Can a Restoration Ever Be As Good As a Renovation?

[Phil Young]

Question, isn't it possible that the original golf course architect expected that changes to improve the course he designed would be made over time? Tilly did. In fact he left suggestions of future course changes that the club should make to what was just built on  a number of his courses. An example of this were the changes made to San Francisco Golf Club in 1930. An article in the July 20th, 1930 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle gives details on the work that was being done in an interview with Dixwell Davenport, member of the Board of Directors and Chairman of the Green Committee, and whom the article states, "directs the job." In this interview he stated, "When architect Tillinghast turned over the old course to the San Francisco club [spring of 1924] he left suggestions for future development. These are now being carried into effect, says directors of the club." He made numerous other course changes there from 1932-1938.


Another example of how Tilly expected that changes would be made to his designs over time, these to stay in step with improvements to the game especially where equipment improvements would necessitate course changes and lengthening in order to keep the challenges relevant to those playing it, is Brackenridge Park, a course he designed in 1916. He returned to it for the first time after 20 years during his PGA course consultation tour and examined the course at the invitation of its PGA professional and the city. In his letter to the PGA the night of January 6th, 1936, he wrote, "I planned the course exactly twenty years ago and it is here that the Texas Open has been played for years. I was rather disappointed in it for there seems little effort to keep pace with the advance of golf during the twenty years of its existence...However I believe that it could be much improved by up-to-date contouring in many places."


Didn't Donald Ross believe that his designs would need changes made to them? A perfect example of this are the many that he made to Pinehurst #2 over the years that he lived by the course.


I believe that the real problems that clubs face is that most architects really don't understand the actual "design intent" for the  original design of the course that the architect had in mind. The real challenge that is faced by the architect is how to put that design intent/philosophy of design into the changes he is asked to suggest or make that the club itself is asking for.

[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

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.

There ya go, it's an opinion. That's all I am saying which of course means you could be dead wrong.

Ciao

[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

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?

Nothing, so long as you don't call the work a restoration. Call the work what it is. If the membership buys it thats great. This approach worked very well at Meadowbrook.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like a question about who is the best golfer of all time, Jim C's question is too broad and/or unanswerable, at least IMHO.


Which is a better type of project?  The one that gets the best design, because as someone mentioned, design matters.  I think the "sincere" renovation architect takes the "first do no harm" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality into a project.  However, the design process is one of analytics and responses.


As to restoration as an intent, my take always was that there isn't much future in designing for the past, but I understand it is right for some courses (not as many as those here probably presume). The best quote/attitude I have heard about it is actually from Mark Fine who recently told me something to the effect of "We may not end up restoring your course, but we will study all its history and merits before we decide the direction of the design."


For that matter, I also have trouble dismissing all the decisions made by the Greatest Generation after WWII.  After about 30 7ears of two world wars and a depression, I understand why they wanted all design to go in a totally new direction.


So, in some ways, the mantra of restoration is a bit overplayed.  I guess we could call it historic restoration, because many courses are restored in quality and playability, etc. through renovation, without paying much attention to the actual design history, even if the architect decides to largely model the design style after the original designers.


But, a word about that, pre and during morning coffee on a fall Monday morning.......In what other art/engineering/design field has it been declared that no one can do better than some guys 100 years ago?  Or, if you don't try anything new nothing will ever improve?  (It might not, but that is part of the ongoing evolution of man)  Yes, they preserve some (not all) of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings and we can revere them, even knowing he had a propensity for too short entry doors and some overhangs that probably need shoring up at some point.  And, many historians also say his roofs tended to leak and need to be fixed.


I have no problem with a qualified architect saying a course should be changed.  Except for maybe a few hundred courses out there, most of which have probably been done, they start a renovation when they notice their customer base isn't satisfied.  In those cases, keeping the same style that hasn't worked financially makes little sense to those paying the bills, just as rebranding a course makes a lot of sense if it is struggling.


For that matter, in life, the architect's original intent really isn't the only thing to consider.  Take a golden age course, routed with slice OB with only 100 feet from centerline to property line.  A kid gets his eye put out.  What is more important, intent or human safety?  Personally, I would have no problem with someone proposing flipping it around for safety.


And, that would include my own courses.  Recently retired, I have already seen many of my courses change, via evolution, maintenance, and design (including bunker reductions on my own courses by me).  Things just change and designing for whatever conditions existed 100 years ago makes little sense in most of the real world.  If my courses survive in any reasonable form, I would consider that a win and a testament to their original design, even if details change.


So, I don't share Tom Doak's angst that someone will change my courses in 100 years.  I will be dead and not care, but in reality, I expect change, and it doesn't bother me in general now.  I do have holes that I thought were pretty darn good, and I agree it would be upsetting if they took a pretty good hole "just because" but would understand if events conspired to render a design decision made long ago, hopefully taking everything required into account, no longer fit the intended purpose at some future date.


