[Don Mahaffey]

20 years ago I was a Supt on a Ralph Plummer designed Golf Course.  The course had been altered through the years, primarily the bunkering.  Plummer's bunkers were larger, deeper, and had been placed using a different logic than that used by those who had moved them around. For instance, on two of the longer par 5s, Plummer had placed bunkers in the line of play 30-50 yards from the greens and built them with top lines that blended into the green surrounds so from 250 out it looked like the bunkers were much closer to the green. The changes rubbed out the Plummer bunkers a bit and grassed them over, but they were still easy to see and a little digging revealed sand (clay site). The new bunkers had been reduced in size and placed tight to the greens.  In another case a large Plummer bunker was placed on the outside of a dogleg and seemed to help transition from turf to native desert. That bunker was grassed over and a new bunker had been added on the inside of the dogleg. It seemed to me that the original work was clearly superior to the subsequent tweaking, but the course was not of any historical note, had almost closed down for a time, and no one knows who Ralph Plummer is. 
Red Lawrence, Plummer, Muir Graves, Von Hagge....do any of these architects have designs worthy of restoration? I think Von Hagge had an interesting style but it's certainly not minimalist, so not sure the up and comers would ever even notice. Anyone else do something of note that may be worth restoring? Or is the resto word too toxic unless it's one of the famous ODGs?

[Mark_Fine]

Don,
Nice post.  It is Christmas so busy with lots of family events but these are the kinds of courses that the far majority of architects like myself get to work on.  They ALL deserve a careful look at some form of restoration.  I have recently spent a lot of time working on Gordon courses and while they are not all God's gift to golf architecture, they each have many very interesting design aspects that we have restored and were worth bringing back.  I am also currently working on a Loeffler course, a Gordon/Ferdinand Gardin design, an Ed Ault layout, and a Gordon/James Harrison redesign.  Each one of these deserved a careful look but not all deserve eight figure restoration budgets which seems like the norm for the celebrity courses/architects these days - crazy numbers.  It is more like what can you do to improve/restore parts of the golf course with a five or low six figure budget. 

[Joe Hancock]

Merry Christmas, Don.


Not sure my opinion is valid for anyone but myself, but I would start *any* consulting gig with the best research I could do to be informed of how the course came to be, who the original and subsequent architects were, and why they made the decisions they did.


Any older course is subject to outside influences that may not make restoration a good option. For instance, maybe there were bunkers in the lower elevations of a hole that used to not have water issues, but maybe now does due to development out an around the course.


It’s a case by case basis of whether restoration is even an option, let alone a good one. If the original architect created a functional, but dull course, there’s no reason to restore that. But, as you say, if the original archie did a really good job of utilizing the existing features to create an interesting golf course, there’s a case for restoring. Starting the process with a history lesson makes sense to me.


None of the above addresses the popularity contests, the en vogue trends of the day. Nor does it address architects pushing agendas that might serve their own ends more than the course and it’s golfers, and that’s not for me to judge.

[Peter Pallotta]

This is interesting. Joe has already touched on my points.
Implicit in the decision not to restore but to renovate is the modern architect's belief that 'I can do better'. And I wouldn't necessarily or automatically disagree with that.
It takes a lot of nerve and self confidence and clout for a modern architect to say 'I can do better than Mackenzie and Ross'. But it doesn't yet take very much to say 'I can do better than Ault, Gordon and Plummer'.
Should it?
Should the talents and designs of those latter three be as reflexively respected and honoured as that of the first two?
I suppose that's for the experts to know/decide.

[Ronald Montesano]

Maybe not better than the aforementioned ones, but akin to what we've discussed on concurrent threads ...

better than what was put on the ground THEN and how it was received AFTER and how worthy it is NOW.

This just gave me an idea for yet another thread. See you there.

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I think there are probably more than a few good golf courses in all regions of the country that were done by regional guys who many of us have never heard of and they did good work.  I don't know if it's called renovation or Restoration but I do think good practical work done in the same manner as y'all did Winter Park can get these places where they need to be.  There was a dark age and lots of good local places were messed up.  And if you are thinking pure restoration then perhaps they are very very few that are worthy.  Relating it to irons....the old blades were not as good as the new blades but the new ones reflect the old look...JMO

[Ronald Montesano]

It occurred to me that there might be an elephant in the room:

how much of the work of these less-known architects was actually altered?

