Can a Restoration Ever Be As Good As a Renovation?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I assume that when you ask an architect to do a restoration, you are asking him to return the course to where it was at some past time, presumably taking into account changes in how the game has changed. I also presume that when you ask an architect to do a renovation, you are asking him to make whatever changes he believes will make the course better.
   A good architect would always consider the original architect’s design no matter which job he took.  But doesn’t a restoration leaves him much less flexibility to deliver the best course he can? If you ask Tom Doak to make whatever changes he thinks will make the course better, taking into account the architect’s original intent where appropriate, won’t you always get a better product than if you ask him to return the course to whatever it was before changes were made from the original?
   Asked another way, can any architect here recall an instance where he was constrained from making a change for the better because he was bound by the strictures of a restoration?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:


This is about the twelfth time you've posted this same topic, and I wouldn't bother answering again except that you invoked my name as your example.


I do think there are times when it's better to restore what the original architect did, than whatever I think might be "better".  The reasons for that are:


1.  Consistency of style - too many older courses are looking like modern courses, with [for instance] chipping areas they never had.


2.  Historical accuracy - why should everything be groomed to whatever are the latest trends?


3.  Subjectivity - just because I think a feature might be better, doesn't mean you will. So why not go with the guy who designed the course to begin with, when you're going with him the other 97% of the time?


There are some features on the Lido I would have done differently, if it was my own design -- but we were trying to restore it as exactly as we could, apart from spacing out the holes differently for safety reasons.

[Jim_Coleman]

  I apologize.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
When topics get repeated on this website, I always recall quality training I received 30+ years ago from Disney.  The example was a guest asking a Disney employee at one of their theme parks “where the restrooms were located”?.  It was likely the 200th time that day that they got asked that question but they needed to answer it as politely and with a genuine smile as if it was the first. I am sure there are many lurkers on this site (unlike those of us who have been here for 20 plus years) that will be seeing a topic like this for the first time and very excited to see the discussion.


I have worked on a lot of “restorations/renovations”.   Rarely, however, have I ever had the privilege to work on something that required or was worthy of no change or alteration from the past at all.  I believe only a few of those courses exist in the first place.   


I feel there are very few architects out there that will restore something just for the pure sake of restoration IF they feel is was not great to begin with.  Very few (if any) courses are that good and that perfect for every hole from the start. 


I was involved years ago doing a “restoration” of an old Tillinghast design.  Long story short, a lot had been altered over the years but the course had some of the coolest and most dramatic bunkering I have seen from Tilly. That said, there were two “original” holes on the far edge of the course that I felt the bunkering was blah and just didn’t fit in or look right. After much research we learned that the club ran low on money during the end of construction and by the time those two holes were finished, Tillinghast had left the project and some local contractor finished them on the cheap.  A “pure restoration” would leave them as original even though most of us would say they were crap.  I disagreed with that logic to leave them as is and recommended they be altered to better fit in. 


I was recently over to play Winged Foot West. While what was done was mostly “restoration”, there were things done (or not done) that were different from the original and/or not restored. So even a course considered clearly one of the best in the world by one of the greatest architects was not completely “restored”. 


I had the privilege of being part of last weekend’s ASGCA meeting.  I got to talk with dozens of fellow members and while the subject came up many times, not one architect told me they ever designed and built a course that they didn’t think they could go back and improve as time and their thought processes changed.


I will leave it at this, very few courses deserve or are worry of “pure restoration” (if there even is such a thing), but EVERY course deserves some time taken to research what was originally designed and built and to understand why and how it evolved.  After that a more educated decision can be made as to what should be done to restore/alter/improve it to satisfy the goals for the course today. 

[Terry Lavin]

Jim:


This is about the twelfth time you've posted this same topic, and I wouldn't bother answering again except that you invoked my name as your example.


I do think there are times when it's better to restore what the original architect did, than whatever I think might be "better".  The reasons for that are:


1.  Consistency of style - too many older courses are looking like modern courses, with [for instance] chipping areas they never had.


2.  Historical accuracy - why should everything be groomed to whatever are the latest trends?


3.  Subjectivity - just because I think a feature might be better, doesn't mean you will. So why not go with the guy who designed the course to begin with, when you're going with him the other 97% of the time?


There are some features on the Lido I would have done differently, if it was my own design -- but we were trying to restore it as exactly as we could, apart from spacing out the holes differently for safety reasons.

Well said. My biggest pet peeve over the past five years relates to your point #1, or what I call “the semi-obligatory green runoffs.”  I don’t think I’ve seen a course re-do in recent years without at least a half dozen of these renovation cliches. Some of them involve a green to the next tee runoff. Beverly has one on the 18th green that connects to the 10th tee. Aargh.