And not to be snarky, but Tom and a few others insinuate that many architects take jobs for purely monetary reasons.  The irony is that the restoration movement has been one of the great business drivers for those golf course architects who tout it.  Now, I don't really believe there are many architects out there that are truly ethically void (or whether deciding not to historically restore a course is even an ethical question.)  There are always commercial questions in the design and artistic professions, but most of us live to design, but charge fees to live.


Short version, every project is unique and every course is at a different point in it's evolution, player profile, etc. etc., etc., and needs to have the right to make the decision that is best for them at any given point in time.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Thank you Jeff. Not the first time you’ve “worn it better” than I.
   Apropos of your who is the best golfer observation, I spent much of my youth debating who was better - Bobby Orr or Bill Russell.

[Ira Fishman]

There certainly cannot be a rule that covers all courses given the wide variety and quality of courses. However, there is a class of them where there should be a presumption against alterations. Architects clearly are entitled to earn a living, but to continue Jeff’s Wright analogy, it is hard to believe that any building architect worth his or her salt would not turn down a commission to alter Fallingwater or the Guggenheim. Sure, fixing the plumbing (irrigation analogy) is one thing but moving or resizing wings (greens analogy) is a wholly different thing.


One could argue that bunkers fall in a gray area, and they probably do. However, the presumption should still apply and should be overcome only by clear and confident belief that moving them will both make the course better for the modern player and not undermine what made a course so well regarded in the first place.


Not all architects will agree to which courses my suggested presumption should apply, but I bet that there is a good consensus list just as there is one for buildings that architects would not agree to alter.


And yes, I know that there were additions to the Guggenheim. Some were in Wright's original plan. Some probably do not meet overcoming the presumption.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

As much as it surprises me, I find myself falling in the traditionalist camp based on one qualifier, something TD also said...the vast majority of courses probably really ain't worth a restoration.  And this isn't unique to golf courses as it can be said of nearly anything like buildings or art work or cars, etc.

I 200% respect an architect who tries their damndest to restore something to as reasonably close as possible to what was originally put there.  So that perhaps we can get a taste or even a  smell of what the original crowd got decades ago. Full stop.

As for the rest of the stuff out there, let the renovationists have thier way with it....but please hands off the stuff worth resurrecting.

[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.

There ya go, it's an opinion. That's all I am saying which of course means you could be dead wrong.

Ciao

Sean,


It’s a long way from a well researched opinion to dead wrong. Whereas a personal view is right next store to dead wrong.

[Mark_Fine]

Mayday,
You know as well as anyone that an architect like Flynn often didn't even put in fairway bunkers until later on after he saw how the course played.  If he saw how his courses were played today some 70 or more years later, do you think he would say, "looks ok as is to me"?  Fownes and Loeffler were constantly changing and altering Oakmont as they saw how the course was played.  Herbert Leeds came home from a trip to the UK in the early 1900's and realized that he would need to change the tees and add/alter the hazards at Myopia Hunt Club due to the livelier rubber-core Haskell ball.  What do you think he would say today about his courses if he saw them played with a Pro V1? 


Restoration, when it comes to probably 95% or more of golf courses is about understanding and respecting the past (and the amount of respect given will vary from course to course).  Renovation and remodeling is mostly about doing something new with maybe or maybe not some consideration to the past. 


We are playing a game that is evolving.  I consider myself a purist but I do recognize that the playing fields should evolve with it unless you just want something purely for historic sake.  Even then, pure restoration of a living breathing thing is hard to "restore". 

[Jim_Coleman]

Mark: +1.

[Tom_Doak]

pre and during morning coffee on a fall Monday morning.......In what other art/engineering/design field has it been declared that no one can do better than some guys 100 years ago?  Or, if you don't try anything new nothing will ever improve?


And not to be snarky, but Tom and a few others insinuate that many architects take jobs for purely monetary reasons.  The irony is that the restoration movement has been one of the great business drivers for those golf course architects who tout it. 

Jeff:


I firmly believe I can do better than most of the guys 100 years ago.  But I don't think we should get there by sabotaging their best work.


I do agree with you that some "restoration" architects are driving the business in part to make money off it . . . but most of those guys are the ones for whom "restoration" needs the air quotes.

[Tom_Doak]

I believe that the real problems that clubs face is that most architects really don't understand the actual "design intent" for the  original design of the course that the architect had in mind. The real challenge that is faced by the architect is how to put that design intent/philosophy of design into the changes he is asked to suggest or make that the club itself is asking for.

The idea that an architect would write down his "intent" more accurately than building it in 3-D is pretty silly to me, but on the other hand, Donald Ross didn't spend nearly as much time on the construction sites of his courses as I do.  Tillinghast did, in some instances anyway.