[archie_struthers]

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ronald,


I am going to bet most of the mid level gca's got their work altered at some point, as part of the same thought process as any other course got altered.  It was "time for change" to then current "sensibilities."


Joe makes good points with which I agree.  I will add that the situations are all so different that the only overriding mantra might be, "Keep what works, and fix what doesn't work anymore."  That should be on a per course basis, not a per architect basis.  Oh, I suppose someone could get organized enough to create a list to preserve the best 1-3 candidates of every major architect (perhaps using ASGCA membership to start, and adding as required by course numbers, i.e., no sense restoring the best 3 of the only 3 courses Joe Blow designed)


And, there are so many courses that were, for example, private, but are changing to a public role, so the question of what works often isn't about the original design, it's what works for the future of THAT course and keeping it's tee sheets full and costs down.  (Obvious bias for the kind of work that is going on now, but a good reminder for the next time high budgets hit renovations at all levels, times won't always be good, so don't be too extravagant.) 


That seems like a crazy thought, but a practical example might be - Would someone restoring a Pete Dye course keep all the 1000's of yards of strip sand bunkers?  I mean, they might be there now, but even TPC Jacksonville got rid of a lot of them as impractical.


Or, like Don, I have renovated more than a few Plummer courses.  In general, other than supers who maintain them, not many have sung the praises of what his bunkers were (or at least had become) which were too different from Robert Bruce Harris' clamshell bunkers.  If a current generation of more visually attuned golfers don't like simply shaped bunkers, why would you suggest to a struggling owner that they are worth restoring?


For that matter, those of us in the "lesser architect" arena would probably tell you (and really, it would be a great idea to write it down) that every project we had could have stood another $100,000, $250,000 or even Million dollars to do right.  So in a way, is it worth restoring what was a "compromised design?"


Short version, I see a lot of reasons to say no.....and if I have time, I may even type out my response as to why that would include my own courses!  A shorter version of that is, I won't have any control over it anyway, I'll be dead and won't care, so why spend a minute worrying about whether someone wants to restore my courses or update them?


Happy New Year to All!

[Tom_Doak]

For that matter, those of us in the "lesser architect" arena would probably tell you (and really, it would be a great idea to write it down) that every project we had could have stood another $100,000, $250,000 or even Million dollars to do right.  So in a way, is it worth restoring what was a "compromised design?"

This hit me so strangely I've got to ask about it.  I hope I'm not hijacking the thread.


I thought the whole purpose of being an ASGCA architect who could produce precise plans was to ensure that the project would be completed on time and on budget to its highest possible standard.  So when are they all compromised? 


Does the client just throw out a number at the beginning, which you think isn't enough, but you take the job anyway?


Do the bids come in too high, so you have to compromise something in the design to make up for it?


Do you just underestimate what it will take?


I really don't understand this whole line of thinking.  I've had a handful of projects where we just didn't have the crew we needed to execute the construction to its best.  I guess a couple of times that was about the budget, or a client trying to cut corners, but I never really look back and think that $250k would have made the difference.  For me, it's always about the time we spent on it and the abilities of the crew, not the $$$.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
With all due respect, you and Gil and many others are in a different league.  Most of the rest of us have much more limited budgets to work with and need to manage with them the best we can.  Even at my home club which is a fairly high end private, we are undergoing a bunker renovation/restoration/redesign, and some of the bunkers will get cap concrete and some will not because we just don't have the budget to do them all.  The ones that don't will get new sand but will have to get adjusted and cap concrete added at another time in the future when money is available.  At my last three projects we had to leave out certain design features (certain bunkers, green expansions, modified/additional tees, additional tree work,...) for the time being until more money was available.  At many of my projects we only do a few holes at a time from the master plan as money comes available.  There are MANY compromises made on these kind of projects and architects do the best they can with what funds they are given. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
With all due respect, you and Gil and many others are in a different league.  Most of the rest of us have much more limited budgets to work with and need to manage with them the best we can.  Even at my home club which is a fairly high end private, we are undergoing a bunker renovation/restoration/redesign, and some of the bunkers will get cap concrete and some will not because we just don't have the budget to do them all.  The ones that don't will get new sand but will have to get adjusted and cap concrete added at another time in the future when money is available.  At my last three projects we had to leave out certain design features (certain bunkers, green expansions, modified/additional tees, additional tree work,...) for the time being until more money was available.  At many of my projects we only do a few holes at a time from the master plan as money comes available.  There are MANY compromises made on these kind of projects and architects do the best they can with what funds they are given.

