In 100 years when it's time to restore Common Ground...

[Charlie Goerges]

(This thread isn't only about Common Ground, but it's the easiest example I can make with the imagery I have on hand. In reality, I want to examine the role of drawings/maps/plans in restoration. That said, I'm happy to have the discussion be about Common Ground in particular as well.)

So:

In 100 years when it's time to restore Common Ground...
...and the drawing below is the only one surviving, what should we do? (click to launch a new tab and view a larger version)

Renaissance Mira Vista redesign by goerges_family, on Flickr


I'm certain that there were probably more accurate and up-to-date drawings done, but this preliminary drawing exists and is out there. Second, I'm sure it represented a thought process of the architect (and pretty accurate to what was built from a routing standpoint), but there are numerous differences to what is in the ground now when it comes to bunker and green shapes etc. But even with more accurate as-builts, what is more useful, a drawing by the architect/firm or an aerial?

Below is an aerial with one major difference to the drawing circled in red.

Common Ground 2023 screen edit by goerges_family, on Flickr


We've been having the discussion on the Holston Hills thread that has touched on the drawings vs. what was actually built (established from aerials and photos). I'm in the camp of what's in the ground being the starting point rather than the drawings. I'm curious what others think.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We've been having the discussion on the Holston Hills thread that has touched on the drawings vs. what was actually built (established from aerials and photos). I'm in the camp of what's in the ground being the starting point rather than the drawings.

I disagree that is what the HH discussion is about, and the parallels you're trying to draw out here are dealt a harsh blow simply because 2024 is not 1924 (or 1926, or 1937) in terms of the ability of an architect to know about, change, or approve of changes.

I also think you're in murky waters with respects to "restoration" versus "renovation."

[Charlie Goerges]

We've been having the discussion on the Holston Hills thread that has touched on the drawings vs. what was actually built (established from aerials and photos). I'm in the camp of what's in the ground being the starting point rather than the drawings.

I disagree that is what the HH discussion is about, and the parallels you're trying to draw out here are dealt a harsh blow simply because 2024 is not 1924 (or 1926, or 1937) in terms of the ability of an architect to know about, change, or approve of changes.

I also think you're in murky waters with respects to "restoration" versus "renovation."

Objections are duly noted.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Objections are duly noted.

Ha.

Tom Doak is able to communicate with, and likely re-visited Common Ground multiple times (he's been back since it's opened, too, a few times IIRC). Everything put in the ground at Common Ground is factually "Doak" (or "Doak approved" depending on how picky you want to get about how Tom regularly, to his credit, lets his associates build things that aren't necessarily to plan, to play around, to experiment, to problem solve, etc.).

We have seen no evidence that Ross re-visited or even knew about, let alone fully approved of the changes from plan to ground that another architect instituted at HH when he (Hughes) built the course.

They're very different discussions.

---

In the case of Common Ground, if you were doing a restoration, you could go by what's in the ground and still be fully confident that it (what was built) was "Doak approved."

[Matt Schoolfield]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but if in 100 years we're trying to restore this course, I think it's safe to say that the technological change will be such that effectively nothing we are discussing here will be relevant to the restoration. Just looking at the differences between the Lido at Sand Valley and how the Lido would have existed, even with extreme dedication to creating a carbon copy, we still have different tees, different green speeds, wholly different expectations.
We're talking about a moving from a period of hickories and stymies to a period of pro v1's and composite drivers that fail with the slightest crack. Time will change things dramatically, and in all likelihood, the main differences we would recognize would probably be glossed over as obvious to folks in 100 years, because they're just playing a different game than we are.

[Charlie Goerges]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but if in 100 years we're trying to restore this course, I think it's safe to say that the technological change will be such that effectively nothing we are discussing here will be relevant to the restoration. Just looking at the differences between the Lido at Sand Valley and how the Lido would have existed, even with extreme dedication to creating a carbon copy, we still have different tees, different green speeds, wholly different expectations.
We're talking about a moving from a period of hickories and stymies to a period of pro v1's and composite drivers that fail with the slightest crack. Time will change things dramatically, and in all likelihood, the main differences we would recognize would probably be glossed over as obvious to folks in 100 years, because they're just playing a different game than we are.