Where I argue with all of you is the idea that the Intent was for the course to require certain shots for a certain level of player.  If they intended this, they certainly did not understand how the game would likely evolve. 


For instance, I know that on the 13th hole at High Pointe, it took a 220-yard drive to get over the crest of the fairway and gain additional run.  That's certainly easier to do now than it was 35 years ago, but it is not my intent to be a snob about what class of player can or can't make the carry . . . some will be able to, and some won't, and the latter group will have a much harder second shot as a result.

[Jim_Coleman]

   If, five years from now, the USGA and R & A mandate a ball that carries 70% as far as today’s balls, wouldn’t most modern courses have be be renovated to accommodate the change? And wouldn’t new courses built thereafter look entirely different than today’s courses?

[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

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.

There ya go, it's an opinion. That's all I am saying which of course means you could be dead wrong.

Ciao

Sean,


It’s a long way from a well researched opinion to dead wrong. Whereas a personal view is right next store to dead wrong.

My point is you have a well researched opinion. That is a far cry from a known fact. I don't believe you or anyone can know the full intent of an archie's work. What you may know is where bunkers, greens etc were located and perhaps some reasons for their placement.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

   If, five years from now, the USGA and R & A mandate a ball that carries 70% as far as today’s balls, wouldn’t most modern courses have be be renovated to accommodate the change? And wouldn’t new courses built thereafter look entirely different than today’s courses?

Not necessarily.  Existing courses would certainly be harder than before, and people might move up a tee or two, or request that more tees be built.  But, as I have said here countless times, everything about design is a matter of opinion, and there would certainly be plenty of architects to fill the need of renovating every golf course if that's what the golfers are convinced they want.

[Mark_Fine]

I was playing a Nicklaus course several years ago that featured a dog leg right par four of about 400 yards.  The right side of the hole is flanked by a lake.  From the back tee it is 300+ yards of carry over the water and about 330 yards to the center of the green.  The young college players I was playing with didn’t even see the lake as they took it straight over with water either with three woods or drivers and knocked it on the green. I wonder what Nicklaus would think if he watched players take that line over the lake.  I would bet he never conceived that he was designing a drivable hole over the water. 

So if any of you were asked to “restore” this hole what would you do? Obviously you could leave it as is and say now you have a drivable par four but is that really “restoration”? 

Is restoration purely about restoring the original look/features of the course?  Is there any merit in trying to also restore how it was supposed to play? 

I realize this isn’t the best example because Nicklaus is still around and the club could simply ask him or someone like Chris Cochran from Nicklaus Design to come in and make an assessment.  Clubs with classic courses don’t have that luxury but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible to assess what the original architect had in mind on most golf holes.  Sometimes it is pretty obvious. 

[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.

There ya go, it's an opinion. That's all I am saying which of course means you could be dead wrong.

Ciao

Sean,


It’s a long way from a well researched opinion to dead wrong. Whereas a personal view is right next store to dead wrong.

My point is you have a well researched opinion. That is a far cry from a known fact. I don't believe you or anyone can know the full intent of an archie's work. What you may know is where bunkers, greens etc were located and perhaps some reasons for their placement.

Ciao

Sean,


You’re trying too hard. Trust me when I tell you that at this course by this architect it’s fairly easy to know what SOME of the original intent was without stretching much.
There are many other things that are hard to discern and for those things I agree with you.

[Tom_Doak]

Obviously you could leave it as is and say now you have a drivable par four but is that really “restoration”?

Yes, it is.

Is restoration purely about restoring the original look/features of the course?  Is there any merit in trying to also restore how it was supposed to play? 

How it was supposed to play, for whom?  I suppose it's easy to decide that Jack Nicklaus was designing for tour professional type players, even though I don't know if that's the case at this particular course, since you didn't name it.  Jack does think about his peers, first and foremost.  But, if it was my course, you couldn't say the same.


When you go back to courses designed by MacKenzie or Ross, who exactly do you think they were designing for?  Today's "good players" believe everything was intended for them, and that's simply not always true. 


For MacKenzie, the answer would be that he was designing "for everybody".  He would be bothered if there weren't a few tees that tested "the plus man," and might suggest that additional tees were added for some holes.  But not for all of them; he would not be bothered that other holes better fit the drive of the double-digit handicap players and created an awkward situation for the elite player.  [Indeed, he wondered aloud why the scratch player should not occasionally face an awkward situation as the handicap player does frequently.]


For Ross, there were certainly some designs that he intended as championship tests, but when faced with the reality today, would he be more likely to play musical chairs with tees and fairway bunkers?  Or would he instead argue that something serious needed to be done with the golf ball?  I'm not an expert on Ross, but I do believe he was a practical fellow in the tradition of his upbringing.


The one thing I can be sure of is that if Donald Ross renovated one of his own courses for modern play, he would not call it a restoration.