Mark:


With all due respect, what league are you talking about?  My questions to Jeff referenced projects from my first new design 33 years ago [budget: $1.3 million] to today.  Two-thirds of those courses were built for less than the average new golf course budget. 


Zero of my forty golf courses to date ave installed capillary concrete in any of the bunkers.  The only places I've done that are at a couple of clubs that INSISTED on it.


My top two priorities are design and shaping, not capillary concrete.  If you're defining "compromise" as not being able to spend $15 million on a renovation, you're talking to the wrong guy.

[Mike_Young]

Joe makes good points with which I agree.   Oh, I suppose someone could get organized enough to create a list to preserve the best 1-3 candidates of every major architect (perhaps using ASGCA membership to start, and adding as required by course numbers, i.e., no sense restoring the best 3 of the only 3 courses Joe Blow designed)

Not to be picking on you but since you mention ASGCA above I just couldn't help it....do you have that many guys in there now that actually have designed a golf course with their name on it..including past presidents...much less have a golf course that could need restoration...I'm sure there are a few...    

And regarding TD's question above "For that matter, those of us in the "lesser architect" arena would probably tell you (and really, it would be a great idea to write it down) that every project we had could have stood another $100,000, $250,000 or even Million dollars to do right.  So in a way, is it worth restoring what was a "compromised design?"  I think I understand what you meant to say...you were saying there was more you might have wanted to add but you phrased it as if it was not done correctly, I don't think you meant that...JMO

[Matt Kardash]

Joe makes good points with which I agree.   Oh, I suppose someone could get organized enough to create a list to preserve the best 1-3 candidates of every major architect (perhaps using ASGCA membership to start, and adding as required by course numbers, i.e., no sense restoring the best 3 of the only 3 courses Joe Blow designed)

Not to be picking on you but since you mention ASGCA above I just couldn't help it....do you have that many guys in there now that actually have designed a golf course with their name on it..including past presidents...much less have a golf course that could need restoration...I'm sure there are a few...    

And regarding TD's question above "For that matter, those of us in the "lesser architect" arena would probably tell you (and really, it would be a great idea to write it down) that every project we had could have stood another $100,000, $250,000 or even Million dollars to do right.  So in a way, is it worth restoring what was a "compromised design?"  I think I understand what you meant to say...you were saying there was more you might have wanted to add but you phrased it as if it was not done correctly, I don't think you meant that...JMO

Yeah, I understood it the way Mike did.It's like a film director making a film for 1 million dollars and thinking to himself, I could have done this a whole lot better if I had 2 million. Money does unlock possibility.

[Garland Bayley]

Restore Macan at Eugene.

[mike_beene]

From my amateur perspective, Ralph Plummer could route a course that used the land in a nice way. I am only assuming he did the routing on his own courses. The best example is gone, having been redone as Mirabel(sp). Used to be my favorite course in Dallas.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Maybe I misspoke but have you ever had a project (new course or renovation) where you were limited on what or how much you could do because of the budget?  And if so, where did you compromise?  For most architects, budget is a limiting factor even if you are a minimalist and only doing what is deemed necessary.  Often the funds are just not there and you have to help the club/course prioritize and do the best you can to get the most out of the budget they have.  Frankly this should always be the case but often what many of us hear is “we have $100K to spend this year, what should we do?”  You slowly work through your improvement plan. 


And by the way, cap concrete was not my choice.  I don’t ever use liners unless forced to. 

[Tom_Doak]

often what many of us hear is “we have $100K to spend this year, what should we do?”  You slowly work through your improvement plan. 

There's nothing wrong with working to a budget.  One of the best jobs we've done was CommonGround, where the mission statement was, "What all can you do with the $4 million we have to make this course better?"


The architect who proposed spending $8m and bumping up the green fee didn't get the job!


