lawrence]

I am reminded that many of the earlier guys courses were actually redos of very primitive Victorian Style golf courses that were proven to be unpopular (I assume)  Ross certainly never considered the earlier style at his projects of that type, he gave the customer what they wanted, which was his then current style, no?

FWIW I don't quite agree with this. I'd say the Golden Age architects were creators of taste, not followers. Colt and his ilk, for example, removed lots of blindness on courses dating from the 19th century, and these holes were often the most famous or most beloved on the course. Consider all the whingeing about the 'neutering' of the Maiden at Royal St Georges, for example.


Strategic design, and modern golf architecture generally, were creations of an elite, and spread top-down.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,


You make good points.  That said, I notice a very similar language in many of their books, i.e., angles, curves not straight lines, etc.  I always presumed one of them came up with it, and the other five were followers!  I have to think that the groupthink, me too, involved in the current passion, i.e., restoration, was present at that time too.  But, maybe that's just me.

[Tom_Doak]

But, in typing this out, I am still muttering, "Restore Floyd Farley?"

Jeff:


My original suggestion here, 15-20 years ago, was that every architect should select a certain # or % [not more than 10%] of his best courses and suggest that those be preserved / restored.  That would allow even Floyd Farley [as well as you and me] to suggest that the best of his work be preserved.


Of course that would not OVERRIDE the course owner's wishes when push came to shove, but it might be a factor if they had spent years promoting it as the course Farley was most proud of.


Of course, I got the usual pushback from you and Forrest and maybe Mark that "golf courses are living things," "the game is played differently," yada yada.  But at least my suggestion has the advantage of having THE ARCHITECT HIMSELF declare what of his work is worthy of preservation, instead of some other architect forty years later who's trying to make a buck.


P.S.  If John Bredemus himself had left in his will that Memorial Park was his best work and ought to be preserved, I would probably have declined that job, even though I am sure someone else would have taken it.  That was also my attitude when I was asked to look at the New course at Ballybunion -- I don't think it's a great course, but Mr. Jones thought it was one of his absolute best, and had told me so directly.

[Mike_Young]

As JB says above much of the ODG stuff we see today is retro rebranding.  And as TD says so much of "intent" is translated BS.  And so, using Ross as an example...  Doesn't respect for his body of work demand expertise?  And as Gladwell says in Outliers...10,000 hours is a good number for defining expert...   If Ross were to come back today whether via mushrooms or LSD would he pick an architect who had his own body of work or some dude who was a declared architecture writer and ODG expert to improve on his courses.  I would bet $100,000 oh his answer...   it's difficult to argue such a subject when all have a different definition....

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I remember you saying that before about an architect nominating or citing several of their courses that they would like to be preserved or restored.  However, I would think no architect wants any of their designs changed, why would they.  Maybe that raises a question; what do architects do (or do they even care) about how their courses will and/or are going to change over time and how they will remain relevant in the future so they doesn’t need to be altered? 


Mike,
Not sure if you are correct who Ross would pick     Who would you pick, someone who has studied your work and really appreciates your designs and what you did or some noted big name architect who could less who Mike Young was or what he did and is only interested in doing their own thing?  Think about it as it may not be as obvious as you believe 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


I agree on best 10% idea, and once postulated that of 400 Ross courses, perhaps only the top 25% would be worth restoring, or his top 100.  For most of us, that would be the top 10 at most.


I'm not always sure a gca is the best evaluator of his own work.  For instance, if Tillie wrote that we should preserve his course because it has a Hell's half acre, but it was now a high play public, there would still be pressure to change that.


And, if I was putting together my list, TBH, it would probably say, "Please restore the Quarry, but frankly, I think hole X could use a little work."  NO design is perfect, even to its creator.  So, my thought is that all gca's should document their recollections of design, the whys, the wherefores, and let the future people take that into account, rather than a list.  And, I think most restorations probably go that way, starting with the intent to restore 100%, but running across specific features that don't work, or more importantly could work better in today's conditions.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam wrote:

'Strategic design, and modern golf architecture generally, were creations of an elite, and spread top-down.'