[Mark_Fine]

Terry,
No argument with you about seeing more of these short grass areas.  That said, green heights have changed DRAMATICALLY over time which totally changes how they play.  Why shouldn’t the height of some of the grass surrounding the greens change as well?  Short grass is a great “hazard”    And if you don’t like the height, on many kinds of grass you can let it grow back up.  We use low mow blue for example on some of our courses courses for these areas and growing it up is always an option if golfers/members don’t like it.


This is a much less permanent change than re-locating and/or rebuilding a green or modifying bunkers or altering features by moving dirt.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am assuming you are all talking about small run-offs cut out like pockets from a general state of rough up to the green edge?


You surely can’t be talking about run-offs where short grass surrounds the entire green? Because that is as old as the hills and must be universally loved, especially by those who frequent this site.

[Tom_Doak]

I am assuming you are all talking about small run-offs cut out like pockets from a general state of rough up to the green edge?


You surely can’t be talking about run-offs where short grass surrounds the entire green? Because that is as old as the hills and must be universally loved, especially by those who frequent this site.

Ally:


Something that is old as the hills might still not be right for a particular old course.  For example, I was grateful to see in this summer's U.S. Open that the small greens at Brookline hadn't been surrounded by chipping areas.  As far as I know, they were never mowed like that.

[jeffwarne]

You surely can’t be talking about run-offs where short grass surrounds the entire green? Because that is as old as the hills and must be universally loved, especially by those who frequent this site.

I've actually enjoyed what I've read so far.


And Ally, they're not "universally" loved .
First short grass is shorter than ever, running the ball farther away than ever, often making contact more dicey than ever, resulting in waaaayy too many hybrids and very few chipping clubs, usually very few (intelligent) options.
Sure they are cool occasionally or where terrain(and mowing height for that matter) is appropriate, but as Tom said, they are often added when a "restorvation" is done, where none were there before.
Of course there was too much rough around the greens in the 1980's-1990's, but it's certainly gone the other way on high ends and new moderns.
I like Mark's plan of using low mow blue so there are mowing height options, and also one is more likely to be able to get club on/under ball from blue rather than moist tight monostand bent, and not be forced into a putt/hybrid.
Variety is the spice of life.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think we are talking about different things.

[jeffwarne]

I think we are talking about different things.

LOL-
Yeah, I get that a lot...
Secondly, I was ranting-not talking.

[mike_malone]

Jim,


I hope Tom Doak answered your question effectively.

[Joe Bausch]

Jim,


I hope Tom Doak answered your question effectively.

Tom did.  And he will do so again in a few months.

[Ian Andrew]

Jim,


Your assumption assumes the current architect is more capable than the past architect they are working on.
With some of the best Golden Age work, that's a very short list.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim Coleman,

Are you finally leading the charge to restore Inniscrone?

[Ronald Montesano]

The twelfth time is the charm.

The beholder has one or two eyes, depending on extent of myopia, or pirate allegiance. That ocular receptor might consider things differently on different days. The architects and shapers are the professionals, while club members are architecture amateurs, and some have very high handicaps in that regard. Some on this discussion site are plus-handicap amateurs.

Trying to make an RTJSR course look and play like a Raynor is futile. However, if you eliminate some of those RTJSR double-dogleg, water at each corner, with overhanging trees, and an elevated green with four bunkers, par five holes (Valu ran out of hyphens) you might get a better course in the eyes of some, but you won't have an RTJSR original.

What's the end game of the current club membership (public courses rarely have money for this sort of work) and is that membership prescient enough to know what the club membership of 2055 will want? In the education business, when you arrive, you make change. If you don't, the board wonders why it hired you in the first place. Same goes for some club higher-ups.

[Tom_Doak]

What's the end game of the current club membership (public courses rarely have money for this sort of work) and is that membership prescient enough to know what the club membership of 2055 will want? In the education business, when you arrive, you make change. If you don't, the board wonders why it hired you in the first place. Same goes for some club higher-ups.

Indeed, the value of restoration is that there is an end point that can be reached.  This is a value to the club as well as to the architect -- why would I spend my valuable time changing an existing course, if I suspect they're just going to change it again in a few years?  [Of course, many will do it to "get paid", but that's not why I am here.]


With a renovation, the same club may well go back to a different architect ten years later and rebuild everything all over again.  That's terrible club management.  It's also how you know that some of the celebrated "restorations" of recent years [Charlotte CC, Beverly, many others but I can't think right now] were actually renovations sold as something else.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I’ll do my best never to bring this up again. But I will say what bothers me about a restoration. When an architect places a bunker exactly where it was 100 years ago, just because that’s where it was 100 years ago, I think it’s lazy. I find it particularly lazy when that bunker now presents a hazard primarily to less talented players. We’re playing a game, not restoring a painting. Sorry, pretty much everyone here knows more than i (not being sarcastic), so I guess I’m wrong.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
It is usually best to put bunkers where they originally were built and adjust the tees but sometimes adding tees is not an option and/or moving the bunkers down range makes no sense/would leave them blind or in silly locations. 