Yes, that is the same thing as right now with courses that are currently 100 years old. The question here is how much stock we put into drawings vs. what's in the ground when it comes to restorations. Maybe restorations shouldn't be undertaken, but that's a different question.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Yes, that is the same thing as right now with courses that are currently 100 years old. The question here is how much stock we put into drawings vs. what's in the ground when it comes to restorations. Maybe restorations shouldn't be undertaken, but that's a different question.

I guess my broader point is just that we aren't really restoring our 100 year old courses, we are "restoring" them (really, reimagining them) and rebuilding them to a different form for a different game -- even if they look similar.

I really think that it sort of doesn't matter which version of the course the future architects choose to restore, because they will have to reimagine the course to suit whichever form of golf they will be playing. To me, I think it's just best to let the thoughtful architects in the future "restore" the version that will be best for the game they will be playing, rather than worry about accuracy to the game we are playing (much like we don't worry about accuracy when it comes to needing putters with loft). At that point, whichever design they use would be fun to debate, but isn't really relevant since they won't actually be playing the game we're playing.

[Charlie Goerges]

Yes, that is the same thing as right now with courses that are currently 100 years old. The question here is how much stock we put into drawings vs. what's in the ground when it comes to restorations. Maybe restorations shouldn't be undertaken, but that's a different question.

I guess my broader point is just that we aren't really restoring our 100 year old courses, we are "restoring" them (really, reimagining them) and rebuilding them to a different form for a different game -- even if they look similar.

I really think that it sort of doesn't matter which version of the course the future architects choose to restore, because they will have to reimagine the course to suit whichever form of golf they will be playing. To me, I think it's just best to let the thoughtful architects in the future "restore" the version that will be best for the game they will be playing, rather than worry about accuracy to the game we are playing (much like we don't worry about accuracy when it comes to needing putters with loft). At that point, whichever design they use would be fun to debate, but isn't really relevant since they won't actually be playing the game we're playing.

A couple of things. Sure, if you want to talk about restoring vs. "restoring" there is some wiggle-room there, but they're often trying to put back things, topographically speaking, as closely as possible. But yes there is all new drainage and irrigation and other stuff underneath. Even in that event, putting the contours right is a worthwhile endeavor. Second, there is still the chance that an equipment freeze/rollback occurs that keeps us playing (mostly) the same game in 100 years. Baseball did it pretty successfully, their fields are pretty much the same size as 100 years ago, even if they're a little too small. But again, this thread isn't really about any of that. I am curious what you might think about how we prioritize the historical materials and information in the case where we are trying to do a restoration (or "restoration").

[Charlie Goerges]

I also want to make clear that I LOVE golf plans, maps, and drawings. I think they're wonderful, I love looking at them, reading everything I can on them. I'm willing to bet money that there are only a small group of people on this board with more high-res, digitized maps/plans/drawings than I have collected. But I still think nothing can beat what was actually created as determined with aerial and ground-level photos.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Its hard to look 100 years into the future and presume much of anything when it comes to potential changed that may occur at any given golf course, or the preservation for original media concerning the initial presentation of a course.
That being said, It's also surprising that with the frequency considering the question around original design intent for courses build 100 years ago, the practice of generating detailed as-build documentation has not become more commonplace for new golf course construction.