I found that one of the most striking ideas/explanations on this thread (which otherwise, and not surprisingly, has become mostly about the differing ways to define 'restoration'.)

The 2nd golden age of strategic golf design also seems to be a 'top down' creation-movement, though one driven not by the same kind of 'elites'.

An interesting twist: American populists restoring (or reinventing or recreating) the work of British elites!

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I remember you saying that before about an architect nominating or citing several of their courses that they would like to be preserved or restored.  However, I would think no architect wants any of their designs changed, why would they.  Maybe that raises a question; what do architects do (or do they even care) about how their courses will and/or are going to change over time and how they will remain relevant in the future so they doesn’t need to be altered? 


Mike,
Not sure if you are correct who Ross would pick     Who would you pick, someone who has studied your work and really appreciates your designs and what you did or some noted big name architect who could less who Mike Young was or what he did and is only interested in doing their own thing?  Think about it as it may not be as obvious as you believe 

First, 95% of boards and clients have no clue whether you restored or renovated or did your own thing...it's all in the sales pitch....
Second, I would not spend the time to make a list of my own stuff because I try to be realistic as to where golf design really stands in the golf world. 

Third,  the biggest bunch of BS in golf is expertise of any specific architect's work....it's laughable...   expertise in anything is accomplished by mastering the fundamentals.  routing, strategy, drainage etc are learned by hours spent doing it....building a Ross bunker to a guy who has built enough of his own stuff is like changing a spark plug to the guy designing cars.  And I am sure there is a guy out there who has read every Ferrari magazine and assumes the title of Ferrari spark plug changing expert...but what I see now is a bunch of guys who built the bunker they want and if it's a Ross course then they call it a Ross bunker...and they continue to interpret the Ross contours when it gets to the greens.   Give me a good seasoned architect with his own body of work and ask him to be gentle....

[Ira Fishman]

Imaginary Conversations Between Green Committee Chair and Potential Restorer


Tom Doak: If the bunker is there, the ODG must have had a good reason to put it there so we are going to leave it there. But this is a helluva site. Interested in a new design?


Jeff Brauer: Let’s remove the bunker. It will save on maintenance costs, and I can improve the drainage.


Mark Fine: I need about three hours to go through all of the research about why the ODG intended to put the bunker there. I even have a Power Point deck.


Mike Young: I know what I am doing. Just stay out of my way and the bunker will be fine.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Imaginary Conversations Between Green Committee Chair and Potential Restorer

Tom Doak: If the bunker is there, the ODG must have had a good reason to put it there so we are going to leave it there. But this is a helluva site. Interested in a new design?

Ira:


You have a healthy imagination.  I've only done new designs over old ones at clubs that called me specifically with that in mind.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I would need at least 4 hours not three 


Good post. 


Mike,
The reason I am busy as are others like Ron Forse is because there are a lot of courses that have been chopped up by some architect or committee (many who had large bodies of their own work but didn’t care or know about what was there before).  I haven’t yet had the opportunity to work on any courses that “have been restored” by some restoration expert that someone wants to restore or renovate again.   
Maybe that will be the next round of projects we go after - fix the “restored” courses by all the BS experts 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I remember you saying that before about an architect nominating or citing several of their courses that they would like to be preserved or restored.  However, I would think no architect wants any of their designs changed, why would they.  Maybe that raises a question; what do architects do (or do they even care) about how their courses will and/or are going to change over time and how they will remain relevant in the future so they doesn’t need to be altered?

Mark:


Well Jeff says every architect thinks he could have done better on each design; I guess you haven't had that experience to know.  But presumably, based on your previous posts, you would want every one of your courses to be updated in the future as it matures and changes.  Personally, I wouldn't.


I think the problem with my idea would be more one of political correctness -- the other 90% of our clients will be pissed off they weren't named as one of our best.  But perhaps that would be added leverage to get a few of them to fix up and preserve our work?


If I made a list it wouldn't mean that guys have to change the other 90% of my courses, it would just say, here are the ones that I wish wouldn't change.  Maybe you wouldn't want to specify any of them, if tournament play was important to you, and you didn't trust the ruling bodies to keep the game in order and wanted all of your courses to be lengthened accordingly.  But, who better than us to know which of our courses are more amenable to being lengthened / updated, and which more likely to be ruined in the attempt?