One of my own goals is often trying to decipher and restore what I call original “design intent” but that topic has also been debated on this site countless times.  The main argument is how could we possibly know what the original architect was thinking 🤔

News alert:  If you do enough research, sometimes you can find where the original architect wrote about their primary design principles and/or what they were trying to accomplish on certain courses/holes, etc.  It sure helps the process. 

[Sean_A]

   I’ll do my best never to bring this up again. But I will say what bothers me about a restoration. When an architect places a bunker exactly where it was 100 years ago, just because that’s where it was 100 years ago, I think it’s lazy. I find it particularly lazy when that bunker now presents a hazard primarily to less talented players. We’re playing a game, not restoring a painting. Sorry, pretty much everyone here knows more than i (not being sarcastic), so I guess I’m wrong.

Thats a bit harsh. Calling a guy lazy for disagreeing with you is uncalled for. Unlike Mark, I don't buy restoration of intent. There is restoration and everything else. I understand your concern with some restored bunkers posing challenges for the lesser golfer. I would say lesser golfers like challenges as well. So a restored bunker now becomes an issue for the weaker golfer. I don't see a problem if one; the fairway width is appropriately restored leaving clear choices and two; if the the challenge doesn't becomes overbearing.


Ciao

[Ben Sims]

Short answer: yes.


Long answer: I'm deep into a search for a place to take my family and visit once or twice a year. Family golf friendly, multiple options for food and drink, decent non-golf fun, etc. With a few exceptions, those things are easiest to find across the Atlantic. I’ve inquired into a couple courses that people I respect on this site seem to like. Turns out, Tom Doak is either on retainer or has already worked at several of them.


I seem to remember a thread where Tom said to a poster, (paraphrasing) “how would you like it if a hundred years from now some young architect came along and tried to make their mark on your course.”


That resonates with me. Could Renaissance have showed up at Woodhall Spa and decided to get wonky and re-jigger a bunch of things? Perhaps. Restraining oneself was the better option I imagine. And the course is likely better for it.

[mike_malone]

If one understands that the original architect meant his bunkers to fit the land and provide information about how to play the hole you can understand why it’s difficult to move them.
 You need to find a spot that gives the proper information.


It may be helpful to those who don’t know the course in question to realize that the original architect only placed 7 bunkers or complexes in the landing area for tee shots. In my view they provide a distinctiveness to the course.
The land is able to provide enough character that he did not see the need for extensive bunkering.


The restoration of the bunker referenced now shows what happens to the land beyond the bunker. It tilts to the right. This bunker placement gives information to even those who hit it fifty yards past it.




I see many hit into the bunker thinking it was easy to avoid. But it seems to gather shots.  That’s a good bunker. When viewed from other holes it is beautiful.
We tried to make it shallow but needed to raise the front lip a little more that desired so it would be visible ( a requirement of the architect) from the back tees of today. So you can usually get out easily. The shorter hitters can’t reach the green from this area whether they are in the bunker or not.





I find that studying the original has helped me to learn new things about golf that I did not see before.


That’s what a great architect does. He provides distinctive ways to enjoy the game and educates you about architecture.


There are three other original bunkers that should go back to their originally designed spots in my opinion. These original bunkers make the sense of place distinctive.






I’m against making it like every other course around.


Doak nails it with his “ consistency of style” comment. Don’t homogenize the




I think the challenge for today’s restoration architects is to improve or update the course for the modern game but leave the original features alone that define the course.

[Sean_A]

Mayday

Who decides what the original features are that define a course? This sounds a very dodgy approach to me. Because, of course all the original features help define a course. In fact, even the unoriginal features help define a course.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

Mayday

Who decides what the original features are that define a course? This sounds a very dodgy approach to me. Because, of course all the original features help define a course. In fact, even the unoriginal features help define a course.

Ciao

Sean,


It’s the distinctive nature of these bunkers. They reflect the architect’s particular ideas about fairway bunkers.


Of course, it’s an opinion but it is based on some analysis of the course and the architect’s work and writing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mayday

Who decides what the original features are that define a course? This sounds a very dodgy approach to me. Because, of course all the original features help define a course. In fact, even the unoriginal features help define a course.

Ciao

I'm pretty sure it would be the consulting architect, perhaps in conjunction with the club historian (member or hired gun).  What's dodgy about it?