Renovation, Redo vs Restoration

[archie_struthers]

Was talking to a fellow student of golf history/ architecture and after a short discourse on some of our favorite courses "across the pond" started thinking about the redo of our local courses.  Were fortunate enough to have played yesterday with balmy temps leading to a nice turnout at "the Shore Club".


 Almost all the courses are spending  money here at the Jersey Shore , spurred on by a big uptick in memberships and demand spawned during the pandemic. Some are spending a little , some in seeming unlimited buckets. All in all it's going to in general improve most of the places I'm fortunate to play at down here.


But how about when an architect or greens committee screws it up, how can you prevent it?  Often a tweak here and there is appropriate, not a complete redo. So how and who should make that call?

[Joe Hancock]

Ideally, club leadership would interview architects until they find the one that is truly passionate about their course. They will be the one that treads lightly and exercises restraint.


If the course produces no passion from anyone, it’s time to pick a team to go all in with.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I believe a club should hire an architect in whom it has total trust.  Then ask him what he believes should be done to make the course better. Don’t say we want a restoration or a renovation or anything else. Give him free reign to use his judgement. A good architect will do a good job; it will probably be part restoration, part renovation, part tweaking, and part nothing.

[Joe Hancock]

   I believe a club should hire an architect in whom it has total trust.  Then ask him what he believes should be done to make the course better. Don’t say we want a restoration or a renovation or anything else. Give him free reign to use his judgement. A good architect will do a good job; it will probably be part restoration, part renovation, part tweaking, and part nothing.

And said clubs shouldn’t discount the opportunity that their best choice might be female…..

[Ally Mcintosh]

   I believe a club should hire an architect in whom it has total trust.  Then ask him what he believes should be done to make the course better. Don’t say we want a restoration or a renovation or anything else. Give him free reign to use his judgement. A good architect will do a good job; it will probably be part restoration, part renovation, part tweaking, and part nothing.

How does a club have total trust in an architect before any work has started? I ask because it’s worth teasing out. There have been plenty of wrong fits hired by clubs, perhaps more than right fits.

[Mike_Young]

But how about when an architect or greens committee screws it up, how can you prevent it?  Often a tweak here and there is appropriate, not a complete redo. So how and who should make that call?

I think it happens just as much as it doesn't.  BUT most clubs and committees have zero idea if they screwed it up or not for at least 10 years.  They rely on what people tell them and most will tell them how great it all is just because it is new...JMO

[Jim_Coleman]

  How does one make any important hire? Research. No different than hiring a super, a pro or a chef. Will every club make a good decision? No. What else is new?

[Jerry Kluger]

I would imagine that like any other project you try and get multiple proposals and determine which one you like the most and which of the candidates you feel comfortable working with.  I think it is important that you not only look at the proposals but you also need to walk the course with the architect to explain to you what is being proposed and why.  Cost is certainly a factor but equally important is how long the project will take and will the course be closed while the work is being done.  If you shut down the course for an extended period you had better be confident that the membership will be happy with the results. 

[archie_struthers]

 


Figured I'd wait a while before logging back on this one. Think that most places want to do too much and would be better off doing the some tweaking and a lot of pruning first.  Lot's of places to find alternative teeing grounds on many courses if you just look. This can give added value in that more teeing ground tends to improve conditioning! This sometimes happens just by the change in wear patterns for both carts and maintenance  vehicles. Also different angles spice up the tee shots by asking the player to think a little more.


Of course committees tend to want to make a statement during their tenure. They better be sure they know what they are doing before they start cutting up the baby. Old overheads, photo's and plans can be a great aid in determining a good plan of action. Talk to the older members or people who have been playing there a long time. Even if you don't empower them in the decision, they know you care about history and hopefully about them.


If you take action , the best redo is one you couldn't pick out from the original holes. If your guys are good, the changes blend in seamlessly. Too often I have seen "good holes" from a golf perspective that just don't fit. The genre is different. To me that's a mortal sin in GCA. You know the work is good if no one could figure out what you did but just know it's better.


Sometimes it's enough to hire the right superintendent , who I find to be some of the most talented and dedicated professionals in any field of endeavor. They know which trees need to go , how to fix drainage issues and most mistakes if you listen to them.