I guess another way to look at it would be, how much has been lost from the design intent on our earliest courses?  I have a few that have been around for 25-30 years now:


* I intended High Pointe to be around, but I wouldn't have changed anything on it if it was.
* The Legends never got the approaches to be firm and fast like we wanted them, but otherwise it's held up well to the onslaught.
* Stonewall's greens are not 9 on the Stimpmeter like they promised me, but there's really only one of them that needs work after all this time.


Sure, some young guy might be able to carry some fairway bunker today that you couldn't 25 years ago, but at the same time other players would reach it who couldn't before.  My "intent" is to serve everybody from a lady who hits it 90 yards on the ground [in honor of my mom] to a player so good we can't even imagine him yet, and if I do a good job with that, it should hold up well no matter how far anyone hits it in the future.

[Mike_Young]

I haven’t yet had the opportunity to work on any courses that “have been restored” by some restoration expert that someone wants to restore or renovate again.   

I have...and I have also played a few

[Tom_Doak]

I haven’t yet had the opportunity to work on any courses that “have been restored” by some restoration expert that someone wants to restore or renovate again.   

I have...and I have also played a few

Charlotte Country Club has been restored three times since I first saw it !

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I haven't done complete new designs but I have done a lot of renovation/restoration work so in some ways it is no different.  Take the work Forrest and I did at Mira Vista (now Berkeley CC), we even changed parts of the routing on that one along with most everything else on the entire golf course.  I am sure some of that work with get changed over time as well (it is the circle of GCA) and if and when it happens so be it - I hope it is for the better.  I just hope the work I have done so far is enjoyed by those I was doing it for.  To me the worse thing that could happen is the golf course disappeared altogether (but I know that is a possibility as well). 


Also you make very good points about your own golf courses but remember many of the courses we are talking about "restoring" are 100 years old.  I think most architects might expect some tweaking might be required after that long a time but then again how are we supposed to know what they would think 


I played Charlotte a few years ago.  Maybe that is a good example of what Mike Young thinks about restoration     

[Mike_Young]

[quote author=Mark_Fine link=topic=69464.msg1669018#msg1669018 date=1614900055
I played Charlotte a few years ago.  Maybe that is a good example of what Mike Young thinks about restoration 

I live in the most liberal town in the SE.  Lots of little hippy type contractors who call themselves craftsmen and have convinced other hippy types that this is the case.  You know the type, they play like one of the "this old house" types.  Well, I needed a staircase done with some intricate millwork.  Got convinced one of the "craftsmen" could do it best...would get there at 9am and talk for an hour about how it used to be done when there were only handplanes and hand saws...3 weeks later and $4000 ( at $30 per hor)after watching this shit show I hired a cabinetmaker/millwright type.  !.5 days and $2500 and it was done correctly....not saying the first guy couldn't get it done but I am not one to tolerate BS lightly and after a few weeks it gets old....same goes for me and old golf courses...

[Carl Rogers]

I wonder if some very good golf courses, whose business models (fees) could not support the maintenance requirement a conceptual re-think



Royal New Kent & Riverfront come to mind


The complexity of RNK (and I don't know the course as well) makes this problematic.


Riverfront (played a lot over 18  years) has been under going a significant and IMO clumbsy bunker removal program for a number of years.  At some point, either 1 or 2 events will occur:
-- current management will throw in the towel and sell.....
....,.. or .....
-- the greens will wear out and need a 100 percent do over.
I do not see how the business model can change as to create a bigger maintenance budget.  Thus I do not  see how a "restoration"  (bunker re-creation) is possible.  Which leads me to the conclusion as stated above, a re-think.

[Tom_Doak]

I haven't done complete new designs but I have done a lot of renovation/restoration work so in some ways it is no different. 

Sorry, but that's different.  What you're describing might be comparable to my work on Medinah No. 1, which was pretty thorough, but that would not be a prime candidate to preserve for posterity.  The point of the exercise is to preserve intact some examples of each architect's style, but I think you've got to build new courses to qualify for that, or wait until the Mark Fine Society starts pounding their fists on the table for greater recognition 50 years from now.