[Jason Thurman]

A couple things I keep coming back to in the Holston Hills discussion, and that are relevant in this one:

• The chocolate drops on 15 at Holston really tie the hole together, man. I view them as additive to the hole.
• Because they're additive to the hole, I'm Team Mayhugh. And since Holston Hills is known for being a well-preserved, untinkered-with course, I go along with the take of "Don't tinker with it, even in the name of restoring it to original field drawings."
• The plan drawing of CommonGround doesn't show the chocolate drops on 5. If CommonGround is restored in 2124, I'd like to think the chocolate drops will be restored/touched up as well. Another case where I think what was built trumps what was on the plan drawing, because ultimately I view them as additive to the hole.
• But in contrast... I used to belong to Langford's Clovernook in Cincinnati - another example of a well-preserved, untinkered-with course. Aside from erosion and benign neglect, it hasn't changed much since it was originally built.
• I've seen a plan drawing for Clovernook that included a lot of features that were never constructed. If someone had a budget and wanted to restore Clovernook to the original drawings, as opposed to the original construction... I'd be very intrigued. Because I think adding some of the never-built features would be additive.

So... I guess think the CommonGround restoration should focus on delivering the best golf possible, regardless of what was drawn vs built. This, admittedly, is a philosophically dangerous position.

[Charlie Goerges]

This, admittedly, is a philosophically dangerous position.

I like the points and I like that you had an example with Clovernook that might cut the other way. More good stuff!

[Matt Schoolfield]

there is some wiggle-room there, but they're often trying to put back things, topographically speaking, as closely as possible. But yes there is all new drainage and irrigation and other stuff underneath. Even in that event, putting the contours right is a worthwhile endeavor.

My point here is that restoring the topography of a green (or fairway) without restoring the green speed -- much less the angle of attack created by the hickory clubs -- is effectively like creating a meticulously restored broad track raceway to then take MotoGP bikes out on it to race... It sort of doesn't make sense. Beyond appearance, we're not actually accurately recreating what how the sport use to be, and due to the modernization in equipment, many things beyond superficial changes need to be made to accommodate it.

We saw this in 2015 when the Eden hole was flattened to accommodate modern green speeds. We've seen this in recent posts were Jeff and Tom discussed the exact conflict I'm trying to illustrate, as Jeff laments not being able to hold greens that... given the original green speeds, should be trivial to hold.

I just think there is an inherent contradiction in restoring the contour without restoring the rolling resistance or the angle of attack. Unless we're willing pick up hickory-adjacent clubs, and put greens back to stimping at 5, then I think it might be best to be honest with ourselves about the liberties we are taking (and probably should take) with restorations, and try not to sweat the small stuff since we aren't actually recreating the original beyond the facade.

Second, there is still the chance that an equipment freeze/rollback occurs that keeps us playing (mostly) the same game in 100 years. Baseball did it pretty successfully, their fields are pretty much the same size as 100 years ago, even if they're a little too small. But again, this thread isn't really about any of that. I am curious what you might think about how we prioritize the historical materials and information in the case where we are trying to do a restoration (or "restoration").

I mean, I hope you're right, but even if we manage to control distance, I think it's safe to say the spin rates and launch angles will continue to be optimized. It's a game people play for fun, and effectively making it harder for the sake of preservation is always going to be a tough sell.

[Craig Sweet]

Matt, You're over thinking this.  You're saying we have all kinds of new technology and we can restore DaVinci's paintings and make the brush strokes sharper, the lines straighter, the colors more vibrant because he didn't have that technology and foresight to anticipate modern equipment. 


We have covered enough works of art with phony facades to "fit the times".

[Tom_Doak]

First off, I have stayed out of the Holston Hills thread, on purpose.  I don't do consulting anymore, so I think it would be unfair for me to weigh in on what they've been doing since I left.  If I wanted to have an opinion on it, I'd get paid for it.


So, I'm not sure exactly whose case I may be supporting or not by what I say about CommonGround.


CommonGround was a unique project for us.  Eric Iverson and Jim Urbina both lived in Denver, and Don Placek grew up out there and went to school with the Director of the CGA, so it was very personal to all of them, much more than me.  So, at the beginning I told them I would give them each three holes to do as they pleased and then I would work with each of them on three others.  As a result, the course is much less "mine" than most, though I did put in some good days out there and I remain involved with the CGA and their programs.  I've stopped in to see it three times in the past four years.