Now, I don't think CommonGround is as great a course as Pacific Dunes, but I don't lose any sleep wishing they'd had $4.25 million, as Jeff's post implied.  The budget didn't stop us from building the greens we wanted to, or the bunkers we wanted to, so I just don't see that any part of that job was a "compromise".  Heck, Eric Iverson even saved enough during the project to build that nine-hole kids' course with the funds left over.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
$4MM is A LOT of money.  At Bethlehem Muni, an old Gordon course, we essentially had about $800K and we had to either remove or restore or redesign every bunker, add all new sand, modify all 18 greens, take down hundreds of trees, add/improve/replace drainage, modify all grassing lines, fix/remove/replace cart paths, added tees, ….  I am extremely proud of what we accomplished with that budget.  Some current renovations/restorations are spending more than that on one hole    Did we make compromises and not do all we wanted, absolutely.  We had no choice. There is still more to be done but the course has been transformed for the better and people love it.  As far as I know the green fee has not changed 

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:  $4 million is not so much money for a completely new course - totally changed routing, new irrigation system, new everything.


We have gone well off the rails of the topic started.  Gordon was a good architect, wasn't he?  Why are you having to blow up everything he built?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
We didn’t blow up everything.  We actually brought a lot back.  So much had changed since it was first built.  Unnecessary trees, changed grassing lines, the course becoming a catch basin for all the runoff from the community around it, silly mounding that had been added,…the list goes on.  The greens are now one of the best sets of Gordon greens that I have ever seen as we removed all the years of sand build up and brought them back to the edges of the original fillpads.  They had changed dramatically from what was first there.  But not all was worth restoring as Gordon often had a habit of repetition with his green side bunkering - bunker right and left on most of every hole.  We changed that and added short grass and variety in recovery options.  I think it shows what can be accomplished on a very small budget if managed well. 


Courses like this don't get much press which is fine but Brad Klein did do an article to help promote the USGA Green Section which talks about the project. I give them lots of credit as they helped get the project going 


https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/course-care/green-section-record/59/09/restoring-bethlehem-golf-club-with-help-from-a-usga-agronomist.html#

[Jeff_Brauer]

For that matter, those of us in the "lesser architect" arena would probably tell you (and really, it would be a great idea to write it down) that every project we had could have stood another $100,000, $250,000 or even Million dollars to do right.  So in a way, is it worth restoring what was a "compromised design?"

This hit me so strangely I've got to ask about it.  I hope I'm not hijacking the thread. You are....or at least, you unlocked the switch, and then Mike Young lined it so the train would head off some siding into a warehouse.


I thought the whole purpose of being an ASGCA architect who could produce precise plans was to ensure that the project would be completed on time and on budget to its highest possible standard.  So when are they all compromised?   I'' address the ASGCA part in another post, but yes, many of us pride ourselves on precise plans, albeit, golf courses can be quite imprecise depending on how much advance research is done about soils, water tables, rock, etc.  While quality is no. 1 for most of us, there is often an implied "on time, on budget" component for most owners.


Does the client just throw out a number at the beginning, which you think isn't enough, but you take the job anyway?  Most clients, like your Denver public course, do have an initial budget.  Where they come from, I don't know.  A few years ago I won a muni job and the RFQ stated a $2.7Mil budget.  I asked them about it, figuring they were working with an architect to develop that number, but it turned out that was the money they had left in the bond package, and they devoted it to much needed renovations of the golf course, and as in Mark's example, told us to make it go as far as we could in fixing the biggest problems. 

The worst part about initial budgets is that we often find Owner's snip a bit out for maintenance equipment, clubhouse repairs, etc.  We don't always know we are underfunded.

Do the bids come in too high, so you have to compromise something in the design to make up for it?

I'm not sure what others do, but I usually have some "hip pocket" deducts in mind, just in case.  Typical might be switching from USGA to California or other types green construction, eliminating bunker liner or using the cheapest one, etc.  The goal is to make changes that are normally "transparent" to the average golfer, although we sometimes downsize overall green size by about 500-1000 SF per green, if necessary.

And to be clear to the gca nerds out there, whether budget, land use, or "pure design" every design is a series of compromises, picking one thing or way over another.
Do you just underestimate what it will take?


I will put my budgeting record against anyone's.  I find the biggest misses (including mine) are from not considering big ticket items, rather than an accumulation of small adds (although those can hurt, too.)  My biggest misses were the cost of rock removal on my first MN project (a mix of quantity and state contract procedures that favored contractors) and once, early on, not including perimeter fencing the owner thought should be part of the golf budget.  Other than those, and maybe a few more lesser ones, my bids usually come in within 10% of my estimate, which the owner can accept, or take the deducts listed above.