[Tom_Doak]

Riverfront (played a lot over 18  years) has been under going a significant and IMO clumbsy bunker removal program for a number of years.  At some point, either 1 or 2 events will occur:
-- current management will throw in the towel and sell.....
....,.. or .....
-- the greens will wear out and need a 100 percent do over.
I do not see how the business model can change as to create a bigger maintenance budget.  Thus I do not  see how a "restoration"  (bunker re-creation) is possible.  Which leads me to the conclusion as stated above, a re-think.

Carl:


I remember from day 1 my original client at Riverfront was concerned that the price of golf in the area was so low, it would be hard to make any money operating the course.  That's why he sold.


The management company that bought the course has never contacted me about changing it or fixing it.  I guess I could chase them down, but if they don't want to spend any money and just grass over bunkers, I'm not sure how I can help.  Probably the best solution would be to eliminate a lot of bunkers, but spruce up the ones you keep.  Poorly maintained bunkers are never going to be popular.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Actually doing new vs doing a renovation is very different so you are right.  But I guess it is relative to what we each have done.  All I got is what I got 


Honestly I love the idea of preserving original architects work but do you think it is practical?  For someone like you it would be a tough choice what to choose. 

[Jeff Schley]

Ira that is funny. Nice to break up the serious discussion with some humor.

Imaginary Conversations Between Green Committee Chair and Potential Restorer


Tom Doak: If the bunker is there, the ODG must have had a good reason to put it there so we are going to leave it there. But this is a helluva site. Interested in a new design?


Jeff Brauer: Let’s remove the bunker. It will save on maintenance costs, and I can improve the drainage.


Mark Fine: I need about three hours to go through all of the research about why the ODG intended to put the bunker there. I even have a Power Point deck.


Mike Young: I know what I am doing. Just stay out of my way and the bunker will be fine.


Ira

[Sean_A]

Tom,
I remember you saying that before about an architect nominating or citing several of their courses that they would like to be preserved or restored.  However, I would think no architect wants any of their designs changed, why would they.  Maybe that raises a question; what do architects do (or do they even care) about how their courses will and/or are going to change over time and how they will remain relevant in the future so they doesn’t need to be altered?

Mark:


Well Jeff says every architect thinks he could have done better on each design; I guess you haven't had that experience to know.  But presumably, based on your previous posts, you would want every one of your courses to be updated in the future as it matures and changes.  Personally, I wouldn't.


I think the problem with my idea would be more one of political correctness -- the other 90% of our clients will be pissed off they weren't named as one of our best.  But perhaps that would be added leverage to get a few of them to fix up and preserve our work?


If I made a list it wouldn't mean that guys have to change the other 90% of my courses, it would just say, here are the ones that I wish wouldn't change.  Maybe you wouldn't want to specify any of them, if tournament play was important to you, and you didn't trust the ruling bodies to keep the game in order and wanted all of your courses to be lengthened accordingly.  But, who better than us to know which of our courses are more amenable to being lengthened / updated, and which more likely to be ruined in the attempt?


I guess another way to look at it would be, how much has been lost from the design intent on our earliest courses?  I have a few that have been around for 25-30 years now:


* I intended High Pointe to be around, but I wouldn't have changed anything on it if it was.
* The Legends never got the approaches to be firm and fast like we wanted them, but otherwise it's held up well to the onslaught.
* Stonewall's greens are not 9 on the Stimpmeter like they promised me, but there's really only one of them that needs work after all this time.


Sure, some young guy might be able to carry some fairway bunker today that you couldn't 25 years ago, but at the same time other players would reach it who couldn't before.  My "intent" is to serve everybody from a lady who hits it 90 yards on the ground [in honor of my mom] to a player so good we can't even imagine him yet, and if I do a good job with that, it should hold up well no matter how far anyone hits it in the future.

What does "hold up well" mean?

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

   Shouldn’t the question be: “to improve or not improve?”  A good architect will be a good hire; a bad one not so much.