Charlie's choice of the 8th hole as an example of how we don't always follow the plans is a prescient one.  It was a very flat hole and though the strategy on the plan looked good on paper, I hated how it turned away from the 9th tee and so I tried 2-3 different arrangements of bunkers and mounds and green shaping until we settled on what we did.  It is the hole I worked on the hardest and probably the only hole that is 100% mine.


I have always felt that in restoring a golf course, I should restore what was built in the field by the original designer, to the extent that we can determine what that was, unless there is some reason that's impossible or it was clearly documented why the original design didn't work.  I figure that if the hole changed from the plan, it changed because the architect made the change, or a construction manager whom he trusted to make the call in the field decided it needed to be changed.  I suppose some associate or construction manager might go rogue from time to time, but generally not on the kind of courses where I have consulted.


Anyway, the good news for the preservation of my own work is that it should all be documented on LIDAR in recent years, and anyone can look back and find the exact shape of things as they existed in 2013, and that's probably what they should go with if they want to restore any of my work.




And to Matt, whose last post I saw as I was about to hit "post" :  some courses might turn out better if you just trusted me to do the right thing instead of restoring them exactly.  Just don't call it a restoration, then.  You do not have to take the greens back to 5 on the Stimpmeter to restore a course.  I didn't have to do that in any of the 20+ restorations I worked on.  Most of those old green contours are just fine unless the club is stupid enough to take their greens above 11 or 12 when the contours don't work at that speed.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I will always defer to the architects here.

I'm happy to be wrong and eat some crow, because only when I'm wrong do I actually learn something. My idea here originated from listening to Stephen Kay on Feed the Ball -- 20:00-26:00 and especially 31:00-34:30 and his concept of true restoration vs sympathetic restoration -- but that's one perspective. I still have many questions on this subject, but I'll save them for another day.

[Charlie Goerges]

Thanks for chiming in Tom on that. It confirms a lot of what I thought and have been taught to think on this site. That said, I'm curious what you and others might think of Jason Thurman's Clovernook example? It may be rare, but something to consider.


Also, for the future, your point below:

LIDAR

...Definitely makes the discussion moot for a great many courses going forward. Just go to the LIDAR, simple as.

[Kalen Braley]

Charlie,

I agree,

Tom's post certainly seems to confirm what really matters as it pertains to CG, and HH for that matter, in terms of using what was put in the ground vs referencing a drawing put together for the dog & pony show to build excitement among the people writing the checks.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I have always felt that in restoring a golf course, I should restore what was built in the field by the original designer, to the extent that we can determine what that was, unless there is some reason that's impossible or it was clearly documented why the original design didn't work.  I figure that if the hole changed from the plan, it changed because the architect made the change, or a construction manager whom he trusted to make the call in the field decided it needed to be changed.  I suppose some associate or construction manager might go rogue from time to time, but generally not on the kind of courses where I have consulted.

Learning more about L & M's Spring Valley in Wisconsin, what I've read is that the original design plan included sand bunkers and they went so far as to cut out the bunkers during construction but the owner didn't want sand bunkers and they were never filled, playing as grass bunkers from day one.
If someone was undertake a restoration of this property should they finish the course as the designers intended, or preserve what was built in the field?

[Tom_Doak]

Learning more about L & M's Spring Valley in Wisconsin, what I've read is that the original design plan included sand bunkers and they went so far as to cut out the bunkers during construction but the owner didn't want sand bunkers and they were never filled, playing as grass bunkers from day one.
If someone was undertake a restoration of this property should they finish the course as the designers intended, or preserve what was built in the field?

Not sure if that question was aimed at me, or for general discussion.  But, honestly, as long as they're not bulldozing around the locations, does it matter that much whether they are grass or sand?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,

It was a little of both a general question and one for you.
I found it an interesting situation in the discussion around intent vs. built. The bunkers were built, so the intent around the existence of a hazard was met, but not finished with sand so the intent of the visual and type of hazard was not met. To your question, I believe to many the existence of sand vs. grass does matter from both a playability and aesthetic perspective. Should it matter? I'm more inclined to say no, but I don't believe that would be a universal point of view.