Perhaps my most unusual project was one where I estimated $4.6M (late 90's) and was directed to lower it to $4M (and paid to revise the drawings.)  We had a friendly bet of a new set of clubs that the original budget would end up expanding to $4.6M, which I won.


I really don't understand this whole line of thinking.  I've had a handful of projects where we just didn't have the crew we needed to execute the construction to its best.  I guess a couple of times that was about the budget, or a client trying to cut corners, but I never really look back and think that $250k would have made the difference.  For me, it's always about the time we spent on it and the abilities of the crew, not the $$$.

At some point, labor will = money in the owner's mind, but whatever.  After the initial budget, many decisions are made, not always by the gca.  The super may NOT give up on USGA greens, and negotiate them back in, we always want more sod than we can afford or had budgeted, etc., so we try to remove other things we find we don't need as much as we thought. 

We always try to keep value engineering the project to the end for the Owner's benefit, but sometimes they just cut things they really will just end up doing in year one or two of the course's life which would have been cheaper just to do right the first time.  Your experience may vary, but I would be my sentiment (as better interpreted by Mike Young) probably isn't all that uncommon. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

As to your and Mike's mentions of ASGCA.


First, I only mentioned it in terms of a good place to start an all time list of architects, should any intrepid soul decide to begin a list of "other courses that deserve restoration."  Of course, other sources should be used, like Whitten's book, etc.


As to the "whole purpose of being an ASGCA architect," being precise plans, et al, I am surprised someone mentored by Pete and Alice Dye would overlook the fact that they were well regarded members, Presidents, and also involved in fewer plans and more construction.  Since our honorary first President (Ross), President (Harris) and VP, (RTJ) not to mention half the original members, we have had architects who probably drew less than precise plans and relied more on the construction side to get things done.  I suppose you are trying to be snarky!


To me, the whole purpose of being in ASGCA is the fellowship with other architects, learning opportunities, and a chance to give back to the profession and game by being involved in projects that benefit us all in at least some small way.


As Mike Young has noted, sometime in the 1950's, when the municipal market began to expand, parts of the profession adapted municipal style plans and bidding to get those projects.


As to Mike Young's concern that there are members who have never worked under their own banner, it's not like that hasn't been discussed over the years, but in the end, ASGCA has typically (I know there are a few inconsistencies over time, as would normally be expected of anyone) preferred members who actually do the work, vs being some kind of figurehead.


And combining both of the last posts, since my early participation here, I am usually bent on providing a more realistic view of the profession to the gca nerds here.  While TD has had one of the great runs ever,  his experience seems more like Disneyland to most gca's rather than day to day reality (in a good way, LOL)


Most of us do work on budget, have lesser sites, are not commissioned to design a top 100 course, etc.  I'm not sure the average, but I bet most architects put in between 7 and 10 proposals just to get one real job.  Those proposals often involve free work, i.e., going it with plans to solve their problems on your dime, just to get a chance at working for them.  And, the second job is harder to get than the first.  And you know what?  I still wouldn't have traded my last 44 years for some corporate job my Dad thought I should take.

[Tim Gavrich]

Count me as interested in seeing some mid-century golf course restoration when appropriate. The superintendent from the 1961 Geoffrey Cornish course where I learned the game (Hop Meadow CC in Simsbury, CT) once showed me Cornish's original plans, which had greens with a lot more interesting shapes than the ovals that were there in the 90s and 00s (and which seem to have continually shrunk since then).


Seeing those green perimeters and contours restored - not to mention fairways, which have shrunk away from fairway bunkers and widowed them in shrouds of rough - would be great, and it would lead to a more accurate assessment of how good the course truly is (which is to say better than I think some would otherwise give it credit for).

[Mark_Fine]

Great posts Jeff!!

Tim,
Those are often the kinds of courses like you mentioned are the ones many of us can help improve.  They probably won't make some fancy list, but by studying how they have evolved and what aspects of the design are worthy of restoration (sometimes it is obvious), we can bring back/result in a much improved golf course for those who will play there.  And we can most often do it for less than a seven or eight figure price tag 

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()