[mike_malone]

Mayday,
You know as well as anyone that an architect like Flynn often didn't even put in fairway bunkers until later on after he saw how the course played.  If he saw how his courses were played today some 70 or more years later, do you think he would say, "looks ok as is to me"?  Fownes and Loeffler were constantly changing and altering Oakmont as they saw how the course was played.  Herbert Leeds came home from a trip to the UK in the early 1900's and realized that he would need to change the tees and add/alter the hazards at Myopia Hunt Club due to the livelier rubber-core Haskell ball.  What do you think he would say today about his courses if he saw them played with a Pro V1? 


Restoration, when it comes to probably 95% or more of golf courses is about understanding and respecting the past (and the amount of respect given will vary from course to course).  Renovation and remodeling is mostly about doing something new with maybe or maybe not some consideration to the past. 


We are playing a game that is evolving.  I consider myself a purist but I do recognize that the playing fields should evolve with it unless you just want something purely for historic sake.  Even then, pure restoration of a living breathing thing is hard to "restore".

Mark,


All that you say is true but this isn’t complicated. The reason the bunker should be there isn’t because of restoration but because it fits the land only in that place and achieves an architectural goal—-to inform golfers.  Flynn liked that idea and put the bunker there. It can’t be anywhere else on that hole to achieve the desired result.






 

[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

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.

There ya go, it's an opinion. That's all I am saying which of course means you could be dead wrong.

Ciao

Sean,


It’s a long way from a well researched opinion to dead wrong. Whereas a personal view is right next store to dead wrong.

My point is you have a well researched opinion. That is a far cry from a known fact. I don't believe you or anyone can know the full intent of an archie's work. What you may know is where bunkers, greens etc were located and perhaps some reasons for their placement.

Ciao

Sean,


You’re trying too hard. Trust me when I tell you that at this course by this architect it’s fairly easy to know what SOME of the original intent was without stretching much.
There are many other things that are hard to discern and for those things I agree with you.

Not trying hard at all. It sounds like you agree with me. Very little original intent is known about architecture. All I am saying is one sure way to restore is to put features back where they were based on physical evidence. Restoration based on intent will not go far because that nearly always requires some degree of interpretation and that is a subjective exercise.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

And specifically, why does original intent really matter so much?  What about when time and circumstance that were the reason for that original intent are no longer the operative design need for that original feature?


Asking for a friend.......

[Niall C]

There certainly cannot be a rule that covers all courses given the wide variety and quality of courses. However, there is a class of them where there should be a presumption against alterations. Architects clearly are entitled to earn a living, but to continue Jeff’s Wright analogy, it is hard to believe that any building architect worth his or her salt would not turn down a commission to alter Fallingwater or the Guggenheim. Sure, fixing the plumbing (irrigation analogy) is one thing but moving or resizing wings (greens analogy) is a wholly different thing.

Ira


What if the overhanging structure had lost its structural integrity or wasn't well enough engineered (not sure if that is the case with Wright's designs but certainly there is reference somewhere to propping up) would you;


a) let the structure decay and degrade naturally to the point that it couldn't be used
b) restore to its original design/spec knowing that it was no longer fit for purpose
c) adapt the design so that it didn't fall down


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Will the basis of either ‘r’ word change with improving techniques in the interpretation of yee olde photos and plans and the use of lidar and computer modelling and the like and precise gps data programmed into machinery?
Atb

[mike_malone]

I’m in favor of some basis for decision making. Trying to restore to the original look and features provides a rule. What do you see in the photos or the designs?


  Renovation can get off the rails fairly quickly.


There is no perfection but a restoration of a worthy course with substantial historical evidence should be better than a renovation.


What I see is that highly qualified modern restoration architects are quite good at deciding whether a course is worth restoring.


Gil Hanse said twice on Golf Channel this year about Southern Hills and The Country Club that they didn’t need him to design them. They had their designer.


The bunker that kicked off this thread is a good example of quality restoration versus renovation. The bunker had been moved closer to the green and parallel to play. It just caught bad shots.
The restored bunker sits on a small rise before the fairway runs down and right in the only place it can be to achieve the original designer’s vision.


While I have no idea why Gil Hanse decided to return it to the original place, shape, and size I do know that the aerial photos and original design for the hole provided sufficient support to put it in the best place.


Without Flynn’s desire to put most of the fairway bunkers on this course on spots that were sloped and signaled what was beyond there would be no rule.
I find his rule used here to be a big part of giving the course its sense of place.


I find that most criticism of the original spots for bunkers to be asking for a conventional course not a special one.


So restoration can be better than renovation but not in every instance.

[Don Mahaffey]

This restore or renovate deal is never ending here.
I’m just happy there are clubs that value their history and pedigree, and modern clubs with courses built for the “modern” game.   We all have choices. If you like the modern look, don’t join a club proud of it’s pedigree. 
Unless you enjoy this debate.