[Mark_Fine]

Some say trying to determine what the original architect’s intent was is just supposition.  Others say careful study and research can uncover what they intended. 

The reason this is important is in restoration, if you are restoring features simply because they were there with little regard to design intent, what are you really restoring and which is more important - restoring what the original architect built or restoring what the original architect intended the feature to accomplish? 

I am on my way to the ASGCA annual meeting in San Francisco and we will be talking about and seeing several courses that have all gone through some level of restoration including The Olympic Club, The Meadow Club, Cypress Point, Berkeley CC, and Lake Merced.  It should be a fascinating conversation as several of the architects/superintendents involved will be presenting their approach.  Design intent will definitely be discussed.  Where do you stand?

[Sean_A]

By its nature restoration is about restoring lost features of a building a course or whatever. The intention of the architect is realised by the restored feature.

It’s fine if archies want to go down the restore intention route, but the more a restoration veers from features to intentions the more the original design is eroded. That’s ok if folks want that. However, I would like to believe there are some courses archies wouldn’t dare stamp their perception of intention upon.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

By its nature restoration is about restoring lost features of a building a course or whatever. The intention of the architect is realised by the restored feature.

It’s fine if archies want to go down the restore intention route, but the more a restoration veers from features to intentions the more the original design is eroded. That’s ok if folks want that. However, I would like to believe there are some courses archies wouldn’t dare stamp their perception of intention upon.

Amen.


It's a shame that the ASGCA isn't going to SFGC to see a real restoration.  Of course, I suppose you guys aren't going because non-members have consulted there for the last 25 years or so.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Is Mike DeVries an ASGCA member?  He did the restoration work at The Meadow Club and he will be speaking about his work there.  I don’t think the ASGCA is bias. 

By the way, I love SFGC and have played it a dozen or more times.  Wish it was included.  Would you have come in to talk about your work there?  I have heard a lot about what you did from a very good friend who is a long time member and liked what I saw.

[Jim_Coleman]

   It seems to me that restoring features doesn’t take much talent. Find a good old aerial photo and just put everything where it used to be. That’s how one would restore a piece of art.
   Restoring intent is what you do if you’re trying to restore an old golf course for today’s game. The latter requires architectural chops; the former requires tracing paper.

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


We know where you stand on your self-posed question.


Let me pose a hypothetical to you: in 15 years the USGA has done nothing meaningful to stop the ball from traveling further (that assertion is not hypothetical), Tom is happily retired  (maybe hypothetical, maybe not), and the Keiser family asks you about a restoration/renovation of Pac Dunes (the hypothetical part). Tom has written a detailed book about the course; you have played it many times over the years.


Do you take the job confident that you can determine Tom’s “design intent”?

[zachary_car]

I hate to re-stir the pot regarding the work of the post Doak/CC/Hanse generation, however you want to term that bunch, but I do feel that, increasingly, especially with the real up-an-coming firms, hubris tends to get conflated with intent. In other words, that these restorations are vehicles of self-promotion for the restoring architect, to further their own careers and to show off of their own skills on the dozer, far more than to actually emphasize the work of the original architect. If time is, in fact, a flat circle, then we're creeping back to the ethos of the renovators of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s again, in the same way that superfluous, inconsequential shaping is back in their original work.

By and large, the market drives the demand. The fact that there have been so many renovations and restorations of late means that works instantly need to catch the eye so as to not get lost in the shuffle, in combination with what is becoming an oversaturated market full of younger firms looking, and needing, to prove themselves. Moreover, most raters tend to visit once, often during trips consisting of numerous visits to different clubs, and then submit their ballots right away. As such, in order to stand out, particularly at lesser-known clubs looking to get a major jump in status and rankings from a renovation, boundaries keep getting pushed and pushed and pushed, work becomes increasingly heavy handed, thus moving increasingly from what was there - the original features - to "intent" - "intent", once again, that is far more the renovator's than the original architect's.

The nature of social media is also to blame, of course: immediate appeal is what sells, what draws clicks, rather than subdued, lay-of-the-land work that only reveals itself over multiple plays. We've also moved from photography that emphasizes golf courses from the level of the human eye (handheld cameras) to that which does so from hundreds of feet in the air. SFGC, for example, doesn't really look all that special from a drone, but it does so from the ground. Hypothetically, if the club's moto morphed into selling tee-times for TFE events, or topping Pebble Beach's ranking, then I'm sure they'd instruct the architect to rumple the bunkers, turf, and whatever else.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Great question. I started out in Sean’s camp and for certain courses I am still mostly there.  Gil Hanse got me into restoration almost 25 years ago and I definitely lean as he does toward trying one’s best to understand design intent as well as the evolution of why and how a golf course changes/changed over time. I also distinctly remember what ironically Tom Doak told me many years ago in that maybe only 10% or less of all courses deserve to be restored.  My personal feeling, however, is that 100% need to be carefully studied before making the decision where you think they stand. So to answer your question, ANY architect looking at any course should take the time to study and determine as much as they can about the original design and the architect’s intent for it.  Pacific Dunes is clearly one of Tom’s as well as one of the best designs out there but if Mike Keiser says it needs some kind of work done to it, one would have to take a close look.  I have walked away from projects where the owner wanted to do things that I disagreed with like making wholesale changes to a historic design that I think should be revered and not remodeled.  So to be clear I would hear Mike out and depending on what he wanted done would go from there.

[Mark_Fine]

Zachary,
There is a ton of work done today that is sold as restoration of either the features or the design intent that I would beg to differ with.  No courses will be named but many of us know which ones they are.  I think this is why some side with don’t change anything or try to interpret anything - just make it like it was.  As Jim alluded to, that is a much easier and safer solution.  But is it the right one? 

[zachary_car]

Zachary,
There is a ton of work done today that is sold as restoration of either the features or the design intent that I would beg to differ with.  No courses will be named but many of us know which ones they are.  I think this is why some side with don’t change anything or try to interpret anything - just make it like it was.  As Jim alluded to, that is a much easier and safer solution.  But is it the right one?

Well, as I've often said, they didn't have sewers going to and from Versailles when Louis XIV built it. I tend to believe that restoring a work, in its truest sense, requires tremendous skill. From what I've seen, Mr. Doak's, C&C's, and Hanse's approaches are the soundest ones, as are those taken at places such as Hollywood or Mid Pines and here in Canada with Ian Andrew and Andy Staples' plans. As Mr Doak once commented to me, he keeps getting the best jobs because he does the best work, and will continue to until someone knocks him off of his perch

[Mark_Fine]

Zachary,
But even sometimes the top architects take the job knowing they can’t do a true restoration.  They take it because they feel whatever they do will help improve the golf course.  C&C did that at Pinehurst #2 even though they knew they were not allowed to touch the greens.  The problem, however, is that now whenever I and I am sure others visit a Ross course, members ask about getting their turtle back greens “restored”!  Maybe I should take the job just to get the work - Not.


And by the way, getting the best jobs and the best work is all relative. I’m working at a course now that does about 40,000 rounds a year and to those golfers, that’s the best course and whatever I do to it is going to impact whether they continue to feel that way or go elsewhere.

[zachary_car]

Zachary,
But even sometimes the top architects take the job knowing they can’t do a true restoration.  They take it because they feel whatever they do will help improve the golf course.  C&C did that at Pinehurst #2 even though they knew they were not allowed to touch the greens.  The problem, however, is that now whenever I and I am sure others visit a Ross course, members ask about getting their turtle back greens “restored”!  Maybe I should take the job just to get the work - Not.


And by the way, getting the best jobs and the best work is all relative. I’m working at a course now that does about 40,000 rounds a year and to those golfers, that’s the best course and whatever I do to it is going to impact whether they continue to feel that way or go elsewhere.

Yes that was the point of the first sentence, which I should have better explained. I'm sure there's an element of give-and-take to every restoration, even the truest ones. I just find that, in too many cases, there's far too much "take" occurring. But, again, a large part of that is due to the nature of golf's zeitgeist in 2024

[Joe Hancock]

Part of the difficulty in understanding “design intent” lies in how old designs interacted with the game when they were built.


The ball, clubs, agronomy and athleticism is completely different now, and not many of us are old enough to have played the courses in question when they were originally built. So, even if we understand how trajectory, spin, roll-out, etc. was back then, we are playing a different game today.


The problem arises when courses try to re-invent themselves for todays’ game. Who is able to prognosticate how the game will be played in 10, 50 or 100 years? Will it revert back to “original intent”? Or, will it continue in directions that were never imagined by the ODG’s? Not one of us is able to know.


I am of the mind that trying to keep features where they were originally designed is almost always the right path, as almost always they were placed according to topography moreso than aerial assault distances….

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
Good post.  You describe some of the reasons why courses change - to try to improve in some way to not only be relevant for the current game but to remain a golf course and not become a Walmart 

When Henry Ford took a buggy and remodeled it with a motor, I am sure many thought he was being irreverent to the buggy’s original designer but he was just tying to improve it.  But that doesn’t mean some old buggies shouldn’t remain as buggies just like they once were.  It just takes time (sometimes a lot of time) to study and use common sense to figure out which buggies to restore the features as they once were vs which ones to modify.

And I am glad guys like Ferdinand Porsche and Enzo Ferrari,…. stayed out of the buggy restoration business and let others handle that!   

I admit design intent is/can be very subjective but most things in GCA are.  Sometimes the architect is/was clear with their intentions, you just have to look.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe we should define design intent?  Anyone care to take a shot at a definition? 

The next question is - should we even care about design intent if the only one who will ever know for sure is the original architect.  Maybe design intent should never be discussed when talking about what to do or not do to an existing golf course?  I don’t agree with this but that is just my opinion.

[mike_malone]

I have come to believe in originally done not intent. I do believe that you can reference principles of the original designer if he wrote about them to consider changes. But if you are considering something like moving a bunker it’s tough to know the original design intent.


Flynn would put fairway bunkers in rises to create a mode of play. While they also may have been the length of the average drive in the 20’s you can’t just move them down range if the land doesn’t allow it or the mode of play is lost.

[mike_malone]

 

[Tom_Doak]

I have come to believe in originally done not intent. I do believe that you can reference principles of the original designer if he wrote about them to consider changes. But if you are considering something like moving a bunker it’s tough to know the original design intent.

Flynn would put fairway bunkers in rises to create a mode of play. While they also may have been the length of the average drive in the 20’s you can’t just move them down range if the land doesn’t allow it or the mode of play is lost.

The problem with original intent is a modern view that everything on the course was designed for a certain class of players.  The ODG architects put in lots of bunkers that weren’t relevant for low handicap players even back then; those bunkers were included to highlight the topography or to engage with shorter hitters or any one of a dozen other reasons.  And they still serve the same purpose today.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Is Mike DeVries an ASGCA member?  He did the restoration work at The Meadow Club and he will be speaking about his work there.  I don’t think the ASGCA is bias. 

By the way, I love SFGC and have played it a dozen or more times.  Wish it was included.  Would you have come in to talk about your work there?  I have heard a lot about what you did from a very good friend who is a long time member and liked what I saw.

I don’t know if Mike has joined or not.


I would have considered coming in if anyone asked.  But when is it?  I’ve got a lot on my plate as you know.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
As we both know having studied Flynn extensively, he wouldn’t move bunkers down range if they didn’t fit naturally in to the landscape. He also didn’t like blind hazards. But someone like Fownes or Loeffler for example wouldn’t mind at all if a bunker needed to be added or moved down range to where it was blind.  These are the kind things you learn by studying different architect’s design philosophies and preferences which helps understand their intent.


Tom,
I just spent 15 minutes talking with Mike DeVries about the presentation he just gave on the restoration of The Meadow Club. I don’t think he is a member and I didn’t see your post or I would have asked him.  I think he was just invited to speak since we are playing The Meadow Club on Tuesday.  The meeting is underway now (started today). 

[Mark_Fine]

Just spent two plus hours at the start of the ASGCA annual meeting where the main topic of discussion was restoration.  It was very interesting to hear what other architects were doing and the processes and challenges they had to deal with/go thorough to get restoration work completed.  It is far from a black and white process as some like to think.  Much has to do with things like the quality of old photos and aerials that have been found, interpretation of old drawings if you were lucky to find them and actual discovery in the dirt such as the locations of old bunkers or green edges,…as well as the appetite for change of the membership.  The list goes on as to what to restore or not restore. When Forrest Richardson and I worked on Robert Hunter’s one and only original design - Berkeley CC, one would think pure restoration to exactly what it was would be the only way to proceed.  Unfortunately that wasn’t possible for a variety of reasons.  Houses for example had encroached on the course over the years. Safety concerns were abundant. The club also added a driving range and practice area that took away land and forced new golf holes to be added and original ones to be altered.  Many other holes had been changed/modified as well over time.  Pure “restoration” wasn’t an option as much as we might have liked.  We ended up incorporating as much original work as possible and made educated decisions and interpretations based on careful and extensive study for the rest.  A similar process took place with the other courses I mentioned earlier.  Not even the changes at Cypress Point are 100% pure restoration and the work there is still on going.  Mike DeVries talked about his restoration of The Meadow Club which was Mackenzie’s first design in the U.S.  He stated how Mackenzie’s design intent was for it to be like “The Old Course” in America and that intent lead to clearing hundreds of trees to open the playing corridors and sight lines.  Lots of frank and fascinating discussions about Lake Merced and more tomorrow about The Lake Course at The Olympic Club.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'd love to hear those definitions of Design Intent. I'm curious how that would be determined.

I also wonder about individual examples of "design intent" like the item below. "Like the Old Course" in what way exactly?

 He stated how Mackenzie’s design intent was for it to be like “The Old Course” in America and that intent lead to clearing hundreds of trees to open the playing corridors and sight lines.

I'm not sure that a design intent of being "like the Old Course" is even remotely specific enough to choose to do anything in particular. Clearing trees based on that? Augusta was also meant to be an homage to the Old Course... I think it's just too vague.

That said, in your example Mark of Berkeley CC, I'm sure all the intervening changes made a full restoration impossible. Fair enough on that.

[Mark_Fine]

Charlie,
Mike’s and Sean Tully’s comments about “Like the Old Course” (Sean by the way was the super at The Meadow Club and is a recognized Mackenzie expert), helped justify the removal of non-native trees to allow alternative lines of play, etc.  This was part of Mackenzie’s design intent for the golf course that had been taken away over time.  Just like at The Old Course, on many of the holes you can choose a direct line to the hole or play to the left down parallel fairways creating a different line of attack.


Mike Malone sighted another example of design intent with Flynn regarding placement of his hazards. As an example Ron Forse recently decided to add a fairway bunker at Lehigh down range (it fits perfectly with the land form and is visible from the teeing area).  It helps restore the original intent of the current bunker which had become overly penal for the higher handicappers but completely irrelevant for most other players.  Is that “restoration”?  Depends on the definition you use. 


On one hole at Berkeley, Hunter called for a skyline green with a panoramic view of the Golden Gate Bridge.  Over the years, trees got planted “off the club’s property” hindering the view. A slight shifting of the green would restore the skyline design intent and dramatically improve the golf hole.  Would moving the green (which had already been rebuilt years before) be restoration or not? 


I could go on.

[mike_malone]

Mark,


  Where is that new Lehigh bunker?  I think it’s very hard to know why a bunker was placed there originally just that it was placed there.


When I look at Rolling Green and the original bunkers I think that Flynn may have been thinking of them as a set. So he may have wanted some right and some left and none at all with some overall concept in his head which I doubt we can discern.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
That new bunker that Forse is adding is on the left on #2.  It fits quite well into a natural slope facing the tee. 


We have had a lot of discussions this week at the ASGCA meeting about different architect’s design philosophies and design intent.  It really isn’t always rocket science and secret stuff that they don’t or didn’t want to talk about.  We actually had a session of peer reviews where different architects presented a hole they designed and explained their design intent.  It was then the group’s role to have an open discussion about what they liked and didn’t like and it proved to be very interesting for everyone.  Believe it or not many of the Golden Age architects talked and wrote openly about how and why they designed golf holes.  If you read a book like one George Thomas’ Golf Architecture in America, he goes into great detail about his design intent for different holes